Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 July 14 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge/redirect to Ysleta Independent School District. I will redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Ridge Middle School[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a middle school for which no sources appear to be available online. (There are several hits for "Indian Ridge Middle School", but these mostly refer to a school in Florida, not to this school, located in Texas.) Proposed merge was declined. Shimeru 23:52, 13 July 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 keep. Nominator proposes a MERGE rather than deletion, and no other users have argued for deletion. See Help:Merging for instructions on proposing a merger. (non-admin closure) --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4th Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment[edit]

4th Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Battalion, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Regiment for precedent. Article may not be notable enough to be alone. Propose merging all related articles into a new article, 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment. elektrikSHOOS 23:51, 13 July 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 Little Rock School District. Courcelles (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mabelvale Magnet Middle School[edit]

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

Unsourced micro-stub about an elementary school. No sources appear to be available online. Proposed merge was declined. Shimeru 23:47, 13 July 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 Ottawa-Carleton District School Board. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Evelyn Alternative School[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about an elementary school, for which no news sources available online appear to exist. Proposed merge was declined. Shimeru 23:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just a stray comment as an aside (not to do with keeping or deletion) but for the original building did anyone find any heritage value associated to it in their searches? Might be worth keeping an eye for. But it may have been demolished anyway..Will come back later to assess in detail. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of schools in Ottawa. was unable to find much myself to associate the building some hertiage value that was established. And there is not much coverage regarding the notability (which i could find, others?). There is mentioning of a recent debate over alternative schools. But that is brodly directed at alternative schools in general. I think a safe redirect to the above article will enable people to come back if something is found one day strengthening notability. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ottawa-Carleton District School Board, the school district that runs this school, per precedent. Cunard (talk) 00:53, 20 July 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/redirect to Lincoln Public Schools. I will redirect, editors are free to merge verifiable material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mickle Middle School[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a middle school. Still in approximately the same condition as it was in 2005, when it was first sent to AfD. Proposed merge was declined. Shimeru 23:41, 13 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Shiksha Niketan School[edit]

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

Unsourced school about which practically nothing is known -- just take a look at the article. Was nominated for deletion in 2006, resulting in no-consensus, mainly on the grounds it could and would be sourced and grow, neither of which has happened. Merge proposal was declined. Shimeru 23:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable school Jack1956 (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It exists [1] but beyond that, there's not much that I can say. This one was created back in 2005 when they let an unregistered URL address take credit for an article [2] so I have my doubts about the reliability of anything in there. I can't tell that anything has been done for the article other since then except for a few people giving a sincere "Attaboy" and some others practicing their proofreading and categorizing skills. No prejudice to recreating an article about a high school in New Delhi, but even 203.94 didn't care to say anything about it. Mandsford 20:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (subject to one question). There is sufficient basic information at the school's website, here. I find at least a few media mentions of the school, such as [3][4] Based on the above, the school appears to meet our usual standards for inclusion--assuming that it is, in fact, a high school. I note that the website refers to it as a "medium school"--however, it also has information about a "senior wing" and results from "Class XII".--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er... so your sources are insufficient for even determining whether it's a high school or not, yet they're sufficient to keep the article? That seems like a pretty clear-cut WP:V issue to me. Shimeru 00:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it's not "my sources", it's the school's website. Second, it turns out there is no ambiguity after all--"English medium school" isn't a term we use in the U.S. and wasn't instantly familiar to me, but it turns out to have a simple meaning--they teach in English. Again, based on the standard outcomes for these articles and especially in view of the usual concern for WP:systemic bias, this seems to be a keep. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The school's website name is "ASN Senior Secondary School" and it describes curriculum for pre-primary, primary, middle, and senior wings. In other words, it includes a high school. The school has a student body of about 1000 (according to the only news article I found about it - I added it to the article). It's a bare-bones article but it meets our criteria as a keeper. --MelanieN (talk) 01:50, 18 July 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. Page may be redirected at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I'll redirect it on my own discretion. :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moor Park School[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an elementary-level school. No online news or scholar hits seem to exist. (There are hits for similarly-named schools, but nothing pertaining to this particular school.) Merge was proposed and declined. Shimeru 23:32, 13 July 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. Consensus here to proceed in any one direction seems unclear to me, but further discussion of merging and such is highly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State church of the Roman Empire[edit]

State church of the Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This history article has only been in existence for 10 days but has been queried by several experienced editors from the start. The title has already been changed from the original Roman imperial church. The subject is supposed to cover the church, both Latin and Greek, from the time of Constantine I in the early 300s AD to some unclear ending point, perhaps in the 9th century, perhaps in the 11th [now clarified below; it runs to 1453!] - several centuries after the end of the Roman Empire as it is normally defined anyway. The article is, given the enormous topic it has set itself, extremely brief, and pretty random in what is given a section and what is not. There is no discernable emphasis on the relationship between church and state. The sourcing is poor; of the 28 citations, 8 are over a century old, which really should not be necessary in this very well-covered area - the rest seem pretty random, with few works used more than once. The article has a noticeable POV, which might not be a insuperable problem if it filled an actual gap. But in fact this area is already very well-covered, perhaps too well, with a number of far better articles including: Constantine I and Christianity, Roman church under Constantine I, Constantinian shift, Caesaropapism, History of late ancient Christianity, History of medieval Christianity and Christianity in the 6th century, Christianity in the 7th century, Christianity in the 8th century, Byzantine Papacy, Byzantine Iconoclasm, and many others, hardly any of which are even linked here. The article amounts to a POV fork of several of these, and should be merged as appropriate to them, although to be frank I don't think much will need adding. It is founded on a premise, which few if any historians would accept (in relation to the end of the period at least), that the church in this period (whatever period it finally decides it is talking about) was so different from what went before and what came after that it was a different church. However most of the article consists of very broad sections on the rise of Islam, Charlemagne, Church councils etc, some of which seem to include unattributed copying from other WP articles. The creator has not been very responsive to the many people on the talk page - at least he responds, but does not accept any criticism of the main concept. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Initial discussion[edit]

  • merge as appropriate. As the nominator notes, this article overlaps with many other articles, and is essentially a POV fork (one devoted to a pretty odd POV, at that). --Akhilleus (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, one editor had suggested deletion but withdrew that opinion after the name change. Of all the editors who have particated in any way, only two editors, Rflammang (7 edits until Jul 9) and Johnbod, maintain their desire for deletion on the talk page. I note that the latter having resorted first to exclamations used in anger,[5] then made accusations of bad faith and threatened [6] an AfD if he couldn't get anywhere by mere discussion.
The editors who oppose deletion form no block and have expressed disagreement with each other on several issues
There is, so far as I know, no article which deals with the state church of the Roman Empire as a state church which existed as a unified entity from the Edict of Thessalonica until the political split formalized under Charlemagne and the formal split in the Church with the mutual excommunication of 1054. During that time there was one church of the empire and no one has shown that any other article deals with this time.
The objections above are irrelevant to the validity of the article as a defined, unique, and notable topic.
The fact that eight sources out of 28 in a topic 2,000 years old are themselves over 100 years old implies what?
Or that the topic supposedly has vague beginning and end points implies what? (Given our evolutionary continuity, should we therefore merge the article Human into Fish)?)
The article deals with the established church of the Roman empire from its origins, at a time when it was neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, but simply that church which had been established by Rome, until the schism of the state was reflected in the schism of the church. The fact of the establishment at Chalcedon and the schism in 1054 is not disputed. The fact that the church during some or all of that period has been called the imperial church by notable works is not disputed. The fact that different dates 311, 380, 476, 800, 1054, 1453, with different significances are mentioned hardly proves that no state church of the Roman empire existed or can be usefully and meaningfully treated.
Johnbod lists a dozen articles which he says partially overlap this one in some way. Is any of them even close to this one in focus and extent?
And how is the fact that Johnbod, as he himself says above, doesn't approve of the way Mcorazao responds to his complaints, reason that the article be deleted?
If there are valid complaints of incivility let them be made.
If it is believed that items need to be better supported, why have they not been challenged with a fact tag?
There have been threats on the talk page that this article would be subject to an AfD if a certain editor were not taken seriously. Where was the good faith effort of that editor to tag the article for citations, to note any specific sentence of it as biased, or in any way to address the issues which he intuited but did not communicate concretely to those actually working on the article?
And this constant assertion of a POV is absurd.
If there is a POV then can someone please say what it actually is?
I myself came across the article as listed in the DYK nominations and was extremely skeptical. (Mcorazao and I do not agree on everything, and there is a current dispute between him and me on the focus of the lead section.) Yet I read the article and found it well written, and with no trace of Catholic or Orthodox or Secular bias. (I am the atheist child of a mixed Roman/Orthodox marriage.) My only substantive objection was the name (Roman Imperial Church), which, since it was capitalized, seemed to imply that there was a church called the "Roman Imperial Church." (FYI, as it is alternately defined by scholars (whether from Constantine I (313) to Charlemagne (800) or from the Edict of Chalcedon (380) to the Great Schism (1054) or otherwise) the actual term "imperial church" gets 12,100 hits on Google Books, 2.230 of them as titles of books.) The author graciously accepted the argument that State church of the Roman Empire, if less concise, was accurate to the subject being covered and less subject to being misinterpreted. The fact that the title was changed in light of consensus is a credit to the article, not a strike against it. One cannot exactly improve the name of an undefined topic which does not exist.
To summarize the standing objections:
  • We have the complaint that the article is not yet perfect offered as a reason why it should not be perfected.
  • We have the complaint that it apparently needs more references, even though no fact tags have been added, or time been allowed for the research.
  • We have the complaint that since an 25,000 character article (which happens to be only on the state church as a state church) is not "comprehensive" no time should be given for work on it.
  • We have queries by established editors like myself or Esoglou offered as reason for deletion when those objections were debated, addressed and acted upon, as if consensus seeking were a bad thing.
  • We have editors who express their resentment at lack of attention from other editors as a reason for the deletion of an article.
  • We have no plausible claim that the subject is not notable.
  • We have no article shown to cover this same subject with this same focus.
  • We have the assertion that a name change reached by consensus amounts as a strike against the article rather than an implicit endorsement of the fact there is some reality which the article singles out and addresses.
  • We have absolutely undefined and unsupported accusations of of POV.
What we have is a whole mess of unanswerable personal feelings, arbitrary assertions, and simple non-sequiturs. The complainants should either work within the article toward identifying actual specific definable flaws, and areas of improvement as they see them, or, if they find themselves incapable of this, they should apply their efforts elsewhere.μηδείς (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion.μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The POV is clearly a Evangelical Protestant one (or for all I know Anabaptist, LDS etc), which I note you exclude from your list! With very eccentric historical thinking thrown in. The claim that the "state church" was a new foundation, rather than a continuation of an already somewhat hierarchical organization, is one sign of this - "This 4th century form of Christianity was one among several descended from the earlier Christian fellowships that had existed since the foundation of the Christian religion" is one dog-whistle here. The same is true at the other end of the time-frame. You talk about focus, but the article doesn't have one at all; it ignores all the main aspects of the relationship between church and state, as has been pointed out several times. I don't say the subject, properly defined as covering a far shorter period, is not notable. It is, and we have several articles that cover it far better; the more the article is improved, the more it becomes a POV fork. I said on the talk page that the change of name was an improvement, mainly in the hope that this would focus the subject, but this has not happened. The name is mentioned merely for those who might not have seen the new name. These unfounded personal attacks do not help your case! Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that the claim "This 4th century form of Christianity was one among several descended from the earlier Christian fellowships that had existed since the foundation of the Christian religion." is subjective point of view, and should be removed from the article, but this still doesn't look like a reason to delete the article. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to other articles, or replace with disambiguation page. Rwflammang (talk) 09:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article is sourced, notable and minor problems can be easily repaired. --Yopie (talk) 09:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (while awaiting discussion here and possible improvement of the article). Delete, on the basis of the discussion below.
At an earlier stage I wrote as follows. Take: "The state church would refer to itself by many names during its history, notably the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a designation disputed by other Christian communions". This suggests that this "state church" considered that others were not the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The initiator of the article distinguishes what he calls the church as a spiritual body exceeding the limits of the state from the "state church", which for him is an "organizational body" that was "integrated" with the state. Did that "organizational body" consider that it alone was the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? When Theodosius I founded, as the article seems to say, this "organizational body", did it consider that the church outside the frontiers of the empire (e.g. in Ethiopia) was not the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? At a later stage, did it consider that the church in e.g. Ireland was not the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? If the article is to be kept, it should, I think, present the "organizational body" almost entirely in terms of its relations with the state into which it was "integrated", and should not deal with it in itself, as if it were an essentially distinct church. What it should deal with is the "integration" that is supposed to define the "organizational body": how the "organizational body" saw its relations with the emperors and how the emperors saw their relations with the "organizational body"; the actions that the emperors took in relation to the "organizational body", calling councils or issuing personal decrees with the aim of imposing articles of faith, Arian or Nicaean, professing one nature of Christ or two, one will or two, outlawing icons or approving them, etc. (I also see much merit in Rwflammang's merge proposal.) Esoglou (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt to the questions on "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" there is a valid question here (though not really relevant to the Afd but I'll respond briefly). The Roman church (and the Roman state) attempted to exert influence outside the Empire by having a concept of a "church" that extended beyond the Empire. In a general sense the emperors kept their relationship to the church a little ambiguous just for that reason. There was a distinction, however, in the dioceses the emperor had the authority to manipulate directly (those within the empire) and those which he did not. The reason I only mention those other names but did not attempt to name the article using these is because they do not uniquely identify the topic. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree that the article currently focuses a lot on external factors as opposed to internal factors (the "organizational body"). I have not claimed that the article is complete. I focused more on the external factors initially since I felt one of the most important factors in defining and clarifying the topic was to distinguish it from related topics (which is why I talked a lot about the schisms). More content on the internal workings of the church needs to be added. --Mcorazao (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, I have come down on the side of Delete.
The article also suggests that the papacy kept alive the ideal of a state church of the Roman Empire, at a time when the papacy could be seen as insisting instead on the idea of a universal church not limited to any one empire, kingdom or state. Esoglou (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that the papacy began insisting on the idea of controlling all of the "universal church", but in that case we can just remove the claims that the the papacy kept alive the ideal of being part of the imperial church. I do not think this a reason to delete the entire article. (But, it should be noted that papacy later (when it was independent from the empire) did wanted the Empire to adopt "Roman Catholicism" as its state religion.) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP THE ARTICLE. There are enough sources, which speak about a state church of the Roman Empire (or of an "Imperial Roman church"). But, the title of this article is mainly a descriptive title, the purpose of this article is to discuss about the state church of the Roman Empire (which refers to the Church supported by the Roman Emperors, and they didn't always supported the same Church, the state church had changed its doctrine several times, most of the time it was orthodox/catholic, but other times it was arianist, monophysite/miaphysiste, monothelite, iconoclast, etc). And we do not have another article about this (entire) topic, the articles mentioned above, do not cover the entire subject of this article, in fact some information from those articles could be added in this article (but not the other way around), and I have to say that I do not see any POV fork here. And there is also no problem if this article ends in the 9th or 11th century, and in my opinion it should actually end in the 15th century. (A simple "google books" search can produce many significant results claiming that the Roman Empire ended in 1453. The date 476 is usually considered the end of the Western Roman Empire or of Ancient Rome, but I do not think there is any historian who would explicitly claim that the entire Roman Empire, or the state church of the Roman Empire, had collapsed on that year. I do not have any problem mentioning that date in the article, but there would be no sense discussing only the period from 380 to 476, it would be too short, and also subjective point of view, since a neutral article needs to neutrally represent all points of view, but these issues can be discussed on the article's talk page.) Cody7777777 (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will find all the sources refer exclusively to the period from Constantine to 500 at best. To carry on to 700, and even beyond, under this title is not supported by sources at all, let alone the 15th century. Plus the article would then be a needless fork of even more articles, several of far higher quality. Johnbod (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While there are sources which speak about the establishment of a state church after 380, I have to say that I have not seen the sources which make the explicit claim that the "state church of the Roman Empire" ended in the year 476, 500 or 700 (or that the "Roman Empire" no longer had a state church after these dates, and in the "Google Books" search, I had also seen the following claim "The imperial Roman church survived in the Byzantine empire until the latter's fall in 1453"). But, this title is actually a descriptive term (not a proper name), it is about the state church of the "Roman Empire" (which accroding to a significant number of sources ended in 1453), it is not about some institution officially named "state church of the Roman Empire". (If you think the article title is incorrect for its purpose, we can discuss another one, and I would actually have preferred "Imperial Roman state church", although, I do not really have any problem with the current article title. However, in my opinion, this is still not a reason to delete the article, and renaming the article can be discussed on its talk page.) Cody7777777 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am skeptical about the subject the article purports to cover, and as it now does not even cover that topic I believe it should be deleted. The only way in which the idea of a "state church" has a meaningful distinction from "Catholic Church" is in the relationship of that entity to the Roman state. Even were this article about that topic (which it is not), I would still be sympathetic to arguments for deletion. I see that while many sources refer to a notional state church, from my searches I see that no serious historian has actually written a book on that topic. Furthermore, whatever the Roman Catholic Church has been over the centuries, including briefly the state church of the Western Roman Empire, it makes no sense to me to devote an article to every possible model of it, and to then extend that model to an unreasonable degree--beyond the bounds of the political situation which gave it any meaning at all--in an attempt to have matter to fill out an article makes even less sense. Revcasy (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor note, this article is not meant to discuss about the "Roman Catholic Church" in the "Western Roman Empire", the article is meant to discuss about the state church of the (entire) "Roman Empire" (both western and eastern). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it is about the Eastern Orthodox Church? Are you saying that the Western Empire did not cease to exist until 1100? If you mean the church as it existed under the united empire then the article should end in 476, or perhaps before that, since the separation between eastern and western empires (with some brief periods of union) pre-dates the Edict of Thessalonica, as does the divergence of the eastern and western churches. If there was not one empire, how can it be the church of the entire empire (a non-existent entity)? On the other hand, if you mean the Eastern Empire, how can you be talking about the Catholic Church? How can Roman Christianity be said to be the state religion of a state that had to re-conquer all of Italy, and Rome itself (not once but twice) under Justinian I in the 6th century? When Italy was finally re-conquered it had been out of the hands of any empire for almost 200 years, and Rome did not stay Byzantine for long, certainly not until 1100. There were essentially two separate churches and two separate empires before this article even begins, and they remained essentially separate throughout their history. The so-called Great Schism was a long overdue acknowledgment of a fait accompli, the last in a long series of poor relations between the separate ecclesiastical bodies. Revcasy (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming that the Western Roman Empire ended in 1100 (I'm sorry if I gave that impression), in the 5th century only a half of the Roman Empire fell, not the entire Roman Empire, (the Roman Empire fell when both halves were gone, and there are a significant number of sources which claim that the Roman Empire fell in 1453, and NPOV requires us to mention all points of view in a neutral way, and we cannot claim that only the Romans from Italy were the only true Romans, the people living in the east also considered themselves "Romans", and although it is off-topic, I would also add that "in the Middle East even today Greek Orthodox are usually referred to as Rum (or Roman) Orthodox."). (Regarding, the date 476, I should also mention here, that it is somewhat contested by some historians, for example the historian John Bagnall Bury even claimed that "No Empire fell in 476", but of course, the article should also mention about 476, but it should not end there.) And this article does not refer only to the "Eastern Orthodox Church" or the "Roman Catholic Church", it refers to the Churches which were at various times the state (or official) church of the Roman Empire, most of the time this was the undivided Catholic/Orthodox Church, but there were times when the state/official church was following Arianism, Miaphysitism, Monothelitism or Iconoclasm (and even persecuted the catholic/orthodox christians), it largely depended on who the Emperors supported. Cody7777777 (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So perhaps the article should be titled "State churches of the Roman Empire". Then the problems are condensed to two: 1)is the article really about what it claims to be about? and 2)should it not be two separate articles? I am familiar with the history of the Roman Empire, and the History of the Byzantine Empire. I know that the Byzantines called themselves Roman, though they spoke Greek throughout most of their history and by the end more resembled a Turkish city-state than a Roman empire. If the article is about various churches, why does it end with the Great Schism, when it could go on to 1453, as you say? I do not agree that most of the time the state Church of Byzantium was the undivided Catholic or Orthodox church. The eastern and western churches were separate long before 1054. If not, why was Rome not appointing the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria, as it appointed bishops of various other sees throughout the west? Why were they even called patriarchs rather than bishops? Why did western churches speak Latin, while the eastern ones continued to speak Greek? The easy and obvious answer is that they were separate institutions. Even the Edict of Thessalonica itself can be seen as a failed attempt by an increasingly divided Empire to bring the eastern church in line with Roman or (more appropriately) Nicene orthodoxy. Revcasy (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As also said somewhere else earlier, the article does not yet cover all it should, but please note that it is still under construction, however this is not a reason for deletion, in fact it is more a reason to keep the article, so that it should be improved. I'm not sure if it is necessary, but I would like to emphasize that the concept of "state church" is more similar to "state religion" (and since we're talking about a christian "state religion", we use the term "state church"), it does not necessarily refer to a single specific Church (regardless, which Church it is). I realize I wasn't clear in the above post, the official christian religion (or "state church") of the Roman Empire after 380, most of the time could be said to have been Nicene and (after 451) Chalcedonian Christianity, but there were times when the official christian religion (or "state church") was Miaphysitism (anti-chalcedonian), Monothelitism, or Iconoclasm. And it would not be useful to split the article at the end of the 5th century, since the religious events regarding these periods are linked, for example the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 influenced the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople in 553 and 681. Also, after Chalcedon, the concept of the Pentarchy (the five Patriarchates, (Elder) Rome, Constantinople/New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) became more clearer, and all the patriarchates that followed Chalcedonian Christianity considered themselves to be part of the same Church (even if they were distinct/separate entities). Initially all of these patriarchates where within the Roman Empire, but during the 7th century the Empire lost Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, and later in 8th century, because of the iconoclast policy initiated by the Emperor Leo III the Isaurian, the Pope Gregory II revolted against the Empire (when the Emperor unsuccessfully attempted to impose iconoclasm on Rome), from that point Church of (Elder) Rome became independent from the Empire (and then the Emperor transferred Illyricum (along with Macedonia and Greece), southern Italy and Sicily to the jurisdiction of Constantinople/"New Rome"), from that moment only the patriarchate of Constantinople remained under imperial control (sometimes, they temporarily re-established imperial control on Antioch), but (Elder) Rome continued to remain independent even after the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea (787) (when iconoclasm was condemned). Chalcedonian Christianity became definetly splited in the 11th century, into what would become known as the "Roman Catholic Church" and the "Eastern Orthodox Church", and after that point, the Empire usually supported "Eastern Orthodox" Chalcedonian Christianity as its "state church" (or official christian religion), however there were some periods, after the councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439) when the emperors tried to impose "Roman Catholic" Chalcedonian Christianity as the "state church" (or official christian religion) of the empire (so they could receive military aid from the west), and it was also the last "state church" of the empire, and the Patriarchate of Constantinople officially rejected the "union" of Florence after the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks. (However, the reasons to continue the article until the 15th century are simple, because there are sources which claim that the final end of the Roman Empire was in 1453.) Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To respond to the earlier statement, trying to discuss the "Roman Catholic Church" (in the modern sense) during antiquity or the Middle Ages is blantantly biased. It is fine to talk about the viewpoint of the modern institution in the Roman Catholic Church article (as that institutions viewpoint) but there is no consensus viewpoint among historians that supports the notion that the modern institution existed as a distinct entity at that time (other than the fact that the see of Rome by itself was a distinct entity). Similarly, though there is merit in talking about splits in the state that start back in the 4th century, people still saw the Empire as one even when it was administered separately. And that was not simply theoretical. The diocese of Rome for its part ruled many parts of the East long after the 5th century. It was not until the 8th century that Rome was recognized as officially severed from Constantinople. It is certainly valid to discuss the fact that Rome and the rest of the empire and the Church were gradually separating from the 5th century onward but to say that 5th century marked the end of any connection of Rome to Constantinople is fabrication. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the 5th century did not mark the end of any connection between Rome and Constantinople. The two churches continued to have tumultuous relations right up to the Great Schism. The fact of their relations does not however make them a single entity. Yes Rome claimed authority over some eastern diocese (and as an official policy over the entire eastern church), in some cases it even exercised that authority. This still does not make the eastern and western churches one entity. I never claimed that the Catholic church of the middle ages or antiquity was the same as the modern Catholic church, obviously a thousand or two years, give or take a few hundred changes any institution, so I am not "blatantly biased" so much as I am being argued against with blatant straw men. Revcasy (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, it is correct to characterize that the Edict of Thessalonica as one of the failed attempts to unite the Empire. That was very much part of the intent and it certainly did not succeed as planned (which is the point that I made to some others who claim there was one single united Christian body). Nevertheless that Edict did have an effect even if not as far reaching as its intent. Second, the article does not "end" with the Great Schism. The topic ends somewhere between the fourth crusade and the last fall of Constantinople depending on your prespective (1453 is a conventional date but that was only when Constantinople became Muslim). There was some debate on what periods the article should cover in detail but that is a separate issue.
Regardless, "State churches of the Roman Empire" is not an improper statement but that is like saying the article Catholic Church should be renamed Catholic Churches because there are distinct governing bodies for the individual dioceses and congregations. That may all be true but the point of the article is to discuss the topic as a whole, not as a set of parts.
I think a lot of what you are wrestling with is a lack of historical knowledge about the Empire. Some of what you are stating is Renaissance propaganda that modern scholars have discredited. There is some truth in the East/West distinctions you are making but the conclusions you are reaching reflect the propaganda and not the scholarship. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that I lack knowledge is an ad hominem attack. I take offense at the implication of ignorance, and will not let it pass without comment. In fact, not only is it ad hominem, it also reeks of argument from authority (your own). What precisely about what I said is "propaganda" (a loaded word)? Which scholars have discredited what I am saying? Argue against my arguments, cease the ad hominem, and reply with specifics backed up by sources. Only those who cannot win with facts resort to such tactics. Also, I realize that I am correct about Thessalonica, I do not need you to validate my correct statements. You will be doing well if you can invalidate my incorrect ones (particularly since there were not any). Revcasy (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh ... you took what I said in a way I didn't intend. In any event I did not accuse you of trying to promote propaganda. Since you seem to have crossed the point where you cannot take what I am saying in the way I intend it I think continuing this thread is not useful to either of us. Sorry I offended you. --Mcorazao (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Byzantine Papacy looks like what this article should be. It actually has information on Church-state relations. It covers a precisely defined era. This article, by comparison, is a mess. In significant parts it deviates in an ahistorical (and arguably POV) manner from what the sources actually say. It suffers from a severe lack of a well-defined scope. And it suffers, per Revcasy, from a lack of certainty whether its subject even existed in the way the article asserts. Huon (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Byzantine Papacy would refer only to the relation of the Eastern Roman Emperor with the Pope of Rome, but this article is meant to include the relations of the (Eastern/Western) Roman Emperor relation with all the Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two problems with this interpretation: One, that's not at all what the article currently covers, and if it's supposed to cover that topic, we'd need a rewrite so extensive that deleting it and starting again from scratch seems easier. Two, I doubt whether such a wide scope is useful. The relations between the Byzantine Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople and those between the Western Roman Emperors and the Popes (and those between the Pope and Charlemagne, which the article currently also briefly mentions) are almost unrelated topics. Huon (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that the article does not cover yet all of its purpose (and please note, that it is still under construction), but in my opinion, keeping the article can help encourage more improvements (after all, wiki articles are never really finished, and they are being written every day). The article is also meant to discuss about the roles the Emperors had in calling ecumenical councils (and the reasons they called these councils), and also how (and why) some of them imposed their "heresies" (Arianism, Miaphysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, etc) as the state church of the empire, the reasons behind their choices (which did not had always just religious implications, but also had political ones, for example imperial support for miaphysitism or monothelitism were attempts to prevent Syria and Egypt from rebelling (since, they were prosperous provinces), iconoclasm was an attempt to weaken the influence of monasteries), in my opinion I think the article is useful from a historic point of view, it could make it easier for readers to understand this period of Christian history, and how and why it affected the Roman Empire (both in the east, and in the west). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, Huon, I cannot see that any of your statements are true. The article does not focus on the Rome's relations with the emperor (though a well meaning editor has inserted a little bit of extraneous detail on Rome in the lead). I don't even know what to say about the suggestion that the how the different bishops interacted with the emperor, particularly in the context of the state's official religious stance, are not related. The Pope/Charlemagne discussion is important as it led to an important schism. As you mention it is brief and should stay as such. I would request that you offer an actual reason for your stance. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cody7777777, you are certainly correct that the article is incomplete. But that's not really what Huon has said (perhaps, though, that is what Huon meant; still I cannot see what that has to do with Afd). --Mcorazao (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a clarification, I didn't mean that this article in some way is a subset of what the Byzantine Papacy article covers. But the latter is a good article on a specific era of Church-state relations. We could probably write a similar article about the early church and its relations to the western Emperors following the Edict of Thessalonica. That subject is unrelated to the Byzantine Papacy by a century in time, and because of the complete breakdown of the western Empire in between. Those are effectively different Empires (though one is considered the continuation of the other). The history of the Orthodox Church after the Great Schism and its relation to the Byzantine Empire may again be worthy of an article, but this time it's a different church (though again a continuation of parts of the earlier). Why should these disparate subjects be forcibly grouped into a single article? Huon (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The people who were part of those "subjects" did not see them as disparate at the time. They saw them all as one and the same. Historians as well discuss a continuous entity (though they also discuss discontinuities too). I'm not saying that distinctions cannot be made but arguing that the unified topic has no merit doesn't make sense. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This seems deliberately confusing. There was only one Christian Church at the time. Whether it was "official" or not is irelevant. The "Pontifex Maximus" title passed to the reigning pope in Rome. As a separate article, this article seems mischievous IMO. Student7 (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside spiritual perspectives and one-sided claims there was no "one Christian Church" at that time. That is fabrication. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article covers an important topic that is not directly addressed by any other article. Certainly many other articles cover parts of this topic and others that cover Christianity as a whole but none that address this. Whether or not you can cobble together information in this article by reading dozens of other WP articles is immaterial. But to address a few of the other articles mentioned:
To be clear the actual time period of the topic is the 4th century to the 15th century. I had proposed only having detailed coverage up to the 8th/9th century (and limited coverage beyond that) since that is the timeframe of the Rome becoming substantially independent of the Roman state and that also coincides roughly with the period in which many historians say Constantinople went from being the Roman Empire to the Byzantine Empire. Other authors suggested that there was too much bias in limiting the article that way so we agreed to extend full coverage to the 15th century (something Johnbod is aware of but conveniently chose to omit here).
--Mcorazao (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I hope that people are picking up on the fact is that WP's coverage of Christinity as whole in antiquity and the Middle Ages needs more coverage of topics apart from the Roman Church. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm grateful for the clarification; there is nothing on the talk page that indicates "we agreed" on this, or anything else really! And the only coverage relating to after 1054 is in the "Legacy" section. Of course this means that the number of articles of which this becomes a fork is vastly extended, and the title becomes still more anachronistic. Do you have any examples of the "many historians" who only talk of the Byzantine Empire from the 8th/9th century? All the ones I have ever seen use the term from far earlier. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some references that talk about a 7th/8th-century transition to the Byzantine empire:
  • Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization: To 1715. p. 205.
  • Williams, Henry Smith (ed.). The Historians' History of the World: The later Roman empire. p. 198.
  • Ostrogorski, Georgije. History of the Byzantine state. p. 106.
--Mcorazao (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But see p. 201 of Spielvogel, who very conventionally talks of Justinian & his period as Byzantine. Smith is frankly too old to bother with, and I can't see Ostrogorski, but I doubt he is any different. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what any of your statements are supposed to mean. I am simply making the point that this is a conventional historiography as the references indicate. Regardless, I don't know how this is relevant to the Afd. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the articles you name, Mcorazao, are related topics to or could be cover under the "state church of the Roman Empire" does not make them sub-topics of it-- nor does not mean that they should be covered under the state church of the Roman Empire. For example "Caesaropapism" is a term that people will look up to find out what it is-- but I don't see anyone expecting an article by the name "State church of the Roman Empire". şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 15:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question of what names people are most likely to search for is irrelevant to the merit of any particular article. The issue you are avoiding addressing is that this topic has gone by a lot of different names, many of which are claimed by other entities. As such it is difficult to say any one unique name is more correct than the others. But again, that is irrelevant to the Afd. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People will look under other article names and those articles will cover the topic they are looking up-- because "state church of the Roman Empire" is an artificial concept. This "topic" is realy a description of the Christian Church as it existed under certain conditions in certain locations-- but this "state church" has no clear begining nor clear end. şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ 04:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you want to pretend something doesn't exist doesn't make it so. Wikipedia's standard is scholarly consensus as reflected by published literature. If you want make that argument you'll have to start with the references. --Mcorazao (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That this article should, for example, be conflated with Byzantine Papacy when it deals with the church established by the Edict of Thessalonica which says that "It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria," is bizarre.

I note that not one single specific rationale is agreed upon by those who wish to delete the article, some editors not even, apparently, providing a reason. Arguments that this article is really about Roman Catholicism or really about the Byzantine Church stand in direct contradiction to the article as defined and written, ignore the fact that notable writers refer to the imperial church as separate from Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and, frankly, reveals a current of Catholic or Orthodox partisanship.

I note that not one single person has explicitly said what the supposed POV of the article is, even though the accusation continues to be made. That's like accusing someone of being criminal, but not producing the charge of any actual specific crime - something one expects in kangaroo courts.μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not personally raised the issue of POV before, but I will take a crack at this. The article takes the double POV, first that there was a single empire from the Edict of Thessalonica until some ill-defined point, possibly 1453, and secondly that there was a monolithic church which was endorsed by this empire and that in-turn endorsed it, and that all of Eastern and Western church history must therefore necessarily fall under this enormous ideological umbrella. This POV would have found favor certainly with the Byzantines. Parts of it would be looked on with acceptance by the proponents of Paleo-orthodoxy. To make extraordinary claims such as these, and then affect surprise when others find them less than neutral seems a bit disingenuous, but I am willing to assume good faith. However, both of the POV problems I have listed are not what I would call the scholarly consensus, and both are fundamental to the article (i.e. they cannot be corrected short of a massive re-write starting from different premises). Therefore, deletion/merger seems the appropriate way of dealing with the issue. Revcasy (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only is the material is covered much better elsewhere, but this article assumes an entity, "The Roman Empire," which simply did not exist as a single entity for most of the period of time covered. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's like arguing because the empire of the United Kingdom has been largely disbanded there is no longer a UK. One can say there are important differences between the UK of the 19th century and the UK of the later 20th century but to imply that they are discontinuous or that there is no longer a single entity justifiably called the UK would be fallacious. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A better parallel would be an article on the Anglican churches around the world, which called them the "State Church of the British Empire," and continued into the 21st century. That would be a clear anachronism: there no longer is a British Empire, and countries like Australia and the USA cannot be accurately described today as "part of the British Empire." Nor is it accurate to suggest that the "Anglican church" is a single organisation. Not to mention other problems. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better coverage of the fourth century than any of the proposed merge targets, and clearly a topic of its own. I would say less about Charlemagne and more about Byzantium, since at that point there came into being two Empires which did not acknowledge each other - and Orthodoxy did not cease to be a state church in 1054. But that is normal editing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree strongly with Johnbod. The best solution is to userfy this page and merge anything with a source into another article. The thrust of the problem is that this article foists an enormous degree of interpretation onto an enormous period of history, implying that centuries of Christians throughout the entire Mediterranean were far more unified and endorsed by the state than they ever were. I think it would be preferable to delete the article than to leave it anything like its current form. However, I do think some of the content could be useful in existing articles or in new articles of more modest scope. I myself was planning on writing an article about the Bishops of Rome during the Roman Empire ("Catholic Church," or even "pope" would be anachronistic) about the Christian community in Rome and its environs that viewed the Bishop of Rome as the leader of their religion. From Constantine onward, there is also a possibility for an article about the relationship between the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Otherwise, the current Early Christianity and its subarticles are adequate. As it stands, the article is a POV fork, repackaging history to argue that there was a "state church" in the Roman Empire, or even that all of the people and events discussed in this article can be described as a single, unified, "state" church. Savidan 00:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfying might be a practical alternative to deletion. Merging would not, in my view, be practical, given the POV issues with this article, the obviously false fundamental premise (that there was a unified "Roman Empire" and a unified "State Church" through till 1453), and the enormous number of potential merge targets. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The name of this article is not "State church of the unified Roman Empire", but "State church of the Roman Empire", so the article does not refer just to the unified Roman Empire (but also, to the Western Roman Empire and Eastern Roman Empire). There is a significant number of sources which claim that the Roman Empire ended in 1453 (and there are also some historians which even claim that "No Empire fell in 476"). Also, we cannot end in the 5th century, because the religious events of these periods are too linked (for example, the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 influenced the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople in 553 and 681). This article is about the christian state religion of the Roman Empire, (and since we refer to a christian state religion, we use the term "state church"), it does not refer to a single specific Church, but to the Churches which were the "state church" (or christian state religion) of the Roman Empire. And this "state church" (or official christian religion) was not always the same, most of the time after 380, it was probably Nicene and (after 451) Chalcedonian Christianity, but there were also times when it was Miaphysitism (anti-chalcedonian), Monothelitism or Iconoclasm. Later after, Chalcedonian Christianity became definetly separated in the 11th century into what would become known as the "Roman Catholic Church" and the "Eastern Orthodox Church", the Empire usually supported "Eastern Orthodox" Chalcedonian Christianity as its state religion (or "state church"), but there were some periods, after the councils of Lyons (1274) and Florence (1439), when this "state church" (or christian state religion) was "Roman Catholic" Chalcedonian Christianity (and it actually was the last state religion of the empire, since the Eastern Roman Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks, and it was after the Empire's fall that the Patriarchate of Constantiople officially returned to Eastern Orthodoxy). Cody7777777 (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be careful not to go in too many directions. The topic of the article is the church body directly affiliated with the Roman state. There was a larger body of faith more loosely affiliated with that body which is a related but technically independent topic (something that perhaps deserves more clarification in the article). There are some valid questions to debate as far as what was or was not part of the Roman state at any point in history, but the editors attempting pretend that there was no Roman state in the Middle Ages are promoting historical fiction. And those questions about what should be considered part of the Roman state are appropriate topics for the article talk page but are not really relevant here. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that not all agree that the church body was "directly affiliated" with the Roman Empire (quite a strong statement), rather than one that had to adapt to the prevailing circumstances in that empire as to the other historical and political circumstances in which it has found itself, whether in states that aimed to control it (as in Catholic Spain) or that aimed to suppress it (as, it could be argued, in the Soviet Union). Esoglou (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Church under the Later Empire was funded by the state, its appointments were approved by the state, its charity was regulated by the state (it had to maintain the pagan poor, too), its creed was enforced by the state. If this is not "direct affiliation", what would be? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better define your periods carefully; according to this article the "Later Empire" is about 1300! Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the problem? John Lascaris ruled a much Later Empire, and his regulations doubtless affected the Genoese heretics, and presumably the Lithuanians, not the worshippers of Cybebe; but I do not see that he disestablished the Church. If I had said Earlier Empire, this might have had a point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a minor note, the historian John Bagnall Bury uses the expression "Later Roman Empire" for the entire Christian period (from the 4th century to the 15th century). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is just following Gibbon. But for the last 150 years or so, "Byzantine" has been standard, if only to avoid the sort of confusion this article creates. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. By "directly affiliated" I am not implying any specific level of control. I just mean that the state recognized the church and was involved in it and influenced its operation in an exclusive way to some non-trivial degree. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment -- I am the author of Byzantine Papacy and Bishops of Rome under Constantine I. These articles are reasonable daughter articles of history of the Papacy. They have a defined breadth (the Popes, or—before they can be called popes—the Bishops of Rome) and scope (537–752; reign of Constantine I) that make sense given the summary style article that they build upon. They do not share the WP:NOR and WP:POVFORK problems of this article, in that they do not attempt to conflate the popes with the entire Christian community over an arbitrary time period. If this author wishes to write about the whole Christian community, he or she should work from the History of Christianity article and its daughter articles, rather than creating a new article to push the hypothesis that there was a "state church." Savidan 00:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, if it is necessary to mention here as well, but "state church of the Roman Empire" refers to the christian state religion of the Roman Empire (and since we're talking about a christian state religion, we use the term "state church", and obviously the Roman Empire had an oficial christian religion supported by the state), it does not refer to a single specific Church (but to the Churches which at various times, became the christian state religion of the Roman Empire). Please read the earlier posts more carefully. Cody7777777 (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could perhaps tolerate an article about Roman imperial religious policy. However, the current article purports to be about an organization, and is thus a POV fork of history of Christianity and its subarticles. Savidan 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the article is still under construction, and it still needs fixes and improvements. If the lead introduction gives wrong impressions, I think this can be easily fixed. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be a little careful. The articles you are referring to have some non-trivial POV issues. People in glass houses ... --Mcorazao (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are referring to, but you can feel free to bring up any issues on those articles' talk pages. I respond here to note that if the problem were only talking about "POV issues" then AfD would not be an appropriate remedy. Original research and POV-forking are in a different class. Savidan 02:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made it an issue. Now you're saying it is not an issue ... --Mcorazao (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:POVFORK. Savidan 15:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read it a long time ago. Have you? --Mcorazao (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify supposed POV of article[edit]

I note that among various unspecific innuendos of POV we have an accusation that the author of the article is supposedly an Evangelical Protestant. That does not identify what the supposed improper POV expressed in the article is. If you believe there is an explicitly POV claim in the article - e.g., someone's viewpoint expressed as fact without being attributed to him - please identify it explicitly. To make accusations of POV without explicitly identifying them amounts to an arbitrary slur.μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that specific text exhibits a POV, but that the very subject of the article is a POV fork. Rather than incorporating this content into the existing articles on the History of Christianity organized by period and geography, the authors created a new article to promote their own theory that there was a state church of the Roman Empire. As is apparent here, they have not completely decided which Mediterranean bishops and their followers were part of that state church or which Eastern and Western emperors were in continuity with the Roman Empire. In any case, this article alternatively writes about the bishops of Rome and their followers, the bishops of Constantinople and their followers, and the entire Christian community—to fit the author's perceptions of who exactly was part of the "state church." The appropriate course of action would have been to write about the influence of various emperors on various Christian communities within existing articles or to start a more modest article whose breadth and scope do not require such an enormous degree of subjective judgement. Savidan 21:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, 'State church of the Roman Empire is not even the author's creation. He created the article Roman Imperial Church and graciously submitted to a change of name following the argument that the latter name might be misconstrued. But very idea that the existence of the concept of state church of the Roman Empire or of a (Roman ) imperial church is his idea is false. Both terms have wide scholarly use and are used in the names of books and their chapters and in scholarly papers. The focal entity to which that term refers is the church of the Roman Empire from 313 to 476, but various authors use the term in various ways an it is appropriate for this article to deal with those matters.

The evidence in no way allows us to pretend that this article is based upon the author's imagination.

We await responses from others who have made the accusation of POV.μηδείς (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those references refer specifically to the time of Constantine. Some refer specifically to the Byzantine church. None refer to the supposed single 4th-century-to-fifteenth-century "Roman Empire" which is the subject of this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The focal entity to which that term refers is the church of the Roman Empire from 313 to 476" is something of an understatement! What references use the term in relation to the other 85% of the period the article purports to cover? Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter Brown, The rise of Western Christendom (2003), p. 308, writes of the state church of the East Roman Empire as falling at the Arab conquest; since he is specifically writing of the Melkites of Damascus, that's 635.
In general, I see no justification for the claim that the state - or the church - of Justinian or Heraclius or Irene is discontinuous with that of Constantine or Theodosius. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no problem in referring to the East Roman Empire and its state church; the problem lies in asserting that the eastern empire and western region formed a single unified entity until medieval times (and ditto their "state churches"). -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They formed a single entity until the Western Roman Empire ceased to exist. After that the entity continued at Constantinople. Whether the WRE ceased to exist with Olybrius and Julius Nepos (both appointed by the Emperor in the East), or at some later point may be a disputable matter - contemporary sources held that the Kings of the Ostrogoths and the Franks owed fealty to the sole Emperor - but if so, we should represent both points of view, and in this article, the continuation of the established Church among the Germans is certainly on topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my latest response above. Also, WP:GNUM. Revcasy (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is referenced, tag those references if you doubt they refer to the matter cited. Sources which limit themselves to 313 - 476 are written from the context of the western empire or catholicism alone. This article properly examines the wider context and all scholarly use of the terms involved - not to do so would be a POV fork.

The numbers are not the argument. They are links provided for the convenience of those unfamiliar with how to do a search for an exact term. Click on each to see the actual references which exist.

Neither of you has so far responded to the question asked. Innuendo is unacceptable. Explicitly identify the POV which you refer. The article remains unique, sourced, notable, and neutral. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to be explicit as possible about what I see as the POV problem with the article. If you read what I said you will see that. Fortunately, I already know how to use Google, but I clicked on your links anyway. Every source that I saw in those hits (the ones that were actual hits) spoke of the state church of the Roman Empire in the context of Rome before 476. If you had searched for state church of the Byzantine Empire you might have gotten more hits about the east. This shows precisely the POV issue here: the article itself is about something that did not exist in the way that it claims. Yes, there was a state church of the Roman Empire, from Thessalonica until the fall of the west. There were also periods when Byzantium could be said to have had a state church, and to be honest, if the article were about the state church of the Byzantine Empire I would probably not be motivated to debate this with you, though I would still have my doubts. However, the implicit claims made by the article that actually exist (i.e. the state church of the Roman Empire) are simply incorrect. Revcasy (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I strongly agree with WP:GNUM. I have seen too many cases of editors justifying wacky viewpoints with Google hit counts. I think, though, Revcasy and Johnbod should actually take a look at what Medeis' searches are turning up.
In any event there has been almost no effort on this page to refute or question the references in the article or otherwise presented (the one case where references were discussed amounted to excuses in the vein of that author's too old to take seriously). Quite frankly since the editors questioning the topic's merit have not been willing to discuss the references I am not sure what we are still talking about.
Nevertheless, I'll respond briefly to Revcasy's statements above. You use the term "single empire" in a very inspecific way so there is really no way to clearly respond. That there was a Roman state that continued long past the 5th century is not worth spending more time. I think what you are getting at, though, is the unity of East and West. There are valid reasons to say East and West functioned in a lot of ways as independent nations during parts of the 4th and 5th centuries and certain there were legal distinctions that had not previously existed; but you won't find a serious scholar that will agree that the Empire cannot be viewed in important ways as a single state. What you are wrestling with is the fact that the Empire at that time did not fit the mould of a modern state; but the reality is that it never did. There were fractures and questions of leadership happening all the time. The 4th century tends to receive particular attention because it is an important reference point in history. But the splitting of the Empire was a gradual process that didn't simply occur in one or even two centuries. Just as the extent and composition of the Roman Empire has a certain vagueness to it, so did the Roman Church. But that does not mean they didn't exist.
--Mcorazao (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that many of the problems discussed here could be handled by a name change (e.g. to State churches of the Roman and Byzantine Empires) and some rewriting (although it may be very difficult to get consensus on that). The fundamental difficulty is that emphasising the continuity of the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire does make sense, and emphasising the connection between East and West makes sense too; but it doesn't make sense to do both: it results in equivocation on key phrases like "the Empire" and "the Church", and consequently breaches of WP:SYNTH. For the present article, with it's current name and contents, I'm still !voting for deletion and starting over. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just posted something in that vein on the articles talk page. Revcasy (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are three suggestions for possible articles there; perhaps one would, in my view, survive AfD. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"State churches" has some problems, because as said several times earlier, the concept of "state church" is more similar to "state religion", and the Roman Empire, usually did not support simultaneously multiple christian religions, of course, the emperors switched the state religion several times, but they usually had just one christian state religion at a time (they did not usually offered support to rival Churches at the same time, they usually persecuted those who opposed against the Church supported by the state at that time). If the lead introduction gives some false impressions (that it might refer just to a single specific Church during the entire history of the empire), I think this can be easily fixed. Also, it is not necessary to say "Roman and Byzantine Empires", since "State church of the Roman Empire" is not meant to refer just to the unified empire (if it would have referred just to the unified empire, it would have been called "State church of the unified Roman Empire"), it also refers to the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. Also, the religious events of these periods are too linked (for example, the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 influenced the decisions taken at the Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople in 553 and 681), and we cannot possibly make a sudden stop in 476. (Also, the people of this time did not considered that there were two Empires, they considered that there was one Roman Empire, with two emperors, and after the assassination of Julius Nepos (the last emperor of the west in the 5th century) in 480, there was just one Roman Emperor left.) As claimed before, there are historians who contest 476 as the end of the empire ("No Empire fell in 476"), and there other sources which claim that "The Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453". Perhaps, the content of the article should make it more clear when it refers to the "Eastern Empire" and the "Western Empire" (although, after 480, this distinction is not really necessary, since there no longer is an "Western Empire" from which to distinguish the "Eastern Empire", however there isn't too much problem using it after 480, but the article should clearly not stop at 476 or 480). Cody7777777 (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the article says "the Roman Empire", which implicitly claims it was a single unified entity; that's what many people are objecting to. In the same way "State Church" in the singular implicitly claims it was a single unified entity too; that's also what many people are objecting to.
There's also a feeling, currently being discussed on the article talk page, that the article is simply much too broad in scope. We don't need a new article on the Church before 476: we have History of late ancient Christianity. We don't need a new article on the Eastern Church, we have History of the Orthodox Church. If this article is to survive, it needs a niche of its own not covered by existing articles. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the lead introduction (or other parts of the article) gives the impression that it always refers to an unified Roman Empire all the time from 380 to 1453, then it should be fixed. However I do not think that the "Roman Empire" is synonymous with "Unified Roman Empire". This article is meant to discuss about the imperial Roman christian religious policy (from the 4th century onward), and it is not meant to end only when just a half of the Roman Empire fell, it is meant to end when both halves were gone (we can make the distinction between those halves more obvious in the article, but it won't be useful to suddenly stop in the 5th century). The purpose of "History of late ancient Christianity" is to discuss only about Christianity during late anitquity, and not necessarily from the perspective church-state relations. History of the Orthodox Church discusses the history of the Orthodox Church from its origins to the present, and not necessarily from the perspective of church-state relations. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A citation in the article shows that at one time even the Donatists were considered the (or a) state church. And if, as Cody's edit above might perhaps be interpreted as meaning, even after Theodosius the identity of the church that was the state church changed from time to time, one could still argue in favour of "state churches" (plural). But if "state churches" is unacceptable to Cody and others, couldn't the article be called "Church-State relations in the Roman Empire"? (Before 313 there were relations between the state and Christians, but scarcely between the state and "the Church".) Very many, perhaps all, of the objections above would then disappear. The "Byzantine Empire" could be included as a continuation or successor of the empire or of its eastern administrative division. And couldn't those who believe that there was a single state church throughout the period be content with an article that allowed that interpretation, without forcing that opinion on others by a title that refers to the state church (singular)? Esoglou (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For me, renaming to "Church-State relations in the Roman Empire" can be acceptable. Cody7777777 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A rather bizarre nomination. Obviously the Roman Empire had a state church, and it is notable. Incidentally, the idea that the Roman Empire ends in the 5th century is a unfortunately common misunderstanding, but is nonetheless a misunderstanding. And focusing solely on "Orthodox history" versus "Catholic history" intrudes anachronism assigning way too much importance to the institutional break away of the "Latin church" from the early 9th century onwards. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually looked at the article? Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mcorazao that "Orthodox" and "Catholic" history during this period would be anachronistic. However, I think it is equally inaccurate to lump these largely un-unified, un-nationalized Christian groups into a "state church" as though it was a single organization in any meaningful way. Savidan 18:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Roman Empire and it had a church. Whether or not every Christian in the world owed allegiance to a member of its hierarchy in theory or practice is surely not very relevant: the article is entitled "State church of the Roman Empire". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little interest in continuing to explain why that view is an interpretation, not an objective fact. The larger issue is that this article undertakes to rewrite a large swath history of Christianity, rather than focus only on state-church relations, in both title and content. There should not be one set of articles for people who subscribe to the state church hypothesis and another for those who do not. If you want to write about various imperial edicts, imperial religious policies, etc. that's one thing; but to rewrite the history of several large groups of christians over a long time period under that rubric is an inappropriate use of topic forking. Savidan 18:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I don't think you've understood what I was trying to say. Basically, where rulers appoint the highest churchmen, you can have a "church" associated with the state that the ruler rules. Here, Roman ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who think the existence of an established church of the Roman Empire is a mere hypothesis:

EMPERORS GRATIAN, VALENTINIAN AND THEODOSIUS AUGUSTI. EDICT TO THE PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE. It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of the divine condemnation and in the second the punishment of our authority which in accordance with the will of Heaven we shall decide to inflict. GIVEN IN THESSALONICA ON THE THIRD DAY FROM THE CALENDS OF MARCH, DURING THE FIFTH CONSULATE OF GRATIAN AUGUSTUS AND FIRST OF THEODOSIUS AUGUSTUS —Codex Theodosianus, xvi.1.2

But the article claims that same relationship existed until 1453. The article also blurs the distinction between East and West: after some point it's not quite accurate to talk about the Roman Empire. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you would quote the exact statement you are referring to. Articles don't claim anything, although they may includes claims.μηδείς (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "the Roman Empire" in the title already makes an implicit claim (given the meaning of the definite article). The sentence "The state church would refer to itself by many names during its history, notably the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a designation disputed by other Christian communions. The Church has also been referred to variously as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Imperial Church, or simply the Roman Church" in the article lead explicitly claims that all these names apply to a single entity: a false claim. -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the difficulty is that this claim seems to be the sole rationale for the article: take the claim away, and the article has no subject: it's simply a collection of material that belongs in articles like History of late ancient Christianity and History of the Orthodox Church. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As also said before, there are sources claiming that "The Roman Empire did not come to an end until 1453", does "the Roman Empire" refer here to the "unified Roman Empire"? I have to say, that I have not yet seen some sources make the explicit claim that "the Roman Empire" always means "unified Roman Empire", and to be honest, this seems more like an "original thought", and I'm not debating here if you're right or wrong, but there are sources which speak about "the Roman Empire" even after it no longer was an unified entity inlcuding both east and west. I do, however, agree that the lead introduction needs some fixes and improvements (but please note that the various Churches which became the "state church" (or state religion) of the Roman Empire have usually claimed the titles "Catholic", "Apostolic" and "Orthodox"). And regarding the articles, History of late ancient Christianity and History of the Orthodox Church, I think it was discussed earlier, that they do not speak from the perspective of church-state relations. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since the creators of the article have ruled out any renaming/rescoping at the talk page discussion, I'm reiterating my deletion !vote: this article is simply a POV-fork of existing articles, based on the manifestly false claim that the Eastern and Western churches constituted a single entity. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

I was sorry to see this canvassing, which also blatently misrepresents the arguments above (and was calculated to arouse the recipient, as indeed it has done). Where has this suggestion actually been made? Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my attempt at "canvassing" disappointed you, but I knew that Deacon of Pndapetzim was interested in Roman history, and I thought I should inform him about this (without stating a preference). You mentioned above that one of your arguments was that the article should not extend until the 9th century, 11th century or the 15th century, and so that it should end around the 5th century, so I'm not sure I understand what exactly I misrepresented. But, I'm convinced he saw most of the arguments on this Afd page (and he is an experienced administrator, I don't think he wouldn't check the entire issue here before posting). Cody7777777 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are one to complain. The supposed "canvassing" was a limited posting in neutral language and openly made to an editor who has not expressed a preference to retain such articles or this one in specific - i.e., not canvassing, whereas this entire AfD has been based on your issue of not feeling sufficiently respected on the article's talk page - an "I'll show you" response if ever I have seen one. If we want to speak of accurately representing arguments I remind readers of some of your reasons for wanting the page deleted, such as the fact that its name was changed with the author's consent and after an attempt at consensus, and that its author is obviously an Evangelical Protestant. I suggest you tone down these overwrought accusations.μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The language was absolutely not neutral, and your attempts to guess my motives as usual completely wrong. Unlike some people I have no psychological investment in this page at all; I have only made a couple of minor edits to it, and have (unlike some) many other articles I am engaged in. Anyone who looks at the nom & later comments will see I specifically do not give either of those things as any of the several arguments for deletion. Once again I remind you that my first comment on the talk page was to support the change of name. But clearly there is no use expecting good faith from some people; I'll let others judge who is making the "overwrought accusations" here! Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, Cody7777777, that you beat me to inserting those scare quotes for you.μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 95 in New Jersey[edit]

The following was posted on the talk page for the article. I post it here since it applies in general:

The issues involved here have little to do with the article itself, except in so far as the article deals with a topic explicitly defined by scholarly stipulation, rather than traditional language.
Specifically, Radagast3, whose position is like that of many others, wrote

The phrase "the Roman Empire" in the title already makes an implicit claim. The sentence "The state church would refer to itself by many names during its history, notably the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, a designation disputed by other Christian communions. The Church has also been referred to variously as the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Imperial Church, or simply the Roman Church" in the article lead explicitly claims that all these names apply to a single entity: a false claim.

The simple fact is that every article at wikipedia has to have a title, and what a specific editor sees as implicit in it is a judgment call. It is not for Wikipedia to determine what a thing should be called or what scholars should mean by a concept they do use. The fact remains that scholars do speak of the imperial church which they identify, at its core, with the church established by the Edict of Thessalonica.
The mere fact that Mcorazao listed various names that various individuals have used at different times and in different contexts to refer to the Nicene Creed church of the Roman Pontiff Damasus and Bishop (Pope) Peter of Alexandria in no way amounts to an assertion of true nature. It is merely a reflection of the fact that, for example, a Roman Catholic writer might certainly refer to the Church at that time as the Roman Church. None of this amounts to an assertion on wikipedia's part that that is what the thing really is in some realm of Platonic ideals. This debate comes down to not making the distinction between a word and a thing, whether that be in reference to what names are used for what institutions by whom in what context or what name is assigned to an article which deals with a complex historical event that some scholars have called the (Roman) imperial church or the state church of Rome or any myriad of other names.
The debate would be amusing in other circumstances if it weren't couched in the idea that one editor insists that another editor not be entitled to write a unique, verifiable, and NPOV article on a notable subject because the objecting editor knows in his soul it is not true. What we know in our souls is not relevant. It is mere POV, and to assert it as a factual basis for argument is Original Research. Wikipedia doesn't care what your opinion is. It cares if what you write is notable and verifiable, not whether it is true.
So, perhaps an analogy will help:

The New Jersey Turnpike is so famous that Simon and Garfunkel even featured it in one of their songs. A now forgotten Saturday Night Live comic used to joke that New Jerseyans introduced themselves to each other by asking "What exit?" US Interstate 95 is also quite famous, at least to americans, given that it stretches from Maine to Florida and that if your map of the US shows any highway it will show this highway. The New Jersey Turnpike opened in 1952. Interstate 95 opened in 1957. The funny thing is that both largely ran over pre-existing highways, and in New Jersey, the two roads are infact largely identical, with what, with its green logos, is normally considered "The Turnpike" by locals having red and blue federal interstate 95 signs posted along its length. One can take interstate 95 north through Delaware, cross over the Delaware Memorial Bridge, get on the Turnpike, and shortly find that one is back on I-95. The turnpike is not just one road. It has a spur that connects to the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the Trenton area. There is a spur of the Turnpike to the Holland Tunnel of Manhattan which is not technically considered I-95, although signs in lower Manhattan indicate one can take the tunnel to get to I-95. Further North one can take a branch of the Turnpike to the George Washingto Bridge, which takes you to the northern end of Manhattan. This branch of the Turnpike counts as i-95, but another branch which takes you north to the Pallisades Parkway on the NJ side of the Hudson river does not. And between the Holland Tunnel and GWB crossings there is a split in the Turnpike, with express traffic going north on the left side and local traffic and those exiting to the Lincoln Tunnel in Midtown Manhattan will take. So far as I know both branches at this schism count as part of I-95. Happily they merge again ecumenically after travelling their separate ways.

Imagine if matters of personal metaphysics were to enter into the discussion of these two roads. You can't talk about the beginning of Route 95 at exit 6! It begins in Florida! You can't talk about "the" New Jersey Turnpike! It splits in two in North Jersey and you have to specify the Turnpikes, east and west branches. You can't talk about the Turnpike connecting to the George Washington Bridge! It turns into I-95 at mile marker 476 and any reference to it as the Turnpike after that is sheer POV forking! What do you mean that radio announcers talk about traffic on I-95 in Central Jersey? The Turnpike existed long before anyone ever dreamt up the fiction of I-95 in New Jersey! No one who works for the Turnpike Authority in Newark, New Jersey will tell you he drove home to New Brunswick, New Jersey on I-95; show me a toll ticket for a trip from exit 14A to exit 9 marked I-95!

Then, imagine the difficulties if, after we have become used to having an article on the New Jersey Turnpike, and an article on Interstate 95, some young punk comes along and creates an article entitled Interstate 95 in New Jersey!

He can't do that! Can he?

μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that (very nice) parallel runs in almost totally the wrong direction: your hypothetical article involves the intersection of two precisely defined criteria: (1) those bits of tarmac legally designated I-95 and (2) roads within the state of New Jersey. The subject of the article is therefore very precisely defined. Furthermore, the implicit claim in the title (that I-95 runs through New Jersey) is clearly true. The article would, therefore, involve no equivocation or anachronism, and raise none of the concerns that this article has raised (which are more like what would have happened if someone started an article on B-Train traffic on the Jersey Turnpike). -- Radagast3 (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that a church is made out of people, rather than tar, it is just as real in its existence as an historical entity. It's a materialist fallacy to act as if New Jersey Turnpike were defined physically in terms of atoms or molecules. It is just as much a moral and political construct as a church, and you would be hard put to point to some physical difference in the road surface where I-95 turns into the turnpike and back. The point stands that just as we can speak of Interstate 95 in New Jersey and have an article on it regardless of any metaphysical objections that it really is the Turnpike or that it really starts in Florida, or that there is no document that shows that I-95 in New York is the interstatic successor of I-95 in New Jersey we can have an article that deals with the concept of the Imperial church in all its different aspects. μηδείς (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this analogy is helping; partly because the I-95 and the State of New Jersey are both defined legally and marked by signposts. The supposed single "Roman Empire" and "State Church" extending to 1453 are not of the same nature; indeed, they seem to be imaginary constructs created, by WP:SYNTH, from a number of real historical political and religious entities. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed single unified state church of the Roman Empire[edit]

Radagast has already made this comment above, but I think that it deserves to be given fuller attention.

Resistance to the proposal to change the title of the article to "Church-State relations under the Christian Roman Emperors means insistence on the POV that there existed an identifiable single unified state church of the Roman Empire, of which the church in Rome was an integral part, even when Rome was no longer under the power of the emperors.

For instance, the article claims that, "after Rome and other cities were abandoned" in the west by Justinian, "in the coming centuries the imperial church, as virtually the only surviving Roman institution in the West, became the only remaining link to Roman culture and civilization". According to this, the "imperial church", the state church, survived in the west and was the west's only link to Roman culture and civilization. Indeed, since the church in Ireland, which was never part of the Roman Empire, was certainly in those centuries a link to Roman culture and civilization, the article seems to include even the church in Ireland as part of the "state church of the Roman Empire" or the "imperial Roman Church" (titles given to the article), contrary to the view that I think was earlier expressed by the originator of the article.

By then the church in Rome, while part of the same spiritual church as the church in areas under the power of the emperors, was not in actual fact part of the emperors' state church. The church in areas under the power of the emperors was part of the same (spiritual) church that existed also in Rome and Germany and Ireland; but the church in Rome and Germany and Ireland was not part of the imperial state church.

If the article exists in order to present the picture it is now presenting of the "state church" in question – a state church that in actual concrete reality was only that of the state governed by the emperors of Constantinople – it should be deleted on grounds of POV. Esoglou (talk) 10:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who (besides you) has suggested that the churches in Ireland and Germany were part of the state church? --Mcorazao (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have. The article continually treats all the Western Church with loyalty to Rome as part of the "State church" - this is one of the major problems with the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again with the mind reading. Please stop asserting what you intuit Mcorazao to be thinking and quote the actual words (not your thoughts) where he has written what you attribute to him. μηδείς (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again with the article reading! I make no attempt to guess what Mcorazao is thinking, though I notice he and you are very ready to attribute motives and intentions to others. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the church in Ireland is not considered part of the supposed "State Church," then the sentence "the imperial church, as virtually the only surviving Roman institution in the West, became the only remaining link to Roman culture and civilization" in the article is obviously false. But this is only one of many related problems, such as why there is a lengthy discussion of Charlemagne (was his kingdom part of the "Roman Empire" too?). All these problems relate to the POV-fork nature of the article and its fundamentally false basic premise. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't even make any sense. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Are you denying that the Irish Church was a "link to Roman culture and civilization"? Was the Irish Church part of your supposed "State Church" or not? If not, what makes you think that the sentence quoted from the article is true? Was Charlemagne's kingdom part of your supposed "Roman Empire" or not? If not, why is it in the article? And, at the root of it all, where are your sources for this supposed single "State Church"? -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Closure[edit]

I'm sure this discussion could go on forever but it seems clear that there is no consensus for deletion. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for the closing admin to decide that, after the standard discussion time is over. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Radagast3, Johnbod, you are free to disagree with request but it is not your place to decide whether I can request closure or not. --Mcorazao (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody was interfering with your request (although I'm betting against the admins closing this early). It's simply a practical question of convenience for people reading the parent AfD lists. But, since it's causing trouble, let's try collapsing all but the nom and the active sections. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and since the main issues have been adequately aired, let's try & leave the remainder to people new to the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current discussion[edit]

  • Delete or sorta merge. This complex issue is better dealt with another way (e.g. in a series of "History of ..." articles). Articles (especially on church history) generally written by one or few authors are usually crap representing one point of view (cf. Women in Church history, and the associated talk page). —Srnec (talk) 04:26, 19 July 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 (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew D. Eddy[edit]

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

Obvious vanity page; article was created by a user named "Eddiusrex" (presumably the subject). No sources, or proof of notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:27, 13 July 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 (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King 2005 Expanded Score[edit]

The Lion King 2005 Expanded Score (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete - I can't find any coverage about this expanded score that would indicate it is notable. The article actually has very little about the expanded score and devotes much of the text to discussion about the development of the score in general. As there is no refernces, and little in the way of suitable material, I see no reason for a merge anywhere either. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 14 July 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 (talk) 05:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Costa (singer)[edit]

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

WP:N, WP:MUSIC. Self-published article, apparently. Can't find a reference to him as a singer/songwriter via secondary, reliable sources, nothing on Google News or Books. Also searched for references to CultureMachine and didn't find anything but primary sources and mirrors. There are some non RS-references which are, well, semi-primary with respect to CultureMachine (I think), (e.g., [7] page looked secondary (not enormously reliable, but at least secondary) but the founder's message [8] makes it sound like it might be a related organization. Certainly not a seriously.) Tried also looking for Spanish-language sources using Brazil and Brasil as keywords via Gweb/Gnews, I don't speak Spanish but my browser has one-button machine translation, and that search was fruitless too. Unsourced for 2+ years. Love to hear sources if you have them, but otherwise, I'd suggest delete. j⚛e deckertalk 22:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and a vanity article. Jack1956 (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The BLP Rescue Project cannot save Senor Costa, sadly. Not verifiable, cannot find notability.--Milowent (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of significant coverage. The band he was in doesn't appear to be notable either. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though I found one reference, it does not establish notability. Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 19 July 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 keep; nomination withdrawn, with no "delete" recommendations. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Have Secrets But Nobody Cares[edit]

We Have Secrets But Nobody Cares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Already released in Australia. Vogel is a member of a popular Australian band signed to a major label. Şłџğģő 21:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The nom's only argument for deletion was demonstrably incorrect and the article was sourced to confirm this at the time that it was nominated. The article needs work, but sources are available: [9], [10], [11].--Michig (talk) 06:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - an absolutely careless nomination showing that the nominator did not even read the text of the article, much less search for reliable sources. Almost a complete waste of everyone's time, though we did learn that the article needs expansion and improvement. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep - no valid reason for nom. Radiopathy •talk• 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I guess I don't know what I was thinking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:45, 19 July 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 (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marshmellow Playground[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Is it really even an album? My google web search turns up almost no results and of the ones that are there, it's Wikipedia, and something else called "marshmellow playground". There is only the one tumblr hit that is about this mc chris album. Even the artist's myspace page doesn't appear to have anything about it. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whpq is right. And since even the article's creator has no idea when the album will be released, the article isn't anywhere close to legit. I suspect that the article was created to spread word-of-mouth advance promotion. Also the same thing is happening with another album article by the same artist: Race Wars, which I will also nominate for deletion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 15 July 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 (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanne Sagstuen[edit]

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

The article doesn't make it clear how this person meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and I wasn't able to find more information about her notability with my own search. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is some news coverage about her in Norwegian, but as far as I can tell, it's all about her being a contestant in the Miss Norway competition which she did not win. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Finishing fifth in a national pageant doesn't seem very notable, and the only modeling claim is too vague to establish anything.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:50, 15 July 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 userfied to User:Nyuesagus/David Albert Gremse. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. David A. Gremse[edit]

Dr. David A. Gremse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated for speedy A7, but was declined - the article touts notability. Unfortunately, I'm not able to find much for Dr. Gremse. Please also note the conflict of interest. I'll change my mind if somebody else's google fu is better than mine. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I declined the speedy as it didn't fit WP:CSD#A7 due to (strong) assertions of notability. I'm a bit ambivelant but recent improvements including a cite to what looks like a WP:RS that he's in Who's Who of America would seem that this is not a simple puff piece. I agree with the nominaor that there is a likely WP:COI but that, of course, is not a reason of itself to delete. Wether this does meet WP:N is another question but at time of writing it may well do so. Pedro :  Chat  21:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I regard the fact that "Who's Who" is mentioned in the page at all as a bit of a red flag. While not obviously a vanity outlet (like, say, American Biographical Institute), the standards for getting a listing there are pretty low. Most people in academia would be somewhat embarrassed to have a listing there or to advertise it if they did get one. Nsk92 (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. That's a fair point and noting the other comments below this is a delete as failing WP:BIO and specifically WP:N Pedro :  Chat  20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've reviewed the conversation between the primary editor (one user:Nyuesagus) and an admin. Seems that he had been bitten, and seems willing to show good faith. As such, I'm definitely not opposed to a WP:USERFY, as was suggested to him by user:Mufka in his talk space. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy. Might pass WP:PROF but currently no supporting evidence that he is a celebrated paediatrician beyond other well-performing colleagues. JFW | T@lk 08:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not especially notable. I'm in the medical field myself and I find his credentials very run-of-the-mill for an academic doctor. He is on the executive board of a national society, that's good as far as it goes. His writings at Google Scholar are pretty minimal, only two articles that are cited more than 10 times by others. If he's an influential figure in the field, he should have published scores of articles that are widely cited. The "Top Doctors" and such listings are not particularly distinguishing, and I agree with the others here about anyone who brags about being listed in "Who's Who" (which by the way is unverified; the reference given for that listing is to his own faculty web page at the university, in other words, self-referential). All in all he has a long way to go before he meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. (BTW I have observed that almost all articles which include "Dr." as part of the article title turn out to be non-notable; Wikipedia style is not to include honorifics in the article title, just the name.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: looking in PubMed rather than Google Scholar, I find 45 articles with his name of them; that's better but not unusual, especially for a department head. (A department head is often cited as one of the authors on papers written by others within the department, even if the head had little to do with the actual research; that can really run up their publication count. I have no evidence this was the case for Dr. Gremse, however.). I was tempted to delete "widely published" from the lead sentence but decided to leave it and let the article be evaluated as it is. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Absent any indication that this guy is notable. Codf1977 (talk)
  • Comment. I was unable to find independent sources to verify the claims in the article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:09, 20 July 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 (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aniothability[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable sources to substantiate this unreferenced article's content. Suggest deletion per WP:NEO/WP:NFT. --Muchness (talk) 21:12, 13 July 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 (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

11th Commando Division[edit]

11th Commando Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unverifiable Bangladeshi military unit - [12] - [13].Claritas § 21:12, 13 July 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 after creator blanked the page in good faith. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Lydein[edit]

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

No reliable third party sources about this article could be found. Marked article for PROD but the tag was removed without any reason as to why, and no improvements had been made to the article after the tags removal. Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:36, 13 July 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 (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molly (Ugly Betty)[edit]

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

Delete - no reliable sources indicate that this fictional character is independently notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Character is adequately covered in the character list and the title is a highly implausible search term; nothing to merge or redirect. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:07, 13 July 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. Although there are likely many areas where the article could use improvement, rough consensus is that the concerns brought up do not make grounds for deletion. However, further discussion on the article's future (including the name choice, sythesis identification, rewriting, and/or merging) is strongly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards to all, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Communist regimes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And under its previous name:

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


This hopeless article manages to be a POV fork of Criticisms of communist party rule; now that's pretty sad. I have read the previous nominations, and I agree with the second that an article could be written on this topic - but this is not it, and never will be it. The charges of SYNTH and misreading fill the talk page; but what provokes me to this is the worthless section full of unused terminology. This is - and always will be - an indiscriminate collection of information; and is not for Wikipedia. If someone wants to userify and trim the down to something useful, I have no objection. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plenty of reliable sources, proven notability. mark nutley (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Move to Communist party involvement in mass killings - because the definition of Communist for the purpose of this article is flawed and essentially makes it a POV fork. Communism is a economical/political ideology in opposition to Capitalism - we don't have Mass killings under Capitalist regimes. "Regime", while arguably NPOV, has a lot of POV connotations (not democratic - while to a Marxist-Leninist, communist governments are by definition democratic). The article does not consider Marxist-Leninist viewpoints on the killings and is essentially one sided. These are all surmountable issues, so deletion may not be viable. I'd suggest that almost all of the material needs to be reconsidered and rewritten, and if there's no consensus to delete, I'd strongly suggest the move because it would make the article more comprehensive (the so-called "red terror" in the Spanish Civil War - when Communist parties aren't in government), and give it clear inclusion criteria, as well as removing the POV inherent in the title. Claritas § 19:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google scholar returns nil hits for the subject.[14] Essentially the article is a group of events that may or may not be related but we do not have any reliable sources that connect them. Even the minority views that draw a connection are greatly divided in what the connection is and there are no reliable sources that connect the various interpretations. All the topics in the article are covered elsewhere. TFD (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
This is relevant: [15] it's all about how you search. For article topics that return zero hits, see for example "Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles", "World War II crimes in Poland", "Occupation of Belarus by Nazi Germany" etc. It's not unusual for sources to *not* use the exact phrase of the Wikipedia article in their articles. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. We do not have an article called Mass killings in Nazi Germany, because it would be synthesis to combine the Holocaust, which has 299,000 hits on Google scholar,[16] with the Dresden bombing, which has 217 hits.[17] TFD (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be. You are correct. How is that relevant in this case? Does the current article take both the Holomodor and Hitlers invasion or something? No it doesn't. There is no synthesis in that article any longer, which the discussion on the talk page proves. It's just, like this AfD intentional disruption aimed at making it hard to improve the article. You should continue improving it instead, with for example explaining what you want to add from those two sources you claimed could be used to balance it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are all examples of original synthesis of unrelated events, for which there is no academic literature in support. TFD (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"These"? If you mean anything related to the article we are discussing now, why haven't you brought this up the numerous times you and others have been asked to explain your support of the SYN-tag? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been explained to you countless times, but you are unable or unwilling to accept this. TFD (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it hasn't. And that talk page is still there, and still waiting for your arguments. Your reasoning here is no reason for deletion, just for improvments. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about shifting goalposts. TFD (back when his sig was The Four Deuces) had a problem with the name Communist genocide, and now that it's changed there's a problem with this name now too? You can't just keep saying it's SYNTH when there are at least two other books written on exactly this subject. Here are some google searches for you [18] [19] (third hit contains the quote "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as")... how can you say with a straight face that there's no sources about this? Shadowjams (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will remember that I opposed the move to mass killings, which I saw as having the same problems as genocide but even more so, since the term was even more poorly defined. Could you please point to one peer-reviewed article that could provide a basis for this article. TFD (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete w/ merge (or, more preferably, Strong Move w/ major rewrite), as a WP:POVFORK blowing minority assertions beyond all reasonable proportion after conspicuously failing to meet the burden of proof dictated for such contentious theories. The article's other problems currently include WP:NPOV violations, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE which are detailed separately on the talk page here and here and here and here and here and here. Per nom, the article serves as a POV coatrack, beginning at the very top of the article. The title itself is POV -- conceivably though this can be fixed by moving the page and assigning an NPOV title, or by just deleting the WP:COATRACK after merging its contents to other historical articles. There has been NO evidence that academic consensus acknowledges any relationship between "mass killings" and "Communist regimes", yet the title strongly implies a link. If we start creating titles that make implications found only in minority views, then NASA and all of its moon landing hoaxes becomes legitimate. Allowing pages like this encourages the creation of all manner of conspiratorial and ideological attack page WP:COATRACKs. Per TFD above, the topic itself is questionable at best, and really the content of the article (sans its current name) only deserves to be kept if editors are willing to recognize that the viewpoint must be expressed as a minority perspective, given what we know at this point. If the contents are kept, the article still needs a significant rewrite in order to avoid its tendency to suggest as fact what are really only minority viewpoints; however, very little progress has been made in this regard for months, and the repeated and strenuous support of fairly blatant POV wording may be insurmountable. If the article is beyond enough consensus for repair, then deletion may be the only recourse, per the remedies listed for viewpoints outside of the academic consensus. If this article's title truly reflected its WP:RSs and gave proper attribution to minority viewpoints, then it would be more-accurately called "The link by a small number of scholars such as RJ Rummel proposed to exist between Communism and inconsistent measures of mass killings", so at a minimum, the article needs a page-move to an NPOV title where we can write a far more neutral article (but the COATRACK problems certainly wouldn't end at that). BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment Since the main AfD reason was not the lack of sources, but SYNTH, POV fork and OR, the references to notability or wealth of sources are fully irrelevant.
  • The article can be kept, provided, but only provided, that all SYNTH and OR are removed from there. However, based on previous AfD discussion I conclude that most opponents of the article's deletion simultaneously oppose to removal of synthesis and OR from there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like the page be unprotected so I can try some drastic editing to sort out Synth/OR issues. Claritas § 20:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One alternative is to just copy the article contents into a sandbox branch off of the article's talk page, like Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes/Claritas. Then you can show us what you've got. I'm not very optimistic that the POV can be eliminated without huge objections, but who knows ... maybe you've got the magic to foster a consensus that gets the protection lifted early. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and do this some time later this week - I'm too busy at the moment, but it should be possible soon. Claritas § 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That state repression and mass killings occurred in several (I'd argue most) countries dominated by Communist regimes (Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Hoxhaist, etc.) is not some fringe theory like holocaust denial or skepticism of the moon landing. Multiple reputable scholars in the field of genocide studies and the fields of Soviet and Communist studies have written about this very subject (i.e. Goldhagen, Valentino, Rosefielde, Rummel, Courtois, etc.), and their views are presented in the article. Some have written or contributed to whole books on the subject (Red Holocaust (2009 book), The Black Book of Communism - published by Routledge and Harvard University Press respectively). This article contains scores and scores of citations from legitimate sources. Some, like the aformentioned scholars, deal with the killings altogether, others are specific to individual regimes (i.e. Ellman on USSR, MacFarquher on PRC, Kiernan on DK, etc.) and some sources are published reports from mainstream news outlets (i.e. BBC) on recent developments most likely not found in academic material as of yet (i.e. Communist ruler Mengistu's genocide conviction and death sentence for his Red Terror mass killings - something that clearly deserves to be included in the body of this article). If a name change or trimming of the article (perhaps the "Controversies" section?) would solve the problem, then fine. I wouldn't object to the move proposed by Claritas.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that The Black Book of Communism and Red Holocaust are not suitable texts to be the basis of this article, because their accuracy and neutrality has been questioned by scholarly community. The article is essentially based on Anglophone scholarship, which while normal for en-Wiki, is extremely problematic here, because it means that all significant points of view on the roles of mass killings and the connections between mass-killings and the communist parties are not considered. We need some Marxist/Marxist-Leninist/Trotskyite views on the subject, as well as post-Soviet eastern European scholarship etc - there's some of that. for this article really to be balanced. Of course, the Black Book and Red Holocaust can be used to cite uncontroversial statements, but their viewpoints cannot be accepted as definite or even the major academic view. I'm particularly concerned about the use of Red Holocaust to support potentially controversial claims in the article. The article also needs the opinions of the academics who do not believe that mass-killings took place to the extent commonly believed - unlike Holocaust revisionism this is not a fringe theory, but rather a minority view which can be understood in the context of certain evidence. Claritas § 20:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is common knowledge that the BBoC is controversial in certain circles. And I am unaware of any criticism "by the scholarly community" of Rosefielde's book as being "inaccurate"? Are you just making this up?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gaaah, I didn't quite mean to say that. Rosefielde's estimation, as it says in the Wiki article that the victims of Communist mass-killings is higher than the total combat deaths of WWII has been contested - much lower estimations fall within the scholarly mainstream, but I'm struggling to find a citation through the net. Anyway, the section "Comparisons with other mass-killings" is a major issue, in that it offers a one-sided view. Most Marxists would argue that Communist mass-killings were on a smaller scale than colonial or Nazi genocides. Claritas § 21:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You talk of "much lower estimations fall within the scholarly mainstream" in one breath and then tell me "Marxists would argue that Communist mass-killings were on a smaller scale" in the next. I see exactly what "scholarly mainstream" you are referring to...lol. Frankly, I don't care what Marxists would argue, as I would expect them to downplay the mass killings by Communists - much like neo-Nazis would have us believe that the Holocaust either never happened or has been exaggerated. And Rosefielde's book is well sourced, citing some of the most recent and reliable materials available, and I find it credible (and so did Routledge, apparently). But if you want to add a scholarly source to challenge what Rosefielde said in order to make it more "NPOV" then be my guest.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - shouldn't people who have participated in previous 3 AfD's be notified of this, 4th, nomination? Or at least those who participated in the last, 3rd, one? Actually I believe the title of this page needs correction, it should be "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Communist regimes (4th nomination)"radek (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it shouldn't. I created this page, not two hours ago. There were previous proposals to delete before this article was moved; but they have their own pages (linked from the first AFD). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright (though it should be noted somewhere that this is the 4th attempt (at least) at deleting this article). How about my first question?radek (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles which inspire multiple independent proposals to delete are usually wastes of time saved by canvassing, or - as in the last discussion here - pleas that of course it can all be improved. It hasn't been. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least with several previous attempts at deletion (I don't know about this one as I haven't been watching this article recently) after the article was kept, there was A LOT of purposeful obstruction aimed at preventing ANY kind of improvement made to the article with the explicit purpose so that it could be nominated for deletion again. If the article hasn't been improved in the past (again, I don't know about the past few months) it was largely due to some people preventing any improvements so that they could say at the next deletion nomination (which they immediately began planning as soon as the previous one failed) "the article has not been improved".radek (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it would be canvassing to inform the participants in the previous AfD's. One point of having a new AfD is to secure a new and random sample of passers=by. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it is done openly and universally (i.e. both the keeps and deletes). Also, if there was any hope of getting a "random" sample of editors at these AfD there just MAY be some justification to what you say. But very obviously as your own presence, and those of others testifies, this is anything but random. A related problem is that any "random" passerbys who come upon these AfDs then usually proceed to try to work on the article and by the time next AfD rolls around they cease being "random". I'm not even going to go into the inherent stupidity of the Wikipedia policy on Canvassing here (which was written simply because somebody lost an argument and had an axe to grind). If you really want a big sample here, then the AfD should be advertised as widely (but fairly) as possible.radek (talk) 00:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a particularly bad suggestion, given the canvassing issues that previously impacted this article. I'm surprised to hear this particular call for anything that might end up being construed as canvassing. BigK HeX (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consider [20] and tell me that it is NOT CANVASSing. As well as [21] and [22]. Two of which are clearly and absolutely violative of WP:CANVASS and the third, as being only to a person hwho has previously nominated the article for deletion could be construed as not being to any neutrally chosen group of editors. Collect (talk) 12:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue can be partially resolved by moving a part of the article's content into the Mass killing article, which is supposed to be a mass killings' main article, but now is just a disambiguation page.
  • In addition, references to several scholars or mainstream news are hardly relevant, because some of these sources are not sufficiently reliable, some of them deal with some particular cases, and, more importantly, the sources that do treat the events in different Communist states separately, independent of each other, are used in the article to support the idea about commonality between these events, which is obvious synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Some, like the aformentioned scholars, deal with the killings altogether, others are specific to individual regimes (i.e. Ellman on USSR, MacFarquher on PRC, Kiernan on DK, etc.)" That is exactly what I mean. Ellman, as well as Wheathcroft, Getty, and others speak about Stalin's repressions, not about Communist mass killings. Helen Fein draws a parallelism between Khmer Rouge and fascists, not Communists. Plenty sources, combined to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in each of them, is an additional argument for the article's deletion, although the issue can be fixed if the article's defenders will agree to collaborate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Ellman is cited in the proper section, pertaining to mass killings by the USSR, a Communist regime, is he not? And just because one scholar describes the KR as "fascist" doesn't make it so (how many right-wingers want to paint Hitler a "socialist" after all). Goldhagen noted that the Khmer Rouge were so racist because they beleved only the "Khmer" were capable of achieving "true Communism". Like it or not, the KR was Communist party, just very radical one (like the Shining Path, which thankfully never came to power).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Khmer Rouge had such strong nationalist tendencies that they were at odds with the rest of the Communist world at the time, and while they were certainly influenced by Marx, it's unclear whether they should be treated as a Communist or Fascist party - they are often included in works about Fascism in general - [23]. Claritas § 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you wanted to link to something else; the link you include doesn't make sense here. Regardless - what CJ Griffin said; Khmer Rouge are indeed described as communists in the vast majority of sources.radek (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::::The KR were communists "Under the Marxist leader Pol Pot The Khmer Rouge had its origins in the 1960s, as the armed wing of the Communist Party of Kampuchea - the name the Communists used for Cambodia" [24] mark nutley (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's argued that the fact they identified as Communists and were Marxists is essentially deceptive, but there is a lot of cross-over with ultra-nationalist communism and ultra-nationalist corporatism (fascism) and ultra-nationalist socialism (nazism). Claritas § 21:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The neoconservatives had their origins in Communist ideology as well, but that does not mean we should include the American invasion of Iraq in the article. TFD (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely false analogy. Neo-conservatism in US was born out of the rejection of Marxism by some of its members who were Marxist in their youth. Khmer Rouge never repudiated Marxism or Communist ideology. They just had their own version of it, like Mao, Tito, etc.radek (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"In their youth"?! They were well into middle age when they switched and brought with them much of their Communist past including unfortunately a tendency to re-write history. TFD (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now I see you're into red herrings as well (or "red red herrings"). You might want to stop with the logical fallacies right there.radek (talk) 23:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a false analogy indeed. The issue is really that there's not a clear-cut definition of "Communism", and if we're talking strict Marx-Engels-Lenin-Trotsky or Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin/Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao, the Khmer Rouge, along with a few other "communist regimes" such as Tito's don't really fit in. Though there are similarities between KR doctrine and Stalin's Socialism in One Country, it's ideologically more complex due to its nationalist and agrarian background. Claritas § 22:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is a clear POV fork and a well of synthesis. The troubled history of the article is inevitable given the unencylopaedic nature of its title, which is not capable, IMO, of giving rise to content conforming to NPOV. The fact that it has proved resilient in the face of past AfD nominations is a poor reflection on WP. --FormerIP (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is interesting to note that some those who want the article deleted apparently believe that Democratic Kampuchea was not even a Communist regime (even though the wiki article on DK describes it as such) and/or that Marxist views need to be fairly represented in the article. Why does this not surprise me?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "(even though the wiki article on DK describes it as such)?" Thank you for pointing my attention. It doesn't any more:[25].
I was going to revert what you did to the Democratic Kampuchea article, but someone beat me to it. HAH!--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I edited this revert further, that eventually led to the article's improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it is another example of original research: the article's proponents seem to completely ignore the fact that there were two Communist regimes in Cambodia. One, communo-fascist regime was supported by China (and later by the US) and committed what many scholars believe to be the purest example of genocide. Another Communist regime was installed by Communist Vietnam, was supported by the USSR. This regime made consistent efforts to restore a normal civil life in the country, to stop and condemn crimes of its predecessor, to partially restore Buddhism, to re-establish high education, etc. It is very revealing that part of the editors try to fully ignore this fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with anything? When did I ignore or deny that the KR were overthrown by another Communist movement which established its own regime and condemned the crimes of its predecessor? Please point that out to me. And how is any of this an example of "original research"? The subsection of the article specifically dealt with the mass killings of Democratic Kampuchea, not whatever political repression occurred under the Communist regime which supplanted it (and it did occur, on a much, much smaller scale, however). The Communist world wasn't some giant monolith, various leaders felt that their path to Communism was the true path, such as Mao referring to the USSR after Stalin as "revisionist," or Pol Pot believing the Khmer was the only race capable of implementing true communism. It's also known that Kim Il Sung and Enver Hoxha despised one another, yet they were both Stalinists, no?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The Communist world wasn't some giant monolith" That is exactly what I mean. I see no problem to write that some Communist regimes (or regimes that described themselves as Communist, or regimes described as Communist by other), during some periods of their history committed mass killings. However, any attempt to draw any general conclusion, to theorise about connection between mass killings and Communism etc. may create a wrong impression that Communist world was a giant monolith, which was united around one idea: to kill peoples.
If we want to present theories and to make generalisations, then neutrality and objectivity require us to add to the article:
- That also the idea about genocidal nature of Marxism was advocated by some scholars, it has not been supported by others;
- That, whereas some communist states committed mass killings, other communist states (or the same states during different periods of their history) condemned mass killings and made significant efforts to stop them or to remedy their consequences.
- That, in some cases, Communist ideology (internationalism) was a factor that prevented the leaders of Communist states from unleashing a full scale genocide.
IMO, by doing that we would address part of criticism that lead to this AfD nomination.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are all important topics which should indeed be addressed in the article for NPOV's sake (though I have some reservation to what extent that can be done for #2 or #3, particularly #3). But that's just the standard process of making sure an article complies with NPOV. The absence of such information presently is not a reason for deletion.radek (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "The absence of such information presently is not a reason for deletion." Of course, if there is a good will to fix possible POV. However, if permanent resistance exist against any attempt to fix POV problems, the asnwer seem not so obvious. Frankly, have I and you, Radek, represented two extremes in the opinions' spectrum, the issue would be totally resolved in few weeks, if not days.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "to kill peoples." As the content of the article demonstrates, the vast majority of Communist regimes engaged in political repression, which involved arrests, imprisonment and executions of either "class enemies" or "counterrevolutionaries" or both. Some were deadlier than others. For example, Castro's Cuba executed hundreds of counterrevolutionaries, maybe thousands, in the years following the revolution (if the article survives, and I believe it will, I'm wondering if details of these executions should be added); others, such as Mao's China, executed millions of alleged landlords, wealthy peasants and "counterrevolutionaries."
Re: "That, whereas some communist states committed mass killings, other communist states (or the same states during different periods of their history) condemned mass killings and made significant efforts to stop them or to remedy their consequences." But those that did, such as Khrushchev in the USSR after Stalin's death and Deng Xiaoping after Chairman Mao died, engaged in political repression and killings on a smaller scale in spite of condemning the excesses committed by their predecessors (i.e. The bloody crackdowns in the eastern Bloc, Novocherkassk massacre and the bloody crackdowns in Tibet, Tienanmen Square massacre respectively)
Re: "That, in some cases, Communist ideology (internationalism) was a factor that prevented the leaders of Communist states from unleashing a full scale genocide." So "internationalism" prevented, for example, the Bolsheviks from completely annihilating all Cossacks during decossackization but permitted the summary executions of only tens of thousands of them? In fact, Communist ideology gave them a reason to persecute and destroy "class enemies" (such as "kulaks") and anyone else ("socially dangerous elements") who stood in the way of a Marxist utopia. Goldhagen made this point quite eloquently I thought, which is why I added it to the article.
Re: "require us to add to the article:by doing that we would address part of criticism that lead to this AfD nomination" Then why don't you contribute some of these ideas with citations yourself if you feel they should be added? I see no problem with pointing out such things as Khrushchev's secret speech condemning Stalin's brutalities and the like.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "the vast majority of Communist regimes engaged in political repression" Political repressions, yes. Mass killings - only few (Valentino) and only during certain parts of their history.
Re: Novocherkassk. By no means it fits a Valentino's "mass killing" criteria.
Re: Cossacks. They were a party in a civil war. In addition, I mean not dekulakisation, but ethnic cleansings (I provided the sources somwhere else), as well as official banning of anti-semitism during the Civil War. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re:"only few (Valentino) and only during certain parts of their history." Only a few??? He states that in addition to China, the USSR and Cambodia, mass killings on a smaller scale have taken place in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe and Africa.
RE: "Novocherkassk. By no means it fits a Valentino's "mass killing" criteria." So? Who says this entire article is going strictly by his criteria on mass killings? By his definition, only 50,000 killings or more every five years qualify as mass killings. That would mean a lot of homicidal regimes of all ideologies wouldn't qualify as "mass killers," such as Pinochet's in Chile. He himself states on pg. 12 that it is "arbitrary, but selecting these relatively high thresholds helps establish with a greater degree of confidence that massive violence did, in fact occur"
Re:"I mean not dekulakisation, but ethnic cleansings" Oh really? It seems that the USSR engaged in plenty of ethnic cleansing to me: Population transfer in the Soviet Union (Scroll down to "ethnic operations"). You also might want to check out that book by historian J. Otto Pohl on "Ethnic Cleansing in the USSR."--C.J. Griffin (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Valentino. Read the page 91 in full.
Re: "Who says this entire article is going strictly by his criteria on mass killings?" It is up to the majority of the editors. You can either follow Valentino's definition (and include famine and similar victims into a total death toll), or use a commonsensual definition (so these victims will be left beyond the article's scope). For me, both variants are acceptable. I oppose to only one thing: mixing these two, which is synthesis.
Re Otto Pohl. Thanks. I already have a lot of sources on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Valentino. Read the page 91 in full." Oh, you mean the part where he says: "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing." (funny thing, he includes Cambodia under Pol Pot. Imagine that?) Wow, that sounds pretty important! Perhaps there should be a wiki entry on this. Oh wait.....--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Thy to read the rest. Of course, it may take some time, because the page contains 7.5 sentences totally, however, I can wait.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the view that the DK was not communist is even a Marxist one - aside of course from the usual bickering among various factions and strains of communists who tend to accuse each other of fascism or right-wing deviation in general. Gimme an example of a communist group and I can always find another communist ("Marxist") group that calls them fascist.radek (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That, unsurprisingly, does not answer the question asked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because you asked the wrong question?radek (talk) 00:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, concerns such as this one are something to be addressed within the article itself, rather than a legitimate reason for deletion.radek (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is just pointing out that there can be disputes about which regimes were Communist. For example, Hong Kong is governed by a Communist regime, but may not be considered Communist. 21:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, that applies even more to Hong Kong. TFD (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates SYNTH, NPOV, and is arguably a partisan attack. Şłџğģő 22:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article subject is notable, the article has reliable sources, there's no legitimate reason to delete the article. Editors involved in the article need to keep working at it to resolve their differences and ensure NPOV. I don't see that much SYNTH in an article - the overall topic is certainly not SYNTH. I see no OR in it. Most (but not all) of the objections seem ideologically motivated in nature, rather than based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies.radek (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly have neither Communist, nor anti-Communist leanings, and I've listed numerous policies violated by this article, to include WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN, and WP:FRINGE. The article contains some good content that can be merged elsewhere, but when the problems start at the title itself, and the POV violations are defended so unbendingly, then the article is beyond redemption. The EXACT same problems persist since the last AfD, and even then people were saying "enough is enough." The only hope I see is for all of the article's participants here to enter into formal mediation. Without that, I don't see any possibility of an overwhelming consensus forming to solve these long, long running problems. BigK HeX (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"(Most (but not all)". And the consensus of the last AfD was a very strong KEEP, as I understand.radek (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This pointless refiling of an AfD can only serve one purpose: to disrupt the ongoing consensus building on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes and restart the factions and heat up the debate, as well as spread it to yet another place. (It already spread to both WQA and AN3. It's only disruption and should be closed immediately, really. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a disruptive AFD. Consensus can change, and there are plenty of arguments in favour of deleting this here. Claritas § 22:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PMAnderson was involved in a debate about RJ Rummel as a reliable source on WP:RSN. He failed to gather any support there for getting rid of the RJ Rummel quote. He then deleted the whole section containing the quote. This got reverted and is still being discussed, but it doesn't look like he is going to get any consensus for that either. If that section is so horrible, he could wait for the outcome of the still ongoing debate on that section. But he doesn't. Instead he uses it as an excuse to file an AfD. So when he can't get rid of a quote, he deletes a whole section. And when he can't delete that whole section, he tries to get the whole article deleted. I don't know what you would call it, but I'd call that disruption. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think most informed editors at the RSN agreed that Rummel's book was fringe. Again you continue to make the mistake of confusing books written by people and the writers themselves. Books published outside the academic mainstream and written in a highly partican way are not reliable sources. TFD (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TFD you are most certainly misrepresenting the outcome of the RSN discussion. In fact almost no one agreed that the book was fringe, even editors from "your side of the aisle". I guess by "informed editors" you are referring to only yourself and PMAnderson. But that is exactly a case of ignoring consensus per IDIDN'THEARTHAT.radek (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are wrong. If you want to continue the RSN debate, please to that there, and not here. Stop dragging every conflict you have into all the other debates. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "He failed to gather any support there..." Rather odd interpretation of the RSN results. In actuality, the consensus was that sometimes Rummel's writings may be used, although in most cases they should be supplemented with necessary reservations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound like support for TFD's contention that everybody thought the book was "fringe" at all either.radek (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And it definitely doesn't sound like the Rummel quote should be deleted. The outcome of the first RSN was unclear, so I started on on a specific quote, and the outcome was clear there. No support for claiming Rummel *coined* the word, but clear support for that he *uses* it. So Rummel would continue to be used as a source. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, it would be nice if just this one time you stayed on topic. Lets focus people on the AFD not the RSN mark nutley (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, it would be nice it you stopped harassing Paul for once. (Igny (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Oh look at this! Here is the conversation at RSN, most of which was then hidden by mark nutley,[26] and now appears to have been deleted. Is there any reason why this edit was made? TFD (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been smoking crack? It`s not been deleted, it`s archived. And i did it as the RSN request was moved, wy have two threads about the same thing? mark nutley (talk) 23:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say you deleted it but that you hid it, for whatever reason. But it now appears to have been deleted. TFD (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not hide it either, try to click on the word show. And also read the summary in the header moved to This section which is wikilinked, whaddya think that`s for? mark nutley (talk) 23:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see it now, it is under a different section. It is a little confusing though why arguments that Rummel's book are fringe were removed from the discussion thread and archived under a different discussion. TFD (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were not. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as nom. This conversation should make clearer even than the talk page (on which there is no trace of consensus, even one of exhaustion) that this article is chiefly a battleground of two economic faiths. This is not what Wikipedia exists for; there are enough blog comment pages out there even for the ungrammatical Libertarians and the unrepentant Marxists of the world. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- toolserver thinks you !voted twice - it already counts the nom as a delete !vote <g>. Collect (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it is a battleground is a problem, but it is not a reason to delete an article. "Gdansk/Danzig" was a battleground for a long time, for completely different reasons. Obviously, that doesn't mean we should delete that article. It also doesn't help to (inaccurately) stereotype editors into these categories, pulled straight out of thin air.radek (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did say chiefly. There are some evident exceptions, and I would welcome more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not you who's being categorized... BigK HeX (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, more importantly, I don't see this battleground going anywhere -- not even from exhaustion -- without formal mediation. BigK HeX (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation may not be a bad idea. If it does take place though, the AfD should be suspended/closed/postponed.radek (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need for that; the article can always be userified - presumably in the mediator's namespace. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the article can always be kept and subject to another AfD later. Beginning of mediation is no reason to delete. In fact, the default in cases of no consensus is keep - same thing makes sense if mediation on the subject is opened; close as no consensus and await the results of mediation.radek (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation doesn't seem to have much bearing on whatever consensus develops from this page. BigK HeX (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
on which there is no trace of consensus, even one of exhaustion - Not true. In fact, during the days before this AfD, a consensus on the way forward was emerging, and discussion went from generalities to specifics. A consensus is emerging. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But both articles can exist. In fact, if "mass killings under authoritarian regimes" were to be created and sufficiently expanded, at some point it would make sense to split off sections of that hypothetical article into their own articles, and this article would be one such split off article. The fact that "mass killings...communist" was created before "mass killings ... authoritarian" is not an argument for delete/move. In fact, it is an argument for keeping the present one. It is also an argument for creation of the "mass killings under authoritarian regimes" article.radek (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really sound like an argument for a "keep." Rather, it may very well be a reference to the POV COATRACK problems, and Igny's suggestion for a remedy. BigK HeX (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
at some point it would make sense to split off sections of that hypothetical article into their own articles - Yeah, and that point is now. :-) The article on mass killings under communist regimes is quote long, sticking that into an article on authoritarian regimes in general would at the beginning create the impression that this is *only* communist regimes. That would be POV. Once other sections are created the article would by horribly long. Clearly a main article should be created, but this article should *not* be merged, as that would only result in a split very quickly. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Once the current content is moved to "...authoritarian...", there would be nothing new to say in "...communist..." except for
Mass killings occurred under totalitarian communist regimes, see mass killings under authoritarian regimes.
1.Most Communist specific quotes can be removed, because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information neither is it a propaganda tool. 2. In the current form no commonality between mass killings and communism, as an ideology, was demonstrated. 3. Once the moving/merge occurs, no split would succeed per WP:POVFORK. (Igny (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
"No", and then you ignore everything I said. Pretend I repeated the arguments here. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would you advise, if a move cannot be achieved? BigK HeX (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If move can not be achieved, then deletion can not be achieved either. It is not the first time when a biased article stays indefinitely on WP due to no consensus on AfDs. I do not think Wikipedia's policies are adequate enough to deal with propaganda. (Igny (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per the last Afd. This article goes into considerably more detail than Criticisms of communist party rule and it is not obvious to someone not schooled in Marxist dialectic how their POV differs; many of the same sources are used. This seems a perfectly valid subsidiary article. Claims of WP:SYNTHESIS are unconvincing, given the authorities used - it is hardly surprising that WP editors do not need to excercise their imaginations to come up with this, but can easily find academic support. To keep the article it is not necessary to demonstrate that only Communist regimes have engaged in mass killings. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... can't reliable authorities be used to create a WP:SYN? Doesn't seem like the presence of authorities in the article addresses the SYN objection... BigK HeX (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because they can doesn't mean they are, if they make the connections. Are you going to heckle every comment here? The Keep ones I mean. Johnbod (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see me "heckling" anybody? These aren't VOTES --- these are policy discussions. If you care not to elaborate on a point which could devalue your opinion here, then that's your business and it's fine by me. BigK HeX (talk) 04:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, can you please provide a source that explains "mass killings under Communist regimes". My inquiry from Google scholar returns nil hits.[27] Can you name any other article created that has nil hits? TFD (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Communist genocide" which was the original title of this article before it was moved on the insistence of ... some people ... that it was too-POV returns plenty of Google scholar hits [28].radek (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Communist genocide" -Cambodia gives just 44 hits[29]. Cambodia is a pure example of genocide, which was recognised by both Soviet authorities and (later) by Western intellectuals. More problems poses the need to establish a linkage between Khmer Rouge and Communism, because internationalism is a core of Marxist doctrine, whereas KR were nationalists, and, by definition of Fein, "fascists". With regards to the rest hits, please, analyse them carefully, because some of them are irrelevant, e.g. in one article "communist genocide" is found in the following context:
" organizations referred, in their only four penal complains, to the “communist genocide”, but this accusation wasn't accepted by the justice, as political groups are not protected by the 1950 Genocide Convention." Please, remember, that "genocide", by contrast to other numerous "-cides", is a legal category, so scholars are not free to apply it to everything they want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name any other article created that has nil hits? - Yes many, see my answer to your vote above. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radek, re your comment: ""Communist genocide" which was the original title of this article before it was moved on the insistence of ... some people ... that it was too-POV". I opposed the name change. TFD (talk) 05:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - No additional argument have come up since last AfD, while the article has improved since. There is in fact a consensus developing on the talk page, despite what the nom. says. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete POV fork and coatrack, with major synth and OR problems. One big problem for the article is the implied POV of the name and the lack of RS that support this naming. A bigger problem is the ideological crusade some editors on the page seem to be engaged in against "commies", "pinkos", and "appeasers" "apologists" which leads me to conclude that until they are removed or somehow dealt with this article could never be written in an NPOV manner. It should be replaced with a new title and a list which simply links to articles on notable communist "mass killing", and has a see also to American, British, European, Democratic, Historic mass killings etc. Verbal chat 08:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another false strawmen. Show me a single instance where anyone says anything about ""commies", "pinkos", and "appeasers"". You put those words in quotes which implies that you were quoting somebody or that somebody had used these terms. Can you point out who? No? Then what was the point of putting that in there? The ideological crusade seems to be on the part of some (not all) editors who wish to see this article deleted.radek (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There hasn't been one single reference to pinkos or appeasers in that talk page, and most of the other things you say aren't true either. The word "commies" has been used, but as an abbreviation of "communists" or "communism", which is obviously relevant to the article. It hasn't been used in a derogatory way. The issues you take up has been discussed and most of them already resolved, and the rest are on the way of being resolved. The only ones on an ideological crusade here are the ones who are against any form of criticism against anti-democratic regimes and ideologies. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Commies" appears liberally (ha!) on the article talk page, and editors involved in trying to address the issues have been termed apologists and the page an apologia discussing this topic. See for example MNs edits. It is not a straw man but a real problem, and you ignore the actual problems with the page - the blatant POV of editors is what is stonewalling any improvement and attempts to address these issues. The phrase 'pinkwash' has also been used on the talk page. Verbal chat 08:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a pretty massive difference between calling somebody a "pinko" and using the word "pinkwash" to describe efforts to done down the mass murders done by communist regimes. The first is a derogatory term used as a personal attack, the second is neither derogatory nor personal. The arguments for deleting this article is getting seriously strained if this is the best you can come up with. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I wrote again - I haven't said what you attributed to me. That language is unacceptable, and not conducive to addressing the real and demonstrated POV concerns. My reasons for deleting the article are NPOV/SYNTH/OR/NOTE. The ideological battle mentality of a small group of editors is making it impossible to address these problems through normal editing. (talk about straw men) Verbal chat 11:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Que? I haven't attributed anything to you. Are you denying that you said A bigger problem is the ideological crusade some editors on the page seem to be engaged in against "commies", "pinkos", and "appeasers". This discussion is getting very strange. The ideological battle mentality of a small group of editors is making it impossible to address these problems through normal editing. - I totally agree. Now drop the battle attitude, and join the discussion that was, at least before this AfD, going forward in a constructive manner. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I have no "battle" to win - 'm just trying to defend the project and improve the encyclopaedia. no I don't deny what I said - I deny your inaccurate paraphrasing. I have not been uncivil or treated the page as a battleground, whereas you and MN have just dismissed policy based concerns with a condescending attitude of "we'll explain to you what you've misunderstood" etc while not addressing the concerns. My policy based reasons for deletion have not been addressed, and as they are unlikely to be in the current climate I must argue for delete. Also, I'll note that Collect below fails to give a valid keep rationale. Verbal chat 15:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All reasons for deletion has been addressed. On the 2nd of July it was asked that all arguments for the tags on the article should be stated under a group of headings. The headings are POV, SYN, Essay and cleanup. You have not added one reason there. It was then on the 11th asked to state in a specific template form, any remaining issues under this heading. Two issues was raised, none by you. The two issues have been answered. No other issues remain. How can you claim to have raised issues, when everytome you get asked to raise issues, you are silent? You have stated no issues with the article, and therefore your "stated issues" can not be unanswered. You are just battling for some sort of ideological standpoint, while refusing to engage in constructive debate. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No issues here at all which have not been raised in the innumerable past attempts to delete. The article is in better shape than in the past, and the overwhelming past results ought to be examined by any closing admin. WP:IDONTLIKEIT fails as a reason for deletion entirely. Notable - undeniably. Sourced - fully, Hence, clear Keep. Collect (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:CANVASS shows that non-neutral posts were made to editors who has !voted delete, while posts were not made to other editors who had !voted to Keep ... for that reason such edits as [30] and [31] as well as a fairly neutral request to TFD who had proposed deletion before should be regarded as improper CANVASSing ab initio. Noting ArbCom statements from the opast, I suggest that !votes from anyone CANVASSED be wholly disregarded. No one who had !voted Keep was contacted by the nominator. Collect (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Canvassing is against policy and the users responsible should be dealt with, but an editor's well-reasoned !vote should not be "wholly disregarded" because someone improperly informed them of the discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, the "overwhelming past results" were "no consensus" (3 times) and "keep" (once). TFD (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collect, I notice that you are now canvassing other editors about the AfD. Whenever I have done this I have explained on the page that I am canvassing and explain the criteria used. TFD (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I have sent absolutely neutral notifications to those who !voted on the first deletion ("genocide") - and I would suggest that my wording was as neutral as possible for them. As to your assertions as to results: The first on "genocide" was "no consensus" indeed on 10 August 2009. The second on "genocide" was also "no consensus" The first on the current title as listed was on 2 October 2009. The third (first listed as "mass killing") was closed 15 November as "no consensus". More importantly, the immediate prior one was closed on 22 April 2010 with this statement: This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia. POV is not a valid reason for deletion unless it is entirely unsourceable. As that referred to pretty much the current article, I suggest that the finding by Mike Cline be given substantial weight in any closing here. Collect (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To TFD - I would daresay that since I posted the fact that I sent neutral notes to everyone I could from the first AfD (I think I excluded folks already opining here) and that [32] demonstrates the absolute neutrality, and that your post was the ec for mine where I mentioned all this, that your request was met already. Collect (talk) 13:21, 14 July 201

(UTC)

  • Keep. Nothing has changed since last AfD. Wikidas© 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, the article has change a great deal since the last AfD, which also closed as a no consensus. What is the rationale for your keep !vote, or is it just a vote? Verbal chat 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um -- the last one was closed as a clear and convincing Keep - see Mike Cline's closing statement. This is a well sourced article, not OR, worthy of the encyclopedia. POV is not a valid reason for deletion unless it is entirely unsourceable. Does not sound like a "no consensus" close, to be sure, does it? Collect (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article may have changed but the arguments for & against deletion don't appear to have done. Nothing in the nom about deterioration in quality etc, or anywhere above that I have seen. Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Collect and Johnbod. Jclemens (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the subject is controversial and the article needs improvement. But that is not grounds for deletion. The communist mass murders tended to target different groups than otherwise similar fascist or nationalist atrocities and genocides so I consider a separate article is worthwhile having. ϢereSpielChequers 16:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe article has room for improvement, but the topic is certainly considered valid for enough mainstream reasearchers and thus it has place on Wikipedia as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the objection is not that the information is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but that it would appropriate elsewhere as not to end up as a POV fork. BigK HeX (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of forking should be resolved by using linking section in [[Criticisms of communist party rule article, to WP:SS. Which was done. Deletion is not a solution to forking, and you can not merge the article back into the main, since it is too large. Wikidas© 18:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. The difficulty is that on the one hand, the article is clearly an invalid encyclopedia entry, being essentially an attempt to list the Crimes of Communism. This is no more valid than an equivalent attempt to list the Crimes of Capitalism (aka Mass killings under Capitalist regimes) - but in the latter case it is easier for the average reader to realise the absurdity of the endeavour. On the other hand, what is a valid entry is the historiography of "mass killings under communist regimes", that is, the attempt to write history which collates disparate context-specific historical events as if they were an attribute of something called "communism". A pre-requisite for this historiography is (a) the essentialization of "communism", so that the differences between the regimes tagged "communist" are ignored; (b) treating "communism" as something that falls from the sky and acts in a vacuum without external influence - each regime merely an independent petri-dish scientific experiment in the effects of some standardised dose of whatever mysterious thing is inside the "communism" bottle. A valid encyclopedia article would critically discuss these issues with the historiography, and not accept at face value the incorrect claim that the topic is valid in itself as history - which it is not. I could go on, but basically, this article as it stands (and as it will remain, since clearly too many either don't get its invalidity or don't care) is no more valid than Mass killings under Jewish regimes. (Discuss.) Rd232 talk 17:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't sound very neurtal. --FormerIP (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly original research and clearly pushing a particular position. It starts by saying that various types of government kill people (well, all of them actually) but then dives straight in to communist government without a proper critical and historical perspective. It's worth checking out the edit history of the original author (now indef banned as a vandal) andy (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of it is that the stuff about how various types of government kill people was put in there for the sake of NPOV to avoid giving the impression that only communist regimes kill people or that communism and mass killings are necessarily linked. So your objection seems misplaced. The article has survived 4 AfDs already, with last one a strong keep. Who cares who started in the article in the first place? That's completely immaterial.radek (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Communism and mass killings are not linked, then the article is synthesis. TFD (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if. But they *are* linked, and this link is sourced and there are even several views of that link taken up. This is an utter straw man, put in an "if"-form. And you have done this repeatedly on the talk page, and repeatedly gotten the same answer, which you ignore. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or? --OpenFuture (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An uninvolved editor is weighing in and basically telling us that the article still makes strong implications (even despite my attempts to bring it closer to NPOV). This is precisely the issue that has been repeatedly pointed out as a problem. The article still implies a certain conclusion very strongly, despite the fact that it represents only isolated minority viewpoints. BigK HeX (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Swedish Institute "Forum för levande historia" has recently studied communist regimes crimes against humanity (Brott mot mänskligheten under kommunistiska regimer) which is very similar to this.[33] Maybe that name could be better for this article also: Crimes against the humanity under communist regimes. Närking (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the forum is not a center for academic research, but a learning resource, it does not provide a useful source here. TFD (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a summary in English for those who don't know Swedish. [34]. Närking (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe merge but really rewrite per all keeps. —I-20the highway 18:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable and it is only a few weeks since the previous AFD which was a Keep. The nomination therefore seems to be disruption per WP:DEL. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThis topic is very notable, it's been only a short period since the last AFD (so short that the nom is clearly being disruptive), and the article is bolstered by many reliable sources and is a topic (as it should be!) of scholarly study. If we're going to have an article on the Nazi Holocaust in which 6 million were killed, the crimes of totalitarian socialism, who claimed far greater numbers of victims and grotesqueness, also deserve an article. The Characteristics of mass killings under socialist regimes are also unique enough to distinguish it from other forms of mass murder, e.g., genocide, and is a topic of scholarly study; i don't think any scholar has made a study of "mass murder under capitalist regimes" (which would be meaningless anyways; a fully capitalist classical liberal/libertarian state would share little characteristics with the regimes of Franco or Marcos.)

Teeninvestor (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a perfectly valid subject, as is shown by the tens of thousand of references on the subject in all languages. A very broad one also, an this would be a good starting point for more detailed articles. The title is not perfectly neutral, but is about as neutral as possible & reasonably descriptive. I think there might possible be a point of widening this to "Mass killings during communist regimes", which would include also the killings from the other side when this occurred, but it might yield a very confused article and should best be kept separate. I note this is separate from the question of whether any of the events, such as those during the first years after 1917 in Russia might possibly have been justified: I certainly know people who thought they were, and I have even known people who would say the same about some of the later events. The question of whether the events of at least most of them took place , however, is so well established that the denial of them must be treated as a fringe position. I do note for the last editor's benefits that certainly people have studied the question of whether capitalism leads inherently to imperialist wars and genocidal massacres--that's the classic Marxist position, and a great deal has been written in its defense. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POV fork, WP:NEO, WP:SYNTH, and WP:OR, redirecting to Genocide and distributing content between there and Communism.   — Jeff G. ツ 23:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO? That's a new one. Do you actually know what a neologism is or are you just randomly throwing various Wikipedia policy pages in there in the hope that something might be relevant?radek (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, this is getting ridiculous - We've had this discussion 5 times now and the discussions are all the same. It's a well sourced topic with lots of references. There was an entire book written about it for goodness sakes! It wasn't much of a fork when it started and it certainly isn't now, months later.
    The reasons for deletion are always versions of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's already been enough compromise on the title alone and yet no matter what changes are made people still keep nominating it. Shadowjams (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As others have pointed out, it's clearly a POV fork and the article is written almost entirely in WP:SYNTH. Moreover, the sole purpose of this article is to push a political agenda. I've never seen a more clear example on wikipedia and I'm very surprised that this article has survived for so long. LokiiT (talk) 00:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this synth? There are dozens of articles and books that talk about the concept as a whole. Calling this synth is just willfully ignoring the dozens of specific books and scholarship (over 150 cites in the article itself). Shadowjams (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually none of them refer to the "concept as a whole". TFD (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What!?! Just read this first paragraph: Black Book of Communism! How much more do we need to convince you? A book entitled "The notable topic of Mass killings under Communist regimes"? How about a chapter entitled "Communist Mass Killings" (ISBN 0801472733)) by a Dartmouth professor? That do anything for you? Shadowjams (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Rummel and Valentino also refers to the concept as a whole. And I'm sure there are more, but these are just the ones who have been widely discussed on the talk page, and which therefore TFD is sure to be aware of. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed this topic extensively on the talk page. Please stop repeating the same arguments. TFD (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, my bad. Just because you take up arguments that has been conclusively shown as being false is no reason for me to repeat the same discussion here. I apologize. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article takes well-known fact that the significant percentage of civilians in the peacetime years of the 20th century were killed in just a few countries, and in a classic WP:SYNTH fashion labels these killings with an arbitrary common attribute of these countries (state ideology). The same countries can be grouped also by their state religion (atheism), or the major changes in government these countries were going through. It is very easy to find sources that would group the same killings (plus few extra ones) based on the two latter attributes. These sources, naturally, will be marginal, but so are the sources in the current article. Therefore, if this article deserves a place in Wikipedia, its name might just as well be changed to "Mass killings by the atheist governments". After all, why group on one common attribute and not another? Dimawik (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, that's not true at all. There is no SYNTH that arbitrarily groups them by ideology, there are reliable sources that very non-arbitrarily groups them by ideology and also offers explanations why this particular ideology is so bloody. All this is in the article, well sourced and explained. If you want to group them by atheism, find a reliable source that does that. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even the sources that you allege to discuss a grouping have not been shown to be anything more than minority viewpoints (even when directly challenged), thus writing an entire article from a minority point of view leads us straight into the very definition of a POV COATRACK, and ultimately making a mockery of the WP:NPOV policy (and incidentally, pushes us all towards deletion as a POV fork). BigK HeX (talk) 06:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wold think that if it was a minority standpoint, you would be able to come up with at least *one* source to oppose and balance that standpoint. But apparently not. Why do you require a tertiary source to show what is mainstream, when you can't even show that there exist any other opinion? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did point to articles that discuss the claims as part of holocaust trivialization. But otherwise as a fringe theory, this topic receives little attention. TFD (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not often the New York Times Book Review gives fringe theories good reviews [35], and there are quite a few professors from Ivy leagues writing on this "fringe" theory. First the claim is SYNTH, but when enough books that address the issue on point come out the argument becomes that they're fringe. Shadowjams (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only part of that book that could support your theory are contained in the introduction which was roundly debunked by several of the contributors to the book. All of this has been explained to you. TFD (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That "debunking" concerns only the numbers, which are too high, and not what is discussed now. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Many editors have provided detailed objections [here and here] regarding a misuse of sources (WP:SYN), but one of the primary concerns for this AfD is an exaggeration of a viewpoint outside of academic consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Openfuture, I do not understand your arguments. Certainly, there are plenty of books of the same quality as the ones you are using in your arguments that made a connection between state atheism and mass murder by the state. This connection is, naturally, quite stronger that the one currently argued in the article, as it permits to include the crimes by the almost-atheist and very anti-religious Jacobins in France and Nazi in Germany. I can point you to many books that back up this claim. Here is an eloquent one: [USSR, Campuchea, PRC] show a striking correlation between state-sponsored atheism and mass-murder by the state. Similarly, you can find scholarly works on relations between popular uprisings and mass killings. I am no fan of Marxism, BTW, but singling it out for the murders in the USSR, while ignoring the role of atheism and revolutionary spirit is ridiculous; good historians do not make this mistake. You point to some fringe (albeit scholarly) books that blame Marxism exclusively; I can point to similar quality books that blame atheism in a similar fashion. This just shows that the single-minded grouping currently used in the article is not mainstream. Dimawik (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "that made a connection between state atheism and mass murder" Connection or correlation? Note, sometimes connection (whith implies a casual linkage) is being mixed with correlation (which does not).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Connection can imply merely correlation. BigK HeX (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My prediction ... we'll get a Two wrongs fallacy with someone recommending that we start up the Mass murders under atheists article in 5 ... 4... 3... 2....
BigK HeX (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What he calls "state-sponsored atheism" is in reality the persecution of religion. That's not atheism at all. He shows that there is a correlation between states that persecute people on their opinion, and states that persecute people. Not exactly shocking. But yeah, WP:SOFIXIT then. If you really believe there is a general scholarly consensus that atheist governments kill people, go ahead and collect those sources, and put it somewhere relevant. I'm convinced you will fail. The book you linked to has 28 citations (compare with Rummels over 400) and none seem to actually quote his claim that atheism and mass murder is connected. I think you'll find that this is a good example of exactly the kind of fringe view that this article is falsely accused to be. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The WP:SYNTH claims above are transparently baseless, since there is extensive scholarship on the matter. The concept of Communist (more specifically Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, etc.) nations perpetrating mass killings is hardly a new synthesis. As the article clearly shows, this concept is well established in several parts of the political, cultural, and scholarly mainstream: there are international resolutions about it; there are an abundance of well-known books on the subject, it is widely taught in schools, and so on. Václav Havel is not a kook or a member of the fringe, after all. The fact that genocides and democides emerged from the Communist movement, a movement which was ostensibly on the Left and ostensibly aimed at a classless internationalist society, is one of the big political stories of the early 20th century; it is central to the histories of those nations, of the Cold War, and especially the history of the Left. Wikipedia cannot exactly let it go unreported. --FOo (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has shown that there is isolated scholarship on the matter. Perhaps surprisingly, at this point the article's talk page actually has shown that editors CANNOT provide RS to attest that the concept is well-established. BigK HeX (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no arguing that during the 20th century in few countries governments were involved essentially in mass murders. Some of these governments (but not all) were based on Marxist ideology, and all of these governments were opposed to organized religion. One can find books that near-exclusively blame Marxism for the killings, and books that blame atheism. The problem with the current article is that it represents synthesis based on a marginal POV. Just think of this: with the current name and content, where could I insert the (trivial and well-sourced) observation that near all mass killings by the states in the 20th century were perpetuated by the atheist governments? This is why the current article should be deleted, and a paragraph mentioning the relationship between Marxism and mass killings shall be inserted into Mass_murder#Mass_murder_by_a_state instead, along with the similar connection made to atheism. Dimawik (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and all of these governments were opposed to organized religion. - That is a blatantly false statement that you definitely can't source. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I do not plan to insert my statement into article (I want it deleted, after all). So all I need is to show that other mass crimes perpetrators of 20th century were against the organized religion. Well, the article already lists crimes by the Communist governments. These governments were undeniably atheist. The only crimes in 20th century that match (or surpass, in my opinion) the repressions in the USSR are the Nazi ones. Nazis are generally considered uncompromisingly antireligious. I rest my argument here; would you mind retracting your "blatantly false" accusation that clearly violates WP:AGF? Dimawik (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've argued above that the article as it stands is invalid. In an effort to illustrate this, I've created Mass killings under Capitalist regimes by adapting the article, adding some hints of the direction that article could go in. Does this help anyone consider the issues? What arguments can be brought against the Capitalist article that can't be brought against the Communist one? (Apart from sourcing - I haven't added any specific ones, but it's obvious they exist.) Rd232 talk 12:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see shall we, i just prodded it for deletion mark nutley (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mass Killings under Capitalist regimes" is a misnomer, as capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, but a similar criticism applies to the Communist Regimes article! From communism: "Communism is a social structure in which classes are abolished and property is commonly controlled, as well as a political philosophy and social movement that advocates and aims to create such a society." So it is not in fact a form of government either. Rd232 talk 15:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The USSR's form of government = Federal socialist republic, single-party communist state, dominated by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. : / --C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be too formal. Based on the same logic, one may conclude North Korea is a democratic state, as the ruling party there is a coalition between Worker's and Social-Democratic party, and the ideology is strongly nationalistic Juche [36].--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is surely reasonable to apply the term "capitalist" to states, though. (Probably not something we need to get into here). --FormerIP (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I voted delete at the previous AfD, and while I still have concerns about this topic, two things are clear: consensus does not agree with me, and the article has improved since the previous AfD. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, the article drifts towards neutrality mostly due to the efforts of the proponents of the article's deletion. How do you explain that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting, and I could explain that by way of making a few inferences, but I don't want to go there :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that statement. It possibly gets more neutral *despite* those who want to delete it. You for example are very fond of claiming the article is POV, and very reluctant to explain how or give examples on how it can be improved. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unmaintainable. Delete. The notability of the article, its title and content, requires many assumptions and blind spots. Foremost among the assumptions is that the cart drives the horse, that a type of political organization is responsible for decisions made by governors or the governed, which is like saying that Nazism made Hitler order Jews into concentration camps, or that being part of a constitutional monarchy makes English football fans vandals. An example of a blind spot is, that the article is still notable if this is not so. Another blind spot is the categorization of 'Mass killings' without noting that each and every one of the Communist states is also one in which a Revolution took place. Wars of Independence, such as the First Indochina War, are contests over land that one side lives in and the other side leeches off of, usually soon over, until recently usually ending with the loser sailing, however unhappily, comfortably back to a home country, with all in agreement, if they spoke truthfully, that the place and its people are thenceforth a great deal better off. Revolutions are bloody contests over territory neither side can leave, whose future is entirely in the world view of the combatants. Examination of the failed Revolution, the American Civil War, began the concept of war crimes because its conduct contained examples of war crimes on both sides; the level of violence is related to the height of the stakes that each have in the outcome. The article began without even attempting to prove the assumption, and has continued to fail to do so, and as one might expect, has never even begun to attempt to recognize the blind spots.
I at one point believed that it was possible for the article to become a collection of incidents that occurred with the happenstance of Communist governance (but then, what would be the point of that in any case), but over the entire life of the article it has not once even begun to become so. Instead it has continued to be a mishmash of fringe POV, such as (#), with its assertion that the Enlightenment was a big mistake, and that everything started to go wrong after misguided people gave up on the Holy Roman Empire. Ameliorating circumstances of the purest obviousness, such as the role of Great Chinese Famine, are deleted over and over again. (+) Shows the China section as I left it, and (=) shows it in its entirety, such as that is.
Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(#)

Secular values

Some proponents of traditional ethical standards and religious faith argue that the killings were at least partly the result of a weakening of faith and the unleashing of the radical values of the European Enlightenment upon the modern world. Observing this kind of trend in critical scholarship, the University of Oklahoma political scientist Allen D. Hertzke zooms in on the ideas of British Catholic writer and historian Paul Johnson and writes that

“ [A] shift in intellectual mood has come from the critique of the perceived failures and blinders of the secular project. To be sure, this critique is not universally shared, but a vast scholarship, along with a proliferating array of opinion journals and think tank symposia, catalog the fallout from the abandonment of transcendent societal anchors. Epitomizing this thought is Paul Johnson's magisterial book Modern Times, which attacks the common Enlightenment assumption that less religious faith necessarily equals more human freedom or democracy. The collapse of the religious impulse among the educated classes in Europe at the beginning of the twentieth century, he argues, left a vacuum that was filled by politicians wielding power under the banner of totalitarian ideologies – whether 'blood and soil' Fascism or atheistic Communism. Thus the attempt to live without God made idols of politics and produced the century's 'gangster statesmen' – Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot – whose 'unappeasable appetite for controlling mankind' unleashed unimaginable horrors. Or as T.S. Eliot puts it, 'If you will not have God (and he is a jealous God) you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.' [34]

(+)

China
In China, it is alleged that Mao Tse-tung's policies and political purges, such as the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution and Zhen Fan, Shu Fan movement, brought about the deaths of some 40 to 70 million people.[1][2]

In 1960, drought and other bad weather affected 55 percent of the cultivated land in China, while in the north an estimated 60% of agricultural land received no rain at all.[3] The Encyclopædia Britannica yearbooks from 1958 to 1962 also reported abnormal weather, followed by droughts and floods. Close planting, the idea of Ukrainian pseudo-scientist Trofim Lysenko.[4] had been implemented. The density of seedlings was at first tripled and then doubled again, according to the theory, plants of the same species would not compete with each other. In practice they did, which stunted growth and resulted in lower yields. Lysenko's colleague's theory encouraged peasants across China to plow deeply into the soil (up to 1 or 2 meters). They believed the most fertile soil was deep in the earth, allowing extra strong root growth. However, useless rocks, soil, and sand were driven up instead, burying the topsoil. Mao Tse-tung's Great Leap Forward, had reorganized the workforce; millions of agricultural worker had joined the iron and steel production workforce.

As a result of these factors, year over year grain production in China dropped by 15% in 1959. By 1960, it was at 70% of its 1958 level. There was no recovery until 1962, after the Great Leap Forward ended.[5]

According to government statistics, there were 15 million excess deaths in this period. Unofficial estimates vary, but are often considerably higher. Yang Jisheng, a former Xinhua News Agency reporter who spent over ten years gathering information available to no other scholars, estimates a toll of 36 million.[6]

Professors and scholars of the famine, who do not use the word 'genocide' to describe it, but rather more neutral terms, such as "abnormal deaths", have estimated that they number between 17 million to 50 million. Some western analysts such as Patricia Buckley Ebrey estimate that about 20-40 million people had died of starvation caused by bad government policy and natural disasters. J. Banister estimates this number is about 23 million. Li Chengrui, a former minister of the National Bureau of Statistics of China, estimated 22 million (1998). His estimation was based on Ansley J. Coale and Jiang Zhenghua's estimation of 17 million. Cao Shuji estimated 32.5 million.

(=)

People's Republic of China

Main article: History of the People's Republic of China (1949–1976)

The Chinese Communist Party came to power in China in 1949, when Chinese communist revolution ended a long and bloody civil war between communists and nationalists. There is a general consensus among historians that after Mao Zedong seized power, his policies and political purges caused directly or indirectly the deaths of tens of millions of people.[1][2] Based on the Soviets' experience, Mao considered violence necessary to achieve an ideal society derived from Marxism and planned and executed violence on a grand scale.[7][8]

Anarchangel (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - There are plenty of reliable sources on this, and it is not a result of a fringe POV. The fringe POV seems to be that Communist regimes killed 100 million people, but that there was no relation between the killings by the various Communist regimes. Since this is the 5th time deletion has come up on this article in about a year, can we come up with a ruling that this article should not be nominated for deletion for at least the next 12 months? Smallbones (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tons of sources, and while you might not find the exact phrase that is the title of this article, there is a vast amount of scholarly work on the subject. This seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:STICK. —Torchiest talk/contribs 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Culturally significant article. Despite the unfair denegration of fascism, Communism is a far more destructive force and has been behind most of history's worst genocides. Communist dictator Mao Zedong was the most prolific mass murderer in human history, discounting the innumerable unborn fetuses he slaughtered. Even to this day historians are uncertain as to the exact figure of Stalin's body count. There are Communist leaders alive today who make Hitler look like Father Christmas, such as Korean despot Kim Jong Ill. The mass killings under Communism are an important part of human history and are a more than relevant topic for a Wikipedia article. --86.132.227.35 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete - Wikipedia needs to stop creating new subjects, and editors should remember they are here to summarise existent scholarship in a consistent and neutral way, and not to create new scholarship. This article is doing exactly this, creating new scholarship, by writing an argumentative essay about why communist regimes are bad. That is not to say that, individually, each piece of information in that article is not notable or sourced (and that's why they should be moved each to its "mother article"), but their amalgamation in the article is nothing more than a WP op-ed, gross violation of our policy against original synthesis. Better use those tons of sources (and the whole sources, not just some snippets as its now done in the article) as their authors meant it, i.e. in the articles about the rule of Mao, Stalin and other mass murderers etc.Anonimu (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - arguing to delete this is like arguing to delete the article about the Holocaust. In fact, much of the material in that article should be merged into a new article called Mass killings under German National Socialist regime since Nazism was a racist and bigoted ideology and regime which made Hitler order the deaths of religious, ethnic, sexual, and political minorities and dissidents. Mass murders under other types of authoritarian regimes would also be a good article. Also, communist groups that are fighting for political power and commit mass murder should be included. I first found the article a couple years ago when was curious if there was such an article and was glad to see it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator gave two reasons for deleting the article: "POV fork of Criticisms of communist party rule" and "indiscriminate collection of information" (which essentially means "non-notable"), without justifying either one. In fact, both rationales were raised and discounted in the last AfD, which ended in a clear "Keep" and which I would recommend that the closing admin also read (some of the deletes here which also participated in the last AfD are good examples of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT).

The article is not a POV fork of Criticisms of communist party rule because it is a distinct topic found in academic sources which focuses on explaining the events, not on criticizing communist party rule. And while the article does describe the views of sources, the article does not itself take a point of view. The topic is not a matter of opinion to begin with. That there were mass killings under communist regimes is not disputed. Why there were, the most appropriate terms to use, the numbers involved, and the nature of the events are disputed and the article must reflect this, but neutrally describing POVs from reliable sources within an article does not make the article itself POV. Any issues editors have with undue weight or inclusion of other viewpoints is a matter of talk page discussion or normal editing (or, as seems to be in preparation for this article, formal mediation), not an AfD.

The indiscriminate collection of information charge simply ignores the numerous sources for the article which discuss the topic of this category of mass killing. I gave large quotes from four of the sources at the last AfD to prove the notability of the topic. Since several editors seem to be new to the issues here and I don't know if the closing admin will read the previous "Keep" AfD, here they are again:

  • "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia - history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa." ..."Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence." ..."I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social change they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments."
- Benjamin Valentino, Assistant Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, in a chapter called "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" in his book "Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century", published by Cornell University Press.
  • "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not. I discuss the three that caused the most terrible human losses: Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. These saw themselves as belonging to a single socialist family, and all referred to a Marxist tradition of development theory. They murderously cleansed in similar ways, though to different degrees. Later regimes consciously adapted their practices to the perceived successes and failures of earlier ones. The Khmer Rouge used China and the Soviet Union (and Vietnam and North Korea) as reference societies, while China used the Soviet Union. All addressed the same basic problem - how to apply a revolutionary vision of a future industrial society to a present agrarian one. These two dimensions, of time and agrarian backwardness, help account for many of the differences." ..."Ordinary party members were also ideologically driven, believing that in order to create a new socialist society, they must lead in socialist zeal. Killings were often popular, tha rank-and-file as keen to exceed killing quotas as production quotas. The pervasive role of the party inside the state also meant that authority structures were not fully institutionalized but factionalized, even chaotic, as revisionists studying the Soviet Union have argued. Both centralized control and mass party factionalism were involved in the killings." ..."This also made for Plans nurtured by these regimes that differed from those envisioned in my sixth thesis. Much of the Communist organization of killing was more orderly than that of the ethnonationalists. Communists were more statist. But only the Plans that killed the fewest people were fully intended and occurred at early stages of the process. There is no equivalent of the final solution, and the last desperate attempt to achieve goals by mass murder after all other Plans have failed. The greatest Communist death rates were not intended but resulted from gigantic policy mistakes worsened by factionalism, and also somewhat by callous or revengeful views of the victims. But - with the Khmer Rouge as a borderline case - no Communist regime contemplated genocide. This is the biggest difference between Communist and ethnic killers: Communists caused mass deaths mainly through disastrous policy mistakes; ethnonationalists killed more deliberately."
- Michael Mann, UCLA sociologist, in a chapter called "Communist Cleansing: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot" from his book "The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing" published by Cambridge University Press.
  • "Dynamics of destruction/subjugation were also developed systematically by twentieth-century communist regimes, but against a very different domestic political background. The destruction of the very foundations of the former society (and consequently the men and women who embodied it) reveals the determination of the ruling elites to build a new one at all costs. The ideological conviction of leaders promoting such a political scheme is thus decisive. Nevertheless, it would be far too simplistic an interpretation to assume that the sole purpose of inflicting these various forms of violence on civilians could only aim at instilling a climate of terror in this 'new society'. In fact, they are part of a broader whole, i.e. the spectrum of social engineering techniques implememted in order to transform a society completely. There can be no doubt that it is this utopia of a classless society which drives that kind of revolutionary project. The plan for political and social reshaping will thus logically claim victims in all strata of society. And through this process, communist systems emerging in the twentieth century ended up destroying their own populations, not because they planned to annihilate them as such, but because they aimed to restructure the 'social body' from top to bottom, even if that meant purging it and recarving it to suit their new Promethean political imaginaire." ..."'Classicide', in counterpoint to genocide, has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes, beyond their intention of destroying 'classes' - a difficult notion to grasp in itself (what exactly is a 'kulak'?) - end up making political suspicion a rule of government: even within the Party (and perhaps even mainly within the Party). The notion of 'fratricide' is probably more appropriate in this regard. That of 'politicide', which Ted Gurr and Barbara Harff suggest, remains the most intelligent, although it implies by contrast that 'genocide' is not 'political', which is debatable. These authors in effect explain that the aim of politicide is to impose total political domination over a group or a government. Its victims are defined by their position in the social hierarchy or their political opposition to the regime or this dominant group. Such an approach applies well to the political violence of communist powers and more particularly to Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea. The French historian Henri Locard in fact emphasises this, identifying with Gurr and Harff's approach in his work on Cambodia. However, the term 'politicide' has little currency among some researchers because it has no legal validity in international law. That is one reason why Jean-Louis Margolin tends to recognise what happened in Cambodia as 'genocide' because, as he points out, to speak of 'politicide' amounts to considering Pol Pot's crimes as less grave than those of Hitler. Again, the weight of justice interferes in the debate about concepts that, once again, argue strongly in favour of using the word genocide. But those so concerned about the issue of legal sanctions should also take into account another legal concept that is just as powerful, and better established: that of crime against humanity. In fact, legal scholars such as Antoine Garapon and David Boyle believe that the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge is much more appropriately categorised under the heading of crime against humanity, even if genocidal tendencies can be identified, particularly against the Muslim minority. This accusation is just as serious as that of genocide (the latter moreover being sometimes considered as a subcategory of the former) and should thus be subject to equally severe sentences. I quite agree with these legal scholars, believing that the notion of 'crime against humanity' is generally better suited to the violence perpetrated by communist regimes, a viewpoint shared by Michael Mann."
- Jacques Semelin, professor of political science and research director at CERI-CNRS in Paris and founder of the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, in his chapters "Destroying to Subjugate: Communist regimes: Reshaping the social body" and "Destroying to eradicate: Politicidal regimes?" in his translated book "Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide" published in english by Columbia University Press.
  • "The modern search for a perfect, utopian society, whether racially or ideologically pure is very similar to the much older striving for a religiously pure society free of all polluting elements, and these are, in turn, similar to that other modern utopian notion - class purity. Dread of political and economic pollution by the survival of antagonistic classes has been for the most extreme communist leaders what fear of racial pollution was for Hitler. There, also, material explanations fail to address the extent of the killings, gruesome tortures, fantastic trails, and attempts to wipe out whole categories of people that occurred in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The revolutionary thinkers who formed and led communist regimes were not just ordinary intellectuals. They had to be fanatics in the true sense of that word. They were so certain of their ideas that no evidence to the contrary could change their minds. Those who came to doubt the rightness of their ways were eliminated, or never achieved power. The element of religious certitude found in prophetic movements was as important as their Marxist science in sustaining the notion that their vision of socialism could be made to work. This justified the ruthless dehumanization of their enemies, who could be suppressed because they were 'objectively' and 'historically' wrong. Furthermore, if events did not work out as they were supposed to, then that was because class enemies, foreign spies and saboteurs, or worst of all, internal traitors were wrecking the plan. Under no circumstances could it be admitted that the vision itself might be unworkable, because that meant capitulation to the forces of reaction. The logic of the situation in times of crisis then demanded that these 'bad elements' (as they were called in Maoist China) be killed, deported, or relegated to a permanently inferior status. That is very close to saying that the community of God, or the racially pure volksgemeinschaft could only be guaranteed if the corrupting elements within it were eliminated (Courtois et al. 1999)."
- Daniel Chirot, Professor of International Studies and Sociology at the University of Washington, and Clark R. McCauley, Professor of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College and Director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, in the chapter "Why Genocides? Are they different now than in the past?: The four main motives leading to mass political murder" in their book "Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder", published by Princeton University Press.

AmateurEditor (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four sources published for a popular audience certainly does little to argue against the notion that this is a minority viewpoint with no evidence of significant acceptance of the concept in the broad academic community. No one is objecting to the exact same information being presented, but there is a HUGE difference between covering a minority viewpoint, and basing entire articles on a viewpoint to suggest it as fact and preclude coverage of competing views. Neutrality has to be respected and articles certainly can't be written to cater to sources in a way to give coverage far beyond the level of broad acceptance of a viewpoint. Writing an article from a minority viewpoint in such a way that it essentially begs the question on whether linking the two concepts is justified leads directly to the charge that this can only serve as a POV fork. BigK HeX (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the above academics were published by respected university presses (Cornell, Cambridge, Columbia, and Princeton). Simply asserting that these four sources represent a minority viewpoint does not make it so (you must demonstrate that assertion with a source of your own, which you have not done). But even if they were minority POV, that is not a reason for deleting the article. You are also making a mistake that the article itself is based on a viewpoint. It isn't. It exists to document the variety of viewpoints and issues about the topic of mass killings under communist regimes (a topic which refers to fact, not opinion. No one disputes that there were mass killings under communist regimes; after reading the above, no one should dispute that reliable sources sufficiently discuss the topic for a Wikipedia article, either). Your position seems to be that the topic itself is evidence of bias. This is no more true than saying that the Ulysses S. Grant presidential administration scandals article demonstrates by its existence a bias against that president or republicans in general. If reliable sources exist which discuss a topic at length enough for an article to be written on Wikipedia, then that article can be written. Period. We do not have to wait for a parent article to be written. We do not have to wait until all sources are known before beginning to write it. All the talk about editing issues are irrelevant to this AfD, which is only about reasons for deletion. The above four sources alone are enough to justify the article and topic. Of course, they are nowhere near all the reliable sources already gathered (as the article, and other posts, presently show). No one is objecting to the creation of a parent general mass killing article. But as one of the above sources says: "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes." So I expect that there will be a link in that article to this one. Wikipedia policy on academic consensus states that "Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." This is exactly what has been done. If editors believe that the sources presently included in the article so far make the article lopsided, the solution is to add more sources, not to delete the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Simply asserting that these four sources represent a minority viewpoint does not make it so (you must demonstrate that assertion with a source of your own, which you have not done)."
We're all experienced editors here, and we're all well-aware that the burden of proof for material included in any wiki article falls to the editor(s) wishing to support its usage. I have no burden of proof to show that the material that you support within the article is not mainstream; and, of course, this is quite sensible, since forcing me to prove that this theory is being ignored by the broader academic commuinty would amount to proving a negative. More importantly though, I've cited policy numerous times already and the Wikipedia policy spells out (in explicit detail) that the burden of proof is on editors supporting the text to show that it is not WP:FRINGE; policy even suggests how editors meet that burden of proof. If you are able to meet the burden, then feel free to weigh in on the talk page where other supporting editors have failed -- it would be a *huge* step forward for this article.
There's a big difference between notability of a topic and the academic acceptance of that same topic --- no one here disagrees with the former [notability], but this AfD is about the abuse of the latter [minority viewpoint]. We cover notable viewpoints, but merely being notable is not a license for us to be reckless in that coverage, of course. We still have the WP:NPOV policy pillar to uphold.
As for deletion ... constructing an article such that it is written from a minority perspective disregarding mainstream thought is a textbook form of POV fork and a gross violation of the NPOV pillar. It is explicitly spelled out in WP policy that an accepted remedy for an unredeemable POV fork is deletion; the deletion policy lists this as a justification. BigK HeX (talk) 05:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re Courtois, it is hardly mainstream (see [37] and the criticism on the BB's talk page), although the Werth's chapter on Stalinism is good. The problem is that he wrote a separate chapter where he expressed his separate opinion which does not coincide with Courtois' generalisations. No one argues that each of the events described in the article is notable. The problem is that the generalisations made by writers like Courtois are not mainstream.
Re other sources, I am not sure they can be used as an agrument against synthesis because the authors' thoughts have been taken into account in the article only partially: for instance, the idea of the lack of intentionality, except in Kampuchea (Mann), the idea of the lack of commonality (most regimes did not commit mass killings, according to Valentino), fundamental difference between communist and racist mass killings (Mann), a non-typical, borderline case of Kampuchea (Mann and Semelin). All these sources have been used in the article, however, they are used selectively, because any attempts to create both balanced and neutral article will lead to fragmentary and poorly connected text that will easily fall apart. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. (vote by Paul Siebert ... see below in collapsed textblock)
  • Keep, same as before. Arguments for deletion are nothing more but WP:IDONTLIKEIT, another disruptive nomination same as all previous ones. The subject is thoroughly discussed in scientific literature, the article is neutral (especially considering it is discusses the deeds of the most inhuman regimes that have ever existed) and WP:SYNTH accusation needs to be backed up with something, it really isn't a blanket statement.
Also, could we get a rule about repeated deletion nominations? This article is nominated for deletion every two months - and is invariably kept. Perhaps the time of Wikipedians could be used for something useful for Wikipedia instead of dealing with disruptive deletion nominations? And could the proponents for deletion please stop attacking everybody who don't agree with their viewpoint?
--Sander Säde 08:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This a clearly notable topic discussed in a a large number of reliable sources. Deletion rationales are clearly flawed. An article being problematic is not a reason for deletion. And article still needing "fixing" is not a reason for deletion - Wikipedia is not on a deadline. This is no more a fork of "killings in the 20th century" than Armenian Genocide. The article does not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE, as the sources show. WP:NPOV is a reason for improvement, not deletion and covering subjects like this is no more a violation of NPOV than Trail of Tears or Witch trials in Early Modern Europe or Mai Lai Massacre. Edward321 (talk) 18:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The article does not violate WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE, as the sources show."
Please note that zero WP:RS have been presented (in the manner prescribed by WP:FRINGE) to show that the article's chosen combination of topics is supported by any theories that have gained much academic acceptance. (see talk page for lack of RS) BigK HeX (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehh... I'm in two minds about this. For one, I think we're falling into the classic post hoc ergo proctor hoc trap, as people have done so many times in real life by pointing out that most communist regimes were atheistic. As Richard Dawkins countered to the "atheists are genocidal" canard, Hitler and Stalin both had moustaches too. But there is a strong correalation nevertheless, and we have a similar article for mass killings under capitalist regimes... I'm going to stick as neutral. Sceptre (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion stemming from the votes[edit]

Attempts to summarise the votes[edit]

  • A comment on multiple "keeps" under a pretext of a subject's notability and wealth of sources" Since the reason for the present nomination is not the lack of sources or insufficient notability of the subject, but synthesis and neutrality issues, the latter two have to be addressed in every keep posts, otherwise these posts have zero weight. The article that violates neutrality and NOR criteria cannot be kept just because it meets the verifiability criterion.
    Similarly, numerous keeps with references to the results of previous AfD's can hardly be an argument: WP is not a democracy, and the results of previous consensus cannot be automatically applied to the present-days situation. For instance, it is quite possible that the article have deteriorated since those times, or that subsequent course of the event demonstrated that the issues, which seemed to be easily resolvable appeared to be impossible to resolve.
    In connection to that, I expect all editors who want to keep the article to explain why neutrality and NOR are not violated in their opinion. If they are not able to prove that, butthey believe that these two issues can be resolved, I expect them to propose possible ways to do that. As I explained many times, I personally believe that both POV and SYNTH can be removed from this article, so the article can be kept, provided, but only provided, that:
  1. A consensus will be achieved to convert the mass killing article from just a redirect page into the full article that will be the main article for genocide, other ***cides, the Holocaust, mass murder and various mass killings *** article, and, accordingly, to make the present article a "mass killings" daughter article.
  2. A consensus will be achieved to move most general theorising (about genocide, "mass killings", etc) from the Mass killings under Communist regimes to there.
  3. A consensus will be achieved to discuss differences between various Communist regimes, to diminish a stress on the Marxist ideology as a primary reason for mass killings, and to provide alternative explanations for the events described in the article.
IMO, these measures can protect the article from future AfD's (that, I am sure, will follow even if this AfD will be unsuccessful). I am waining for constructive comments from the article proponents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a constructive way forward, and it fits well with the creation of Mass killings under Capitalist regimes as another daughter article of mass killing. Ultimately I'm still not sure how useful any of this is (we already have Genocides in history), but this approach would be the best way to focus on what is actually encyclopedic, organise it appropriately, and ultimately bridge the delete/keep divide. Rd232 talk 19:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering making pretty much all of the same points that Paul Siebert has collated. Objections have been detailed here and here and here and here and here and here, but ultimately this AfD is about concerns about the article serving as a WP:POVFORK which has largely been left unaddressed here despite POVFORKs being a gross violation of the NPOV core policy (specifically, WP:UNDUE and UNDUE points us to WP:FRINGE for further advisement). As directed by policy, an examination of WP:FRINGE gives us the following directive: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." If the core concept that this article has been written about must be treated as outside of academic consensus, then the article is written decidely from this minority viewpoint, in direct violation of NPOV, with the result being a POV fork. It would be nice if the discussion addressed these explicitly-listed issues with arguments based in policy, and bolstered by RS. BigK HeX (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That`s a bit shouty, but in response to If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing Did`nt i post six thus far on the article talk page? With this one being the most recent This combination of ideology and organization permits the killing of millions mark nutley (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BigK Hex: You're now declaring it's fringe, but there are ample mainstream sources, numerous books, Harvard and Dartmouth professors, the National Review, Weekly Standard, a book from France, etc., etc. And not one cite you've provided to demonstrate that this theory (that you clearly take some issue with) is fringe, like pseudo science or UFOs. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it non-notable. Repeating the assertion over and over is not convincing. Provide some evidence. Shadowjams (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@marknutley. The authors you cited do not pretend to express the opinion of scholarly community. They simply analysed two data sets, Harff's and Rummel's, leaving, btw, the question of validity of these numbers beyond the scope.
@Marknutley&Shadowjams. Could you please comment on the major point, namely, that all keep posts are supposed to address the POV and FORK issues (either to prove that no such issues exist, or to propose the solution of the problem), not verifiability or notability (which, afaik, have not been contested).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to comment on POV ar FORK issues as there are none, other than the perceived one`s in some editors minds that is. For instance Verbal has said the title is not NPOV yet does not actually say how it is not even when asked multipile times mark nutley (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal assurance is not enough. Please, provide an evidence, otherwise your voice has no weight.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking him to prove a negative. That is, as you are aware, impossible. It's up to *you* to show that there are POV or FORK issues. Please do so on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no request to "prove a negative." More relevant, there IS a request to meet the burden of proof as explicitly described by WP policies. mark does not understand how to meet that proof (as evidenced by his numerous attempts to do so which clearly do not qualify), and up to this point, you've only tried to shift the burden of proof despite it being clearly spelled out.
As Paul Siebert recommends, we may do well to keep this discussion focused on the POV fork objections raised in this AfD. BigK HeX (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert - Sure I'll address your concern. I assume you're saying it's a WP:POVFORK, although it's a little unclear from which article you think it's forked. It's clearly not a content fork because this material isn't covered directly elsewhere (except on our articles on the individual books that discuss it). The article's huge too, easily being a breakoff fork from other articles. And if the original fork was from Genocide, that created enough of hassle by some of the same people here now, that it was renamed to what it is now. Are they now arguing that the name is the issue? That's what I mean by shifting goalposts. And really, even if it was initially a POV fork, it's been through 5 of these discussions now.
The relevant language in the POV guideline is this: "apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless of the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view" (emphasis added). It is about notability, ultimately. Shadowjams (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "It is about notability, ultimately." You meant neutrality I think. Yes, that is the major issue. Why, in your opinion, the article meets this criterion? And what about SYNTH?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All you have to do is scroll up. Shadowjams (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through all your posts, however, there refs you provided did not impress me. They are either the refs to dubious web sites or to the books we already discussed on other talk pages and found them controversial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curious which website I cited, not particularly convinced you actually looked through my sources very thoroughly. Actually, I think all of my "dubious websites" were links to wiki articles, or perhaps a Harvard University Press page. You're not convincing many people. Shadowjams (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found it. The dubious website is the Congressional approved (Established by Authorization of Congressional Resolution H.R. 3000 & Presidential Approval, Public Law 103-199) Victims of Communism Memorial page. That and the Harvard University Press. Shadowjams (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the reason for the present nomination is not the lack of sources or insufficient notability of the subject, but synthesis and neutrality issues - You have yet to show that these issues exist, and those issues are fixable, and not a reason for deletion. We can fix the issues, if you tell us what they are, which you refuse. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I demonstrated that many times, so now you have to show that these issues do not exists. However, since I didn't vote to delete the article, for me it would be sufficient if you just proposed a way to fix these issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you demonstrate that? You brought up no concerns with the article when asked. See Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#Specific_concerns_with_the_article. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because Paul Siebert brought up that huge specific list prior to the section that you've linked. To repeatedly suggest that people haven't explained their objections in-depth in the face of huge posts like this and this and this and this and this and this is pretty astonishing willfulness. BigK HeX (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These have all been discussed and answered or fixed. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also interesting to note how every delete proponent declare the others arguments as invalid and says the basis for the AfD is something completely different. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD's basis is FORK (neutrality) and SYNTH. Please explain, where and when I changed my arguments? Of course, since I am not a proponent of full deletion, just of major revision, you probably imply this is not addressed to me... --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did anyone say you changed your arguments? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


All Article objections summarized[edit]

I'm not neutral in this debate, but let's use this as a section break to clarify the ongoing issues. I've tried to be as neutral as possible phrasing the following. Please correct below if I'm wrong and please specify if you're correcting me (rather than just addressing these points).

Current arguments for deletion center around these points:

  1. Article is a Synthesis because while mass killings occured under communist regimes, there's nothing unique about those events to connect them. Connecting them is a synthesis combining those events into an unsupported theme and article.
    To the extent there are sources to support this, they are fringe and not mainstream expressions of scholarship. Ultimately these are questions of balance per Undue guidelines.
  2. Article does not have a Neutral point of view, in part because it does not address Marxist viewpoints.
  3. The article is a POV fork of Criticisms of communist party rule and thus outside of policy. Issues are covered elsewhere, such as in The Killing Fields.
  4. Article is an indiscriminate collection of information (nominator statement).
  5. The name is inaccurate and the article should be moved to a more appropriate name.

Again, if I've excluded a valid point that's different from these, or these unfairly slight a point, please correct it. I believe the article's worthy of inclusion, but in the interest of clarity, particularly for new editors [who will ultimately determine this mess], I hope we can all agree at least on what our points of contention are. Shadowjams (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are the arguments, yes. Are they issues, no. But there is no point to take that debate again, the correct place for that is the articles talk page, which unfortunately the people that are for deletion refuse to do. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Article does not have a Neutral point of view because it does not address Marxist viewpoints". Shadowjams, I cannot believe you actually wrote that. Do you believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a Communist? Do you think that because someone does not believe everything they hear on Fox News or read in the NY Post is a Communist? Yesterday the NY post published an article that says the Taliban is providing machine gun training for monkeys in their fight against Americans. I do not believe that. Does that make me a Communist? One of your publications said that Obama was born in Kenya. Do only Communists doubt that? By the way, where did you get this idea from? There is nothing in the discussion to support it. TFD (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His statement directly reflects one of the editors above. His list looks mostly fair. BigK HeX (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, cool down, take four steps back and WP:AGF. That exact viewpoint has been expressed. Stop making big fight about pointless details, and stop being so accusatory. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TFD: Look, I suspect you and I have some opinions we don't necessarily agree on. But before you brand me your opposite, I may disagree with you on some things, but you'd also note we're in agreement on a current WP:ANI issue, and this is not the first time we've interacted amicably. I have political opinions, most of which aren't the least bit public or relevant here, but I worry that you've assumed entirely too much about my political opinion. Here, I'm concerned with the notability criteria as I see it. This isn't about personal politics. Let's discuss the merits, not each other. Shadowjams (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which of "[my] publications said Obama was born in Kenya?". I wouldn't make such an absurd statement. As I already discussed above, I cited wiki pages, google searches, a single external link to a congressionally approved program's webpage. What are you talking about?! Check your sources before you reply. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note though that the bit about Marxist viewpoints is only ONE of the objections citing an NPOV problem. One other includes "writing from a minority viewpoint" in violation of policy described in WP:UNDUE. Also, with the title, there are NPOV objections to that; Wikipedia:UNDUE#Article_naming instructs us that "encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality". Good list, though! BigK HeX (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... there's also a question of the balance given to some of the article's sources and then the academic rebuttals to those sources [Rummel, in particular], leading to a different WP:UNDUE problem. BigK HeX (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to screw you over here BigK! We've worked together before, and I'm grateful for that. I added "in part" to point 2. I figured point 1a (the indent) would address the undue issues (but I added that; see below), and point 5 the titles. I'm not being an advocate in the above part. I'm trying to boil down the issues as fairly as possible, so if we're going to argue it gets us somewhere. I also added the undue piece. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... I didn't see any intent to "screw over"! Quite the opposite. I think it's great that you boiled the issues down pretty accurately. I was just mentioning a few of the extra items that people might want on there, in case you found my interpretation helpful for your mini-project here. BigK HeX (talk) 09:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that list pretty much covers every major policy objection. Hopefully, it's the start of something amazing. Good work! BigK HeX (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - concerning move, would anyone like to comment on Communist party involvement in mass killings as a possible neutral name ? I think it works because it doesn't link the ideology Communism directly to mass killings, and removes the word "regime" which has negative connotations. There's a simple definition of a Communist party - it's a party which calls itself "Communist", or openly states that it abides by the principles of Marxist-Leninism, which is much easier to classify. Claritas § 18:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the wrong place to discuss a move, keep it for the article talk page mark nutley (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, this is a perfectly sensible place to discuss a move, as the scope of the article and NPOV issues are the principle arguments for deletion. Claritas § 18:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And for the umpteenth time, per [Wikipedia deletion policy, "NPOV" and "article scope" are NOT valid reason for deletion, even if these were actually valid concerns, which they're not. The only valid reason cited - but not substantiated - above for deletion is that the article may be a CONTENTFORK. But it seems people can't even make up their mind what it is a content fork of.
In regards to your move proposal, right now I'm neutral. Basically I don't really see a need for it. The title's fine as it is. I am open to persuasion however.radek (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the current title is the word "regime", which is normally defined as "the government of a particular country, especially one that is considered to be oppressive". There's an implication that authoritarianism goes hand-in-hand with Communism, which is simply not true (see Anarcho-Communism for instance). Claritas § 19:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are tons of possible tweaks to the names, some which may make it more acceptable for everyone. But that's not a reason for deletion. Start a renaming discussion on the talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see many ways to fix the issue of the article title making undue implications. Currently, of course, the title strongly suggests that the obvious defining attribute of "Communist regimes" (the obvious attribute being "communism," of course) is an attribute worthy of being singled out. The only way I see around this is to use some sort of Wikipedia Title disambiguation structure. Something like [[Mass killings under XXXXX (Communist parties)]] would immediately suggest that this is an attempt to create a valid subtopic content fork of a larger topic and that the subject matter of "Mass killings" could extend beyond characteristics intrinsic to Communist parties. This title encourages a proper context for minority theories (such as those regarding a specific link between "Mass killings" and the broad defining characteristics of "communist parties"), thus nothing would be lost for those who (rightly) would like the notable scholars to be covered. Technically speaking, a title which is neutral (and does not make implications that reach more broadly than available RS) would be something like [[Mass killings under related groups (Communist parties)]], but something like [[Mass killings related to government bodies (Communist parties)]] is probably acceptable enough, though it still has issues. BigK HeX (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I can't follow what you are saying here. Can you reformulate this with a simpler sentence structure and less run-on sentences? Are you suggesting that "Mass killings under related groups (communist parties)" would be a good title? What does that title even *mean*? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That title's meaning is pretty simple. It is the "top-level" (non-existent) parent of the current POV article. "Mass killings that have been attributed to groups that share a relationship of some sort" is the long version of the concept. In any case, I may elaborate on the talk page -- I don't really see this as the best place, even though it has the widest attention at the moment. BigK HeX (talk) 08:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is like the Nth compromise on this topic but if it will help to resolve the issue and put an end to these multiple AfDs, I can support Communist party involvement in mass killings. I would also like to see "Mass killings under Capitalist regimes" moved to Mass killings under Colonial regimes since that is what that article's mostly about anyway.radek (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Late Victorian Holocausts has a lot about 19th century China, which was not under colonial rule. Not presently covered in the article, but I'm drawing a line for input given the enthusiasm for deleting material and sources, and nobody helping me find material. PS Indonesian killings of 1965–66 is a notable example of colonialism mass killings, is it? Rd232 talk 23:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the [[Mass killings under Communist regimes]] ==> [[Communist party involvement in mass killings]], it barely mitigates the problem, if at all, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 05:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is the problem in the first place? Can you explain that in clear terms? There is no doubt that communist regimes have engaged in mass killings, and also no doubt that they have been some of the worst in history, and there is also no doubt that many scholars do blame communism in itself, while you who say the topic is a problem have big problems finding scholars saying the opposite. So can you explain what is the problem, really? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See previous posts. BigK HeX (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it solves quite a bit of the problem, in at least focussing the topic on an unambiguous self-identifier, and not on a highly contentious "ism". It also focusses on the responsibility which is the article focus (after all, under the present title, is it really appropriate to exclude non-Communist-responsibility mass killings in a Communist country?) Rd232 talk 09:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current title uses "Communist" ... your proposal uses "Communist". I don't really see how your proposal of changing "regime" to "party" ends up with less focus on the "ism". BigK HeX (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Rd232: IMO, something like [[Involvement of specific Communist parties in mass killings]] might take a noticeable step in the direction that you seem to be suggesting (though a merger into the proper "Genocide" article is probably still ideal). BigK HeX (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content[edit]

Extended content
Some issues[edit]
    • Insufficient consideration of Marxist viewpoints, use of biased sources (BBoC), stressing of minority views.
    • Connections between each individual mass killing are tenuous. There needs to be some sort of indication as to how mass killings are related to Communism.
    • All the individual mass killings have received tons of reliable coverage, but there seems to be very little reliable or neutral coverage of how mass killings relate to communism, which is the synth issue. Claritas § 21:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. For instance, following opinions exists:
  1. That whereas the USSR, along with many no-Communist states, belonged to a category of states that committed genocide, it was, by contrast to Nazi Germany or Campuchea, not genocidal by its nature;
  2. That most Communist regimes in Asia and Africa (which committed most mass killings) have evolved from the societies with deep authoritarian traditions, so there is no strong connection between onset of mass killings and Marxism;
  3. That Communist world was not a monolith, and many (if not majority) of communist regimes committed no mass killings.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and many (if not majority) of communist regimes committed no mass killings you said this on the article talk page and i believe i proved you wrong. However please name one which did not engage in mass killings at some stage of it`s time in power mark nutley (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claritas: Firstly. Wouldn't it have been better if you brought these issue of on the talk page, when asked? Why do you have to restart this discussion over and over and over? Why must this discussion spread to every non-article page on the whole of Wikipedia? If you have issues with the article, please take them up on the talk page, and they will be discussed, and if valid, fixed.
Secondly, none of your points are valid. 1. Nobody has brought up one single reliable source with an opposing marxist viewpoint. We can't include viewpoints that doesn't exist. 2. The connection is well sourced and discussed, it even has it's own section with various views on the subject. 3. This is just 2. again with a different wording. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul: Reliable sources, please. If opposing viewpoints can be reliably sourced, they can be added to the article. It is *not* a reason for deletion. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a theoretical Marxist source: [38]. This work covers the issue in places, but from a more neutral perspective - [39]. Claritas § 21:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@OpenFuture. Please, do not delete the other's comments[40]. Re sources. I provided these sources many times on the talk page. Since this page is not the article's talk page, I have no untentions to reprodice them here again.
@Marknutley. Re: "i believe i proved you wrong" Firstly, the only thing you proved on the talk page was that you don't know how to work with google search results; secondly, this statement is not mine. I took it from Valentino (p.91). --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD has a talk page, please present them there, go on just name one communist regime which did not engage in mass killings mark nutley (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul: Sorry, I have no idea how that happened. I certainly did not remove anything anywhere.
No, but you *could* reproduce them on the talk page. There has been multiple people and time where this has been requested. You have not. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claritas: That first source of yours was interesting. Not much was available online, but on page 88 they squarely blame everything on Leninism. Which, as you know, is a form of communism. It does in no way deny that the communist regimes engaged in mass killings. Neither does the second source. So how did these sources support your claims? --OpenFuture (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're hardly going to get sources arguing that Communists killing people didn't involve Communists killing people. The point of the source is that Lenin's interpretation of Marx is at fault, not Marx's original thesis. As you know, Marxist-Leninism is but one form of Communism (There are at least thirty or forty others, excluding sub-types). The article currently seems to suggest that there's something linking Communism in general with mass killings, and thus with Marx's ideology and killing people. This is mistaken. I'm no great fan of Marxist-Leninism (I'm more of a Marxist-Libertarian or Anarcho-Socialist or whatever), but the article needs to consider why Marxists think it happened or didn't happen. Claritas § 22:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diff demonstrated you did. Apology accepted, however.
A source for #1 is Eric D. Weitz Racial Politics without the Concept of Race: Reevaluating Soviet Ethnic and National Purges. Slavic Review, Vol. 61, No. 1 (Spring, 2002), pp. 1-29
A source for #2 is Helen Fein. Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975 to 1979, and in Indonesia, 1965 to 1966. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1993), pp. 796-823
A source for #3 is Valentino's "Final solution" (first page of his chapter on Communist mass killings). --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that #1 and #2 are legitimate, and sources-supported, viewpoints which need to be included in the article. On #3, it's also true that Valentino does say this. Unfortunately I don't have a hard copy of the book, and the part where he actually lists the communist regimes which did not engage in mass killings is not available online (neither google books nor amazon search inside) - I would be interested to see what he says. But a source is a source so, yes, this should also be put in somewhere. Anyways - all of this is fodder for talk page discussion, and none of it is a reason to delete the article.radek (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of this is the examples of article's non-neutrality, which must be fixed. The article must be (i) revised, or, if it will face serious opposition - (ii) deleted. My first choice if (i), however, under some circumstances I will be forced to support (ii). --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with neutrality are not a reason for deleting the article though. And I have this sneaky feeling that the article WILL ALWAYS face opposition, no matter what kind of improvements are made or what kind of compromises are agreed upon beforehand. Anyway, you have my support for introducing your #1 and #2 into the article (on #3 I want to see the full text from Valentino first).radek (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but what do you propose to do when the same persons simultaneously do the following two things: (i) oppose to the article deletion under pretext that neutrality issues can be fixed, and (ii) oppose to fixing of the neutrality issues? I probably made myself clear enough: the article may be kept if the neutrality and synth issues are resolved. I made some proposals which may allow us to resolve these issues. These proposals are generally ignored by the article's defenders. Is it a sign of good faith?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To OpenFuture. I've just been notified that my comment might disappear as a result of some WP glitch. Sorry for accusing you in that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "You are asking him to prove a negative" No. Both I and others several times explained what concrete neutrality and synthesis problems this article has. By asking many times the same question and by ignoring the answers we hardly can find a way from an impasse.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "On #3, it's also true that Valentino does say this. Unfortunately I don't have a hard copy of the book, and the part where he actually lists the communist regimes which did not engage in mass killings is not available online" I own it. When Valentino states that "most (Communist) regimes . . . have not engaged in mass killing," he is saying that these regimes did not kill 50,000 people in five years - his criteria for mass killing. He is not saying that they didn't commit any political killings period. On page 142 he discusses these "Less Violent Communist regimes": "Communist states such as Czechoslovakia, Cuba, Laos, and Nicaragua, among many others, never launched campaigns of mass killing against their citizens. Few of these states could be called pacific, but none experienced bloodshed to compare with the mass killings in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia." But we know that these states did engage in political killing at some point in their history. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a Communist state that never in its history executed people for political reasons. Cuba carried out political executions, as did Czechoslovakia. It should be noted that the aforementioned less violent regimes are discussed in the appropriate sections of The Black Book of Communism.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that was what my suspicion was - that by the statement that most communist states did not commit mass killings he just meant that they committed "less than quite mass" killings. I think this would tend to make Paul's #3 a lot weaker and probably not something to be included into the article, at least not without being explicit about the fact that these states just didn't quite live up to the Stalin/Mao/etc. legacy. I still think #1 and #2 are legit though.radek (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By no means it makes my point weaker. I never claimed that "did not commit mass killings" == "they were angels". That meant that the degree of evil did not significantly exceed the average level (comparable with that in those days Greece, Spain, Algeria, French Indochina, and other non-Communist territories), and, importantly that that put these countries beyond the article's scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not mix "mass killings" with "killings for political reasons". Killings for political reasons took place in many European countries (including semi-fascist regimes like Poland, Hungary, Latvia etc), especially in the countries where civil war occurred (Nicaragua, Cuba, etc). With regard to DDR, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Cuba, Romania, Poland and others, Valentino clearly writes that there is simply no documentary evidences that allow us to make a judgement about the scale and motives of mass killings (although the possibility that some mass killings occured cannot be ruled out). Taking into account that Valentino relied partially on Rummel's figures (although he does not accepts them fully) a possibility exists that his conclusion about these states was affected by Rummel. Re Yugoslavia, Rummel's astronomic figures have been contested by Dulic. In addition, most killings took place during or immediately after WWII, they were a consequence of Croatian-Nazi collaboration, so they may be considered just as a part of Allied war crimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of Valentino's arguments, and you're right about what he says here. Regarding Rummel, it's probably true that his estimates on "Tito's slaughterhouse" are too high. But nevertheless, hundreds of thousands were executed by his regime, mostly after the war. This is confirmed by mass graves discovered in Slovenia recently. In "Worse Than War," Goldhagen claims that some 100,000 to 200,000 people were killed during the Tito's consolidation of power (p. 51). Granted most were Ustase and other collaborators, but not all. It has been alleged that Tito saw an opportunity to knock off some dissidents and anti-Communists as well. I don't have a source for this at the moment unfortunately, as I can't remember where I read it.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claritas: Well, we're hardly going to get sources arguing that Communists killing people didn't involve Communists killing people. - No, but what you need is sources saying that communists didn't kill people. Otherwise your argument has no basis. And you have no such sources. QED. Now stop discussing the article here, and do it on the articles talk page. There are a section there to add the issues you have with the article. Do that. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge[edit]
  • Comment: If we're throwing out suggestions, why not allow common sense to intrude? Merge both the Capitalist and Communist articles into Mass killing and Genocides in history. Discuss the actual object of interest (mass killing), without forcing it into a pre-determined coatracky political frame, leaving the details of specific genocides for elsewhere. (The alternative I specified before, of focussing on historiography instead of history is also valid, but I don't see that happening; and also a merge as suggested might encourage more of that sort of thing.) Rd232 talk 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this suggestion doesn't change the current debate because it's the functional equivalent of a delete of this topic. I wouldn't support a merge because I think this topic is sufficiently notable. I would be ok either of those additional articles, but they already exist. Shadowjams (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into a Genocide article is the cleanest solution, but the "Communist regimes" article would have to be trimmed considerably before a merge would be appropriate. BigK HeX (talk) 04:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As been noted multiple times, such a merging would create a huge article, which would soon see a "under communist regimes" article split out again. So pretty pointless merge. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it wouldn't necessarily create a huge article. Apparently you've overlooked that I suggested merging into TWO existing articles (and between the lines - "leaving the details of specific genocides for elsewhere" - possibly for the case-specific articles which clearly exist already). The result would leave a slimmed down focus on analytical argument about the entire topic of "mass killing" whatever the cause. That this is so unpalatable to those who want a Communist article seems at root ideological (whether they realise it or not), in forcing everything into a "Communist cause" frame (and by the by, wanting to delete equivalent articles about other causes). Rd232 talk 09:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this. If it gets too long, we can split it in a neutral way: i.e. - Mass killings in the 19th century, Mass killings in the 20th century etc. Claritas § 10:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support Claritas' compromise merger proposal. Verbal chat 10:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I would suggest that the best way to split a slimmed-down analytical mass killings article (if/when necessary) is not necessarily predictable now, because it would involve such substantial rewriting (and splitting off details elsewhere). Chronological split is one possibility, but others would undoubtedly emerge and there's no benefit to deciding how now (though identifying more possibilities might possibly be helpful in this discussion). Rd232 talk 10:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on here. One constant argument against "Mku Communist R" (I'm getting tired of writing it out, sorry) is that there is not shown that the ideology of the regime is a cause, and that the grouping therefore is wrong. But you want to group it per century! How exactly is the century a cause?  :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It becomes a chronology, and the historical context is important to understand any cause. Verbal chat 12:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this suggestion, a blatant attempt to bury communist mass killings. There is nothing wrong with the current article other than several pov pushers who seem to think that an article about mass killings under communist regimes is not a neutral name for an article about mass killings under communist regimes. And i have yet to see an actual valid reason as to why this is so, other then "just because it is" mark nutley (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hint: The POV pushing is probably from people who are trying to create an article written from a minority viewpoint in order to promote an idea found only in a handful of sources (so far, 6 by your own count), as if it were some kind of well-known "fact". BigK HeX (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the historical context is important to understand any cause. - Yes, but it's way less important than the nature of communist regimes. I'd oppose such a move. Sorry. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claritas's suggestion is the best one yet for respecting WP:NPOV. And since the common phrase seen in the sources is that "the 20th century is the bloodiest ever" it makes for a useful grouping in that respect. I fully support the notion. BigK HeX (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be accurate, Claritas said "I would support this. If it gets too long, we can split it in a neutral way" (emphasis added). The proposal is the merger to mass killing and/or Genocides in history (to focus on the broad factors for mass killing, without arbitrarily excluding everything not attributable by somebody or other to Communism). Rd232 talk 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you think mass killings did not happen under communist regimes would i believe put you in a minority viewpoint, in fact to say such a thing is wp:fringe I believe the AFD is looking like a keep again, just like the last one was so this talk of a merge or move is just a way around the consensus to keep the article mark nutley (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD actually looks a delete given the number of "keeps" that fail to address the concern here.
As for your speculation about what I supposedly "think," it's been made clear that you fail to grasp the difference between what one thinks and what WP:RSs say, and how to avoid creating a POV COATRACK that blatantly suggests far more than any RS can support. We do not take stereotypical propaganda, find a few sources for it, fight against criticisms of those few sources and then create blatantly biased articles like [[Terrible driving under women]]. It is fine is to create neutral articles that cover the same ideas, but COATRACKS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. BigK HeX (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don`t shout. There is no coatrack here, or are you saying mass killings did not happen under communist regimes? There i no POV, as mass killings did happen under communist regimes. Are you saying every source in the article is stereotypical propaganda? Well it beats the usual rubbish of it being fringe i suppose mark nutley (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Proving it's not outside academic acceptance is YOUR burden of proof -- one you've repeatedly failed to meet. Your personal opinion that it's not fringe is the rubbish. BigK HeX (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to mass killing and/or Genocides in history, seems like the most reasonable and maintainable solution. Nuujinn (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "As been noted multiple times, such a merging would create a huge article" IMO, this problem can easily be solved. Even a bigger topic can be covered by a single article, e.g. WWII. The full Mass killing article must be created, because the present situation is simply ridiculous. My conclusion is:
Merge. However, after that a completely modified article should be created which discusses all aspects of connection between Communism and Mass killings. Let me consider Democratic Kampuchea as an example. I found that, although reliable sources do draw a connection between KR's Communist beliefs and genocide there, at least two other important components are also being taken into account by them: a very strong Khmer nationalism and national tradition of revenge. Since both of these things have no roots in Marxism (and directly contradict to it), the really comprehensive analysis of the issue must include a discussion of mutual interaction and relative contribution of these factors. The sources allow us to do that. Similar analysis of the effect of historic context and national peculiarities on the onset of mass killings should be provided for other Communist regimes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment The article cannot be merged with any "Genocide" article, because "genocide" is a strict legal term. The number of XX century genocides is limited, and only few of them were committed by the regimes that claimed their adherence to one or another form of Communist doctrine. Most deaths under communist regimes (including many well known crimes) are not covered by a term "genocide". It is not possible to merge it with Democide, because this concept seems not to be widely accepted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is ideal. If you think we can keep the size manageable, then there's certainly no reason not to pursue this the NPOV way. BigK HeX (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with WWII tells me that the size always can be kept manageable, provided that the summary style is observed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You guys seem to be intent on ignoring all the editors above who have said keep this article, I wonder why that is. Again, you cannot merge this article just because wp:idontlikeit If the consensus is for it to stay then no move or merger will happen. Trying to merge this much information into another article will swamp any article and then this lot will just get split off into it`s own article again. Why can`t you guys just get over the fact that communists butchered a lot of people, and there should be an article about it? mark nutley (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or... you can get over the fact that you don't have the RS for such an unbalanced POV presentation of the information. WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies to those who have no arguments (aside from their personal opinions) -- guess which side YOU fall on, since you're intent on arguing your opinion against us who have cited specific violations. BigK HeX (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

For christs sakes, more than enough sources have been presented showing communist mass killings. You just refuse to see it. mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's all remain civil. FWIW, I think the incidents are clearly notable, the question is one of how to present them. If merging to Genocide, then perhaps merge to Mass Killings in History, or Mass Killings by Governments? As for size issues, most of the incidents can stand on their own as articles and likely should be, so I think moving to a summary style makes sense in the long run. Nuujinn (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merger would certainly solve the minority POV issues. BigK HeX (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re: "more than enough sources have been presented showing communist mass killings" ... and more than enough sources that discuss other aspects and other reasons have been left beyond the scope. As I already pointed out, this AfD has no relation to the issue of the lack of sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For anyone new to this put off by the WP:TLDR effect, here's the nub of it, beneath much smoke and mirrors:

as PaulSiebert said: " Let me consider Democratic Kampuchea as an example. I found that, although reliable sources do draw a connection between KR's Communist beliefs and genocide there, at least two other important components are also being taken into account by them: a very strong Khmer nationalism and national tradition of revenge. Since both of these things have no roots in Marxism (and directly contradict to it), the really comprehensive analysis of the issue must include a discussion of mutual interaction and relative contribution of these factors."

The article under its present title and form precludes an effective discussion of any individual case of mass killing. It should be merged, split, turned inside out or whatever - whatever it takes to allow an appropriate analytical approach which neither downplays (for those concerned with this above all) the views of some about the role of Communist ideology in these cases, nor the role of other attendant factors specific to each; nor precludes inclusion of cases of mass killings where Communist ideology is not a plausible factor. That is why a Merge to mass killing is the only encyclopedic outcome. However, should this increasingly messy AFD not end with that, I hope somebody goes and expands mass killing appropriately, turn that into a good article which puts this one to shame and ultimately makes even its current supporters see the wisdom of a merge. Rd232 talk 21:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the best idea. Unfortunately, I cannot contribute extensively to this article during next three weeks, but I am ready to provide all support I can after that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both Rd232 and Paul. (Igny (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
"The article under its present title and form precludes an effective discussion of any individual case of mass killing."No, the present title actually encourages discussion of individual cases of mass killing because it is titled "Mass killings (plural) under Communist regimes". The current title so encourages discussion of individual cases that there is currently a list of individual cases in the article right now. I understand that balance in the article is an issue, but if all the deletion discussion effort by pro-deletion (or pro-merge) editors was instead devoted to adding more content to the article to improve balance, then the article would be much better off. All this talk about merging the article misses the entire point of the article: to document discussion of the mass killings under communist regimes specifically (which is a distinct and established topic in several reliable academic sources and other reliable sources) in a way which accommodates discussion of the proposed commonalities and differences, as found in reliable sources. Yes, there should be an article about mass killing in general, but that is not this article and it never has been. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good attempt at obfuscating the very clearly stated issue above (notably by dropping "effective" from my "effective discussion" remark, thereby obviating my entire point). It remains the case that the very framing of the issue in the form of this article precludes an unblinkered analysis of the cases of mass killing where Communist ideology may be a factor (cases where it isn't are ignored entirely, and not accommodated anywhere else on WP). You cannot simply declare that it is "a distinct and established topic" - that topic can be perfectly well accommodated as part of a wider discussion of mass killing and a fully encyclopedic and NPOV analysis thereof. Rd232 talk 02:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word "effective" doesn't change your point. The framing of the article comes from the sources, themselves. Omissions from the current state of the article have more to do with the self-selection of Wikipedians who have actually worked on the article than with its "framing": the group of Wikipedians who would be most able or interested in locating and adding non-ideology-as-cause material have largely devoted themselves instead to the very frequent AfDs and proposals such as the one above which would be in effect the same: to make this article's topic go away as an article topic. I agree that there should be an article on mass killing generally, but that would not mean that this article would have to go away, even if there would be some overlap. Presumably, the relevant section of the general mass killings article would offer a main article link to this one. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<backdent> A list of the "Mass killing and Genocides in history" would be useful, assuming such a thing does not already exist. However, there's a reason there's a Victims of Communism Memorial, even if hypocrites like George W. Bush supported it. The POV would be deleting this important article and I have a feeling it would bring bad publicity to Wikipedia, and undermine whatever prestige it has, given there are still hundreds of millions of people whose 140,600,000 (see R. J. Rummel [41] friends and relatives died in such mass killings under Russian, Chinese and Cambodian communist regimes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure why you post a "it would be bad if it were deleted" comment under a well-reasoned Merge proposal. Rd232 talk 16:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is because here a merge is effectively a delete. It changes the topic from the specific topic to a general one. The Genocide article is quite large, has plenty of forks. The Mass killings article is a disambig page. So "merge" would effectively be a delete, unless the proposal is for a section entitled "Mass killings under Communist regimes", which I suspect would be objected to. Shadowjams (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catchall for More Keep/Delete/Other !votes (try to use the top section)[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shefford Town F.C. seasons[edit]

List of Shefford Town F.C. seasons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence that this team has ever played above Level 9 of the English football league system, but common opinion is that only teams that have played at a level that would confer notability upon its players should have lists of this type. – PeeJay 19:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – PeeJay 19:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Club has never played at a high enough level to warrant this list of seasons. References are generally very tangential and consist of just a league table, apart from the Richard Rundle FCHD link. However, one source does not an article make. BigDom 19:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom - not needed. GiantSnowman 02:00, 14 July 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 (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scouthut Cricket[edit]

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

Made-up game. Only two Google hits; neither of which use both words in the same context. Alas, there is no speedy criterion for games. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:09, 13 July 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 (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elerium-115[edit]

Elerium-115 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional element which fails WP:GNG - no significant out of universe coverage in reliable independent sources. Claritas § 19:01, 13 July 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 List of Dilbert characters#Phil. Content merge may be performed at editorial discretion. Regards Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil (Dilbert)[edit]

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

There don't appear to be adequate reliable, third-party sources focusing on this subject, and therefore it seems to fail the general notability guideline. *** Crotalus *** 15:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --at-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 15:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the as above said "...unless someone comes up with sources who aren't Scott Adams". This has been done - I have added three sources that are not Scott Adams - and so the redirect !votes are obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would change my opinion if I could see that the coverage were actually non-trivial (one of the primary requirements of WP:N). For each source cited, are we talking about a throwaway mention in a laundry-list sentence, a paragraph, a page, several pages? Google Books won't allow me to access any of those sources (due to the fact that I am not in the US?) so I cannot judge this for myself. Thanks, cab (talk) 00:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC) - based on addition of new sources since initation of AfD[reply]
  • Delete - character is already adequately covered in the character list article and the article title is not a plausible search term. There is nothing to merge or redirect. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- sources added demonstrate reasonable notability. A merge isn't unreasonable, but thats the sort of discussion better left to an article talk page, not an AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they really don't. They are a couple of sentences in several hundred page books. Per WP:N these are exactly the sort of mentions that are by definition trivial and do not establish notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in my opinion they do. The fact the character has gotten a "couple of sentences" in multiple reliable sources is enough that there's some notability. Full article? Possibly not. But enough, quite frankly, that deletion is not the right course of action. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sorry, trivial mentions are specifically noted at WP:GNG as not establishing notability. Notability is conferred by multiple independent sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. No such sources exist for Phil. The Encyclopedia of Hell contains four sentences out of 320 pages. The Door is snippet view only but looks to contain about five sentences across twelve issues of the magazine. Alt culture is also snippet view and I can't even confirm that Phil is mentioned at all in this 297 page book. So we're talking about maybe ten sentences culled from something like a thousand pages of text. This is the very definition of "trivial coverage". No one is suggesting that Phil not be covered, as he already is, in the Dilbert character list. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the guideline WP:N indicates that a one sentence, tangential mention is trivial. The Encyclopedia of Hell entry is a direct encyclopedic reference which is more substantial than that. It is very common for encyclopedia to cover topics briefly and we have no minimum size requirement here either. We are not paid by the word and brevity is often considered a sign of good writing. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notion that four sentences out of a 320 page book constitutes "significant coverage" is patently absurd. It is not "substantial". It is not "significant". It is barely "coverage". This would be a great source to verify details but not to establish notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do not provide any evidence to support your claim, just hand-waving assertion. Here is a counter-example, arrived at by a quick random search. The entry for the Great Glen in the Encyclopædia Britannica is just three sentences, "(Gaelic“Great Valley”) valley in the Highland council area of north-central Scotland, extending about 60 miles (97 km) from the Moray Firth at Inverness to Loch Linnhe at Fort William. It includes Lochs Ness, Oich, and Lochy. The Caledonian Canal runs through the valley.". An encyclopedic entry of this size is quite common and is ample to demonstrate notability. Notice that our equivalent article has no sources at all. Phil is doing quite well by comparison. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you've provided "evidence" that your claim is something other than "hand-waving assertion"? I submit that of the examples offered at WP:N this breif mention of Phil is much more like the example of trivia than it is the examples of established notability. The idea that WP:N limits the definition of "trivial mention" to single-sentence mentions is just stupid.
  • If the EB entry were the only coverage of any length about Great Glen I would say that it falls in the same category as the EofH mention of Phil. Since there are plenty of other reliable sources that cover Great Glen in detail and none that cover Phil, the two are not analogous and the comparison is disingenuous. The standard is not "I found some brief mention in a large reference book". The standard is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". A four-sentence mention in a 300+ page book is not significant coverage and staking a claim to notability on it is base extreme inclusionism. Not everything that exists in fact or fiction is notable no matter how much one might wish it so.
  • Imagine how wonderful the Great Glen article's sourcing might be if everyone who wasted copious amounts of time defending nonsense articles like this one to the death instead devoted that same energy to improving articles of actual encyclopedic merit. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, articles exactly like Quagmire's Dad, with its abundance of independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the episode. If Phil had references even half as sterling as this Family Guy episode does then I would gladly support its continued existence. Instead, he has a sad handful of passing mentions scattered across a thousand pages and a fierce advocate of all things fictional pretending that these constitute significant coverage. People who live in glass outhouses shouldn't talk shit. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quagamire's Dad is based on sources like Fox Flash, which is explicitly publicity; Yahoo TV, which looks weak; and IMDB, which is an open site like Wikipedia. These do not seem to be sterling sources and your judgement of Phil seems similarly defective. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fox Flash is used to source the date of broadcast only. Yahoo TV is sourcing the episode's cast and crew. IMDB is redundant and has been removed.
  • The article's notability is clearly established by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, including but not limited to The Dallas Voice, The Advocate and AfterElton.com. It is supported by reviews in sources that are widely accepted throughout Wikipedia as reliable. It has drawn the attention of the most significant LGBT media watchdog group in the US. Your characterization of the article's sourcing is fundamentally dishonest and your dishonesty saddens me. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 07:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per all above. Already covered in another article, and the references provided aren't quite enough for a separate one as the coverage isn't really significant. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:08, 20 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UIC (band)[edit]

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

I've declined my own speedy tag on this article after sources were added that assert some marginal notability, however it is not enough to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Band is a notable garage rock band in Canada. They were from Toronto but their notoriety was bigger than that, as they had followings in Montreal, among other cities, as stated in the The Gazette articles I put as references. Thet also have well-known records on well-known Canadian labels like Og Music and Fringe Product, they've been active for YEARS and had some of their songs covered by other bands. They opened for Deja Voodoo on many of their tours, almost all canadian fans of Garage rock know that band and many international fans too. They are mentionned multiple times in Frank Manley's book about Canadian punk, "Smash the State", which denotes a notability in punk rock and garage rock circles. Terveetkadet (talk) 18:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And besides that, User:Blanchardb only wants to delete my page because he's frustrated that I told him what I thought about his practice of submitting a page for "speedy deletion" SECONDS after it was created... I'd prefer if User:Blanchardb stopped trolling my pages Terveetkadet (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I add to my explaination as UIC has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable, i.e. the Frank Manley book, the The Gazette Articles. They also have released two albums on one of the more important indie labels. Og Music and Fringe Products are among the more important indiel labels in Canada, going from the end of the '70's to early 2000 in the case of Fringe and from 1983 to 1990 in the case of Og Music. They are also one of the most prominent representative of garage rock in Canada, among with the Gruesomes and Deja Voodoo. Terveetkadet (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If I can find consensus that this source is enough to establish the band's notability, I'll add it to the article (done) and withdraw my nomination. I found this which, while trivial, puts the subject at the same level with Shadowy Men on a Shadowy Planet, whose notability is beyond question. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourcing is abundant enough to establish notability. It's likely that there is more print sources available that haven't been made available online given the era in which the band were active. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly, Whpq, but everybody is waiting for the all-powerful new page patroller His Holiness User Talk:Blanchardb to make his difficult decision about withdrawing or not withdrawing His request to destroy this page... He's hesitating cause each new page He doesn't effectively destroy is considered a failure by His Holiness... Terveetkadet (talk) 11:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm just curious about one thing. Why would someone with such dark plans go out of his way to find sources that might save articles, and why would he bother actually posting his findings? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The accusations of bad faith against Blanchardb are silly, but the page is rather good. The sources are significant and prevalent enough for WP:BAND as far as I can see. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 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. except for Television news music, there is a consensus to delete that as well but there is tendency in bulk nominations to throw out everything so I think its best to leave that and allow individual relisting of that is still felt necessary Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The X-2 Package[edit]

The X-2 Package (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial fan-cruft. Not a single section is referenced, none of it is notable, none of it is verifiable, all of it original research. Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 18:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combining AfD noms. Adding...

All the links listed above are listed for deletion (and were their own AfDs before this combined AfD) under the same nomination and reason. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:28, 13 July 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 On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film). Content may be merged at editorial discretion, but if done, the redirect must be preserved for attribution. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1976 ABC Edit of 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The 1976 ABC Edit of 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems similar to recent AfD for Die Hard films on television. The television edit could instead be described within the main article about the film. This article could serve as an example to lead to other television edits when they can instead best be summarized in the related film article if the television edits are notable. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with On_Her_Majesty's_Secret_Service_(film), and perhaps Re-edited_film. It already has about 3 sentences on the main film page, perhaps that could be expanded, but it doesn't seem like the most novel thing that films are edited for content on tv. I suppose it's mildy interesting trivia to point out the uniqueness of this film edit, but a standalone article doesn't seem like the way to do it.Cander0000 (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into On Her Majesty's Secret Service (film) - Whilst it's an interesting edit, it's not notable enough to be spun out into a separate article. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not remotely notable as an independent subject. Specific edits might be relevant to the film article but since this article cites no independent reliable sources there's nothing here to merge and nothing that justifies this implausible redirect. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whatever pieces can be salvaged with RS should just be in the main article for the film. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and include anything salvageable (ie. sourceable) to the main article. No need for a spin-off. Rlendog (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The above two "delete but include it in the main article" are not GFDL-compliant outcomes. If we're going to keep any part of it, we need attribution. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Nuujinn (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge content into main film article with attribution. Notable point about artists'/film-companies' control of their own film-product.Shearonink (talk) 13:57, 20 July 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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Wordekemper[edit]

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

Not notable. He's not pitched in the majors, he's not a major prospect, nothing much really. Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to pitch in the majors to be notable. He is on a Major League farm team which by definition means he is a major league prospect. Your reasoning for this afd nomination is unclear. Please be more specific. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being on a farm team does not by definition make you a prospect. Lots of organizational players are filler, and as Wordekemper is a 26 year old who was just demoted to AA to make room for a player who had been demoted from the majors to AAA, that suggests that he is upper level filler. You are right that you don't have to make it to MLB to be notable, but according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability, minor leaguers are not inherently notable, unless they've done something to establish notability. What has Wordekemper done to establish notability? Nothing as far as I can see. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wordekemper was the closer of the Trenton Thunder for a time. If I included that information, would this article be notable enough to avoid deletion? Yankeesrule3 (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. At best, in my opinion, Wordekemper could deserve a short blurb at New York Yankees minor league players. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly states and has a link that confirms that he has played for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees, the Triple-A affiliate of the New York Yankees. This is a fully professional league. If you dispute the fact that major league farm teams are fully professional, please state your reasoning. These are clearly not semi-pro teams. This article does need more sourcing, but that could be said of 75 percent of all baseball articles. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an essay but it is what is generally considered notable for baseball players, Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. You gave as part of your rationale for deletion that he is "Not fully professional" to which I asked that you please state your reasoning behind that assertion. Do you now agree that he is fully professional but that he does not meet the requirements of the notability essay. Or, are you saying that he isn't fully professional because he hasn't met the requirements of the notability essay? If it is the second case, that essay does not use fully professional as a criteria. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. If I felt he was fully professional I would have changed my recommendation above. I do not belive minor league players are fully professional and are generally not notable enough to have their own article. If they have significant coverage in reliable sources that would over ride that criteria as it would with anyone. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 15:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's definition of professional in the context of sports is "someone who participates for money. The opposite is amateur, meaning a person who does not play for money, but in an academic (e.g. college football) or other private setting." The people who play in minor league baseball participate for money. They are not amateurs. The page for the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees clearly states that "The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Yankees are a professional baseball club" and most minor league clubs have a similar statement at the start of each their articles. Are all the minor league team articles wrong? should they all be written to indicate that they are semi-pro teams? What exactly is it about minor league ballplayers that makes you feel they are not "fully professional"? Kinston eagle (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not able to make a living from that alone. They are professional but not fully professional. Every single minor league player that has made money playing baseball is not a fully professional player. In my opinion the only fully professional players are those that have played at least one game in the regular season on a Majo League Baseball team. At this point it looks like you and I just have to agree that we disagree on this point. We can see what others think about this AFD. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 16:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your criteria for whether a baseball player is fully professional or not hinges on if "They are not able to make a living from that alone" then you must feel that nearly everyone who played before the era free agency lacked "fully professional" status since only the most elite baseball players were able to make it through the winter without supplementing their incomes with second jobs. Kinston eagle (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point about fully professional or not is not the only case I made. The major thing is I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. He does not in my opinion meet the general notability guidelines and his notability is not established at this time. If in the future this changes I will reevaluate my position. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 05:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He may be fully professional, but he does not meet baseball specific guidelines for notability. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 12:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but only due to lack of references. The article does not meet WP:GNG. The nominator is wrong in nominating it per "not pitched in the majors, he's not a major prospect, nothing much really." Pitching in the majors establishes more possibility for sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines, however, it is not a make-or-break thing. It seems ridiculous that editors feel that there should be such a strict blanket guideline that really has little-to-no logic attached. I have seen a 19th century major leaguer who has had less sources cited than many minor league articles. But that becomes WP:WAX. As it stands, this article fails the general notability guidelines, however, I would not be against changing my vote when (or if) proper sources are cited. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually pitching in the majors is a make-or-break thing, but only on the "make" end. An individual who makes one MLB appearance is considered notable by WP:BASEBALL regardless of anything else. That includes the 19th century fellows with little to no internet sourcing. Minor leaguers are only notable if they have something about them that makes them notable. Mr. Wordekemper does not have any such thing. I'm pretty sure a thorough look to the news archives will turn up only game logs, which are more plentiful than they are for 19th century big leaguers, but aren't enough to establish notability. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WPBB/N is not consensus. It is not a make-or-break thing. I have seen deletion discussions in the past where the article clearly met the general notability guidelines were met but users asserted that the article should still be deleted because the player had never played in the majors. That is not the only criteria for notability and shouldn't be. Following the general notability guidelines should be the reason for deletion, not a trivial rule that states regardless of what his player has done, he is not notable because his has never played in the majors. Again, I agree that as it stands this article fails WP:GNG and should be deleted, however, I think it is very possible to do a rescue. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a trivial "yes or no" based on whether or not he's appeared in MLB. It's a matter of what makes him more notable than any other random minor league baseball player. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should be more specific with your wording in your deletion reasoning if that's how you feel. The idea is to look at the sourcing to depend on if the article meets WP:GNG, not any specific sets of career events. A player who is an every-day minor leaguer for 13 years may be notable despite the fact they have never played in the majors. Creating a blanket reason for deletion without reason becomes ridiculous because it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. I'm not saying that is what you were doing here as I at first agreed with you. My only complaint is that your reasoning sounds thin and maybe you should think of citing policy in your next discussion to relieve confusion. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lesson I (think) I've learned from this particular AfD is to make a better case from the start. You can see I typed that initial reasoning quickly. I was rushing, maybe because I was distracted by something else, maybe because I thought this was an open and shut delete. Anyway, I don't use "hasn't played in the majors" as a blanket reason for deletions. If you check my article creations, you'll see that I created a few this weekend for career minor leaguers, some who may be on their way up and some who peaked in AA or AAA. My point here is that when we have a career minor leaguer, we have to see if, on that case-by-case basis, that individual is notable. Reasons for notability would include major awards (Golden Spikes, Dick Howser), prospect status (in the Baseball America Top 100, participant in the All-Star Futures Game, Strasburgian hype), and minor league accomplishments (old timers in the Crash Davis mold, such as Jason Cooper (baseball), might fit this). In my opinion, Wordekemper doesn't meet notability based on that criteria, but I can see how others would say he does. As for citing policy, that's tough since I brought up WP:BASEBALL's notability guidelines, which suggests that minor leaguers are not inherently notable, and it was dismissed somewhat callously by at least one person in this AfD. WP:WPBB/N is slightly vague, which is both beneficial and detrimental. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that I was in no way meaning to make accusations against your work or the way to take an article through the AfD process. I am very sorry if you feel that way. I was just trying to make a suggestion. Thank you for all your contributions. You continue to be one of the hardest working editors at WP:WPBB. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I know, you meant it well. You and I have had some disagreements on notability of articles before, but you always make your case the right way, so I respect your work here. I was directing my response more to people here who don't know me. Internet communication will never completely replace real human contact because it's so easy to misinterpret things :) --Muboshgu (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I should have done was suggest a merger to New York Yankees minor league players. My bad. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after expansion. The article now clearly meets the general notability guidelines. I would request that the deletion discussion be kept open for longer than normal since the article is substantially different. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well-sourced and meets general notability guidelines. WP:N is a guideline. WP:WPBB/N is an essay that was amended by a consensus of 3 deletionist buddies one day when one of them got upset that his AFDs on minor league players failed. WP:N trumps a tainted essay 100 times out of 100. Vodello (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This article has been greatly expanded since being nominated for deletion, with reference added that satisfy the general notability guidelines of WP:N. When the nominator put this article up for deletion, it had a total of three sentences. Ever since notability has been established and the article greatly expanded and improved, the nominator has been grasping at straws to still justify deleting this article. If, "He has a lot of reliable sources because this is the internet age," is the best new rationale the nominator can come up with, I think it's high time this discussion was closed as keep. This is starting to become less about policy and more about pride over the high possibility of 'losing' an AFD nomination. Vodello (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting me. I have no pride on the line. I'm pretty certain this one will be closed as keep, but I don't feel that I'm grasping at straws. I don't see how a career minor leaguer who was never considered a top prospect (46th round draft picks are typically expected only to fill out rosters) and never did anything out of the ordinary (outside of a POY award in A ball) is considered notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"(46th round draft picks are typically expected only to fill out rosters)" If such were the case, my cousin would still be in the Texas Rangers farm system today. He was dumped after two seasons after a .250 average at AA Clinton. Most players suffer the same fate. Eric Wordekemper continues to make rosters not because they need to fill spots, but because he is a prospect that can actively contribute. They did not just promote him to the AAA club to fill a roster spot. Vodello (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Touche. We can all agree that Wordekemper has outperformed his draft round. Again, I don't think that's enough to make him notable, but there really isn't anything else I can say on the matter, except that AA and AAA rosters still need to be filled out as well as A rosters. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though this article has been improved significantly, I want to reaffirm my vote and see if I can provide a more convincing explanation. Minor league baseball is professional. However, it's not the most advanced level, and that is significant. Many players get to the minors and don't crack the majors. If we were to consider any minor leaguer notable, Wikipedia would get overwhelmed by pages of guys who played a few seasons of A ball, or even less. Though I have performed many AfD's of minor leaguers, some successful and some not, I recognize that there are many minor leaguers who don't crack the majors who are notable. For instance, today I created a page for Jackson Melián. He received a then-record signing bonus, was a top prospect (rated in the Top 100 four times), participated in the All-Star Futures Game, and he was involved in a significant trade relevant to the Yankees dynasty of the late '90s-early '00s. With all due respect to Mr. Wordekemper, he's a minor league depth player, who was never considered a top prospect, and gets shuttled from one level to another to fill out rosters, as other players get promoted or demoted. Minor leaguers have more sources available about them now than ever before, due to the internet age, but these sources shouldn't be considered enough to establish notability unless there's a good reason provided that the player is notable. Wordekemper is the kind of player I could see up for another AfD after his career is over, as editors wonder what was so notable about him. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking us to ignore reliable sources that help establish notability just because we live in an age where we don't only have access to our local paper and USA Today? By that mentality we should delete the statement that he was Florida State League pitcher of the year because mlb.com and scout.com articles are from the new-fangled internet age. I don't understand this rationale at all. Vodello (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm asking you to consider the merit of each source, as not all sources are created equal. And I question the importance of being FSL POY. What does that really mean? He had a good season in High-A ball. Okay. Is that enough to make him notable? It shouldn't be. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ONEEVENT it should not be a reason to keep. However, the article as a whole is well sourced and there are other events cited (with reliable sources). That is reason to keep, not based on one event. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fully professional athlete that now meets notability standards in regards to sourcing. Kinston eagle (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Improved version. Per Brian and Vod.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 17:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC) per request of Brian Halverson above.[reply]
Fair question. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above. Expanded version of article demonstrates ample notability. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:17, 20 July 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 (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antwian M. Crawford[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography. No real indication of notability. Gigs (talk) 17:23, 13 July 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 (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate you, Dad[edit]

I Hate you, Dad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined G3-hoax speedy. All refernces used are actually about an unrelated 2006 movie. No way to verify that this meets WP:NFILM, or even that the project exists. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, because there's no evidence of this film's existence. I declined the speedy because it wasn't blatant (nothing in the article is impossible), but I don't see any good reason to keep this article. Nyttend (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in development, apparently: David Caspe, who was recently featured on the 2009 Black List with "I Hate You Dad," a feature comedy he has in development at Sony and Happy Madison. Despite that, nah, delete. TFOWR 17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFILM (once film is released it may qualify for inclusion). elektrikSHOOS 17:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I fixed the link to the IMDB page which shows this as a 2011 film in production. However, there's no information there—no cast list and no producer information avaiable to non-Pro users. There's no other sources listed, so there's not enough verifiable information for an article yet. —C.Fred (talk) 03:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice toward recreation once this begins filming and if it gets coverage. Curently, the article is simply WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:17, 15 July 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 Alliance for European Integration. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Occupation Day[edit]

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

The decree establishing was declared unconstitutional, so the day ceased to exist less than 3 weeks after it was instituted: Google news search documenting the decision. Per Wp's guidelines about notability, notability is not temporary, so there's no reason for a public holiday that endured only 19 days to have a full article, especially considering that its disestablishment provoked little to no reaction. The tentative public holiday can be mentioned of course in the articles about Mihai Ghimpu, who tried to institute it, and the Alliance for European Integration, the coalition he represented, but per event notability guidelines (i.e. no lasting effects, very shallow coverage even in Moldova), the subject doesn't merit an article on its own. Anonimu (talk) 17:12, 13 July 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 (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Short term mating strategies[edit]

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

Contested prod. Essay. Opinion piece. Original research. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth mentioning that this concept is discussed in Sexual dimorphism though i think deletion may be appropriate, a redirect could also be an option until the page could be presented in a way that its not an essay, thoughts? Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:38, 13 July 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 (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Lustman[edit]

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

Contested prod. The only thing that saves this article from an A7 speedy is a picture of him on the MTV website. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:58, 13 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Barber[edit]

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

This person just doesn't seem notable per WP:BIO, and is not covered by multiple independent sources per WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a Google search reveals thousands of hits for his name. Subject is definitely both notable and verifiable. elektrikSHOOS 17:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see anything much in the article but a man doing a job. It looks like a plug for his web activity and curated books - or as Amazon prefer to say, he is the 'editor' of them. The badatsports reference contains one brief mention in an article about someone else altogether. I am not much more impressed by the other refs I've looked at - one of the Hearty ones being merely a sort of CV list or profile list. The Hearty interview looks a bit better, but as I don't know who Hearty are, I'm not sure of the notability gained there. "Hearty is set to be the prime destination to indulge in fashion, music, art and culture" (from their LinkedIn profile) doesn't seem to indicate that they are there yet. There may be notability in Barber, but it isn't demonstrated in this article for me. Peridon (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears he does get some media attention. [42][43][44][45][46][47][48] Eudemis (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Telegraph is a single mention in passing; photosapiens looks good; advancetitan might be if I were more sure who and what they are; nysun is a single mention; nytimes is single mention, but better than the other singles; not too happy about the other nytimes. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question He has recently curated a series of five photography books -- Does this make any sense? (Since when have books been "curated"?) -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC) .... Answer Got it: Aperture published five books of stuff from tinyvices.com. I've edited the article accordingly. -- Hoary (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eudemis. Not clear cut by any means, but if we can assume that advancetitan is reliable, these look like just enough coverage for WP:BIO. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Cleary School[edit]

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

Elementary school lacking reliable sources to establish general notability or notability by the Wikipedia:Notability (schools) proposal. At first glance, naming after Beverly Cleary carries some weight. In reality, it isn't a Blue Ribbon school, which is the only common outcome that usually preserves elementary schools. A small paragraph probably belongs in the parent article (PPS), but I'm taking this to AFD because it deserves a consensus-based discussion. tedder (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I realize it's a common outcome for elementary school articles to be deleted, but this one is as well-referenced as many other small business articles. I think it's worth keeping and continuing to improve. Common outcome does not mean inevitable outcome. --Esprqii (talk) 16:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Under WP:GNG. Because of the sourced connections to Beverly Cleary, who is certainly a significant kid's author: in particular the assertion that "she is an alumnus of Fernwood and based many of her well-known children's stories on her experiences in the Fernwood neighborhood". But my !vote is "weak" because this this assertion is not as well-sourced as it should be, and because there's a reasonable argument that the relevant content is sufficiently handled within the Beverly Cleary article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLUB which is what would currently be used to determine school notability. I'm normally a big fan of cutting down schoolcruft on Wikipedia, especially elementary schools, but this school has both a notable alum and more than enough sources to determine verifiability. elektrikSHOOS 17:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CLUB since its activities are not national/international. Notability is not inherited, so being named for a famous person or having a famous alumna does not make the school automatically notable. Elementary schools typically fail to survive AFD. Edison (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not an elementary school. They combined a middle school and an elementary school to make it. Fernwood is notable by itself, I'd bet, and Hollyrood probably is too. If someone really cared, they could make three well refed articles out of this subject. One is good enough for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry PF, I use "elementary" when I mean "primary" or "non-secondary". tedder (talk) 01:12, 14 July 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. This easily passes GNG and although there could be BLP1E issues although no-one has mentioned these. The majority of the delete arguments are under athlete, which has now been deprecated in favour of NSPORTS, which emphasises that GNG comes first. Therefore although the headcount is clearly for deletion under policy this is a keep Spartaz Humbug! 06:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Taylor[edit]

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

Was previously deleted via AfD, but has been recreated. The player in question still has not made a senior appearance, so the same ATHLETE and GNG arguments that saw the article deleted before still apply. Not sure how similar this is to the article that was deleted, so I can't say whether it qualifies for WP:CSD#G4 or not. BigDom 15:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation of previously deleted material, otherwise delete per nom. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 02:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. GiantSnowman 02:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The facts of the matter since the article's past deletion have changed. As the article notes, the player made eight appearances for Chelsea Reserves last season, which qualifies him as having "competed at the fully professional level of a sport". He is no longer a youth player. He was named to Chelsea's squad for the 2009-2010 UEFA Champions League. He is on loan to Crewe as a first-team goalkeeper. The article is comprehensively sourced and there are no longer any legitimate grounds to delete it. Philwelch (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Follow-up: On loan to Crewe Alexandra, Rhys Taylor has made a first-team appearance in a friendly match against Quorn.: [49]. Philwelch (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reserves and a pre-season friendly match are not fully-professional competitions, so he does not pass ATHLETE in any way whatsoever and you're wrong to claim that he does. That guideline is too inclusive already for you to start bending it to your whim. BigDom 07:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Fully professional" literally means all players are paid a full living salary, which is certainly true at the English Premier League reserve level. EPL reserves are the functional equivalent of a AAA minor-league baseball team in the United States--let's pick one at random, the Tacoma Rainiers. Will you list all of the player bios linked there for deletion as well? Philwelch (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It certainly is not true that the Premier League reserves are fully professional. As a Burnley supporter, I attended several matches in that league throughout last season and both teams often played youth team players, apprentices, and trialists. Here are a couple of the match reports to prove it. And I honestly couldn't give a shit about baseball so I'm not going to nominate them for deletion. BigDom 09:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Inclusion in pre-season games by a manager known to favour young players makes it likely that Taylor will play first-team football during the forthcoming season. Paul W (talk) 07:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Road to Hell and all that...--ClubOranjeT 12:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have a request for any administrator voting "delete" on this AFD, or for the closing admin if that admin decides to close this discussion with a "delete". That request is as follows: I ask for your word that you will personally restore the article yourself if Mr. Taylor makes a first team appearance in Football League 2, Football League Cup, or FA Cup play for Crewe Alexandra; or a first team appearance for Chelsea FC in any competition after the season begins in a few weeks' time. You do not have to follow Crewe's fixtures if you do not want to--I will let you know, with verifiable proof, once any of these conditions have been met. Philwelch (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is normal procedure - if and when he makes his competitive début, just post a request at WT:FOOTY and someone will take care of it. Bettia (talk) 09:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's somewhat less than I am comfortable with but in the absence of a personal promise I will try as you suggest. Philwelch (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once a request is made it would be up, in its current form, within a matter of hours. WFC (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you'd prefer I'm happy to restore after a competitive debut. Just leave me a message at my talk page and if possible include a link to a reliable source of some kind showing the debut to make things easy for me. Otherwise a request at the project page would work fine I'm sure. Camw (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Without a first team competitive appearance, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Claims that he will make his debut are clearly against WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate if and when he makes his debut. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean recreate, or restore? The existing article is well written and cited--there is no need to throw it out and write a new one. Philwelch (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing effectively - just ask as noted above. If you are rally concerned, ask for userfication and you can put it back yourself if and when.--ClubOranjeT 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep WP:ATHLETE means nothing here (it means nothing ever, given that it has always been considered secondary to the GNG). Nonetheless, on top of his U21 caps, here is evidence to suggest that he might pass the GNG. I may or may not consider looking for more later. WFC (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although reasonably well written and referenced stub, player does not pass notability criteria. Coverage is fairly run-of-mill general sports journalism and he hasn't yet achieved anything of note. Youth caps do not confer notability. No objection to recreation if and when Taylor plays at top level.--ClubOranjeT 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have gone to great lengths not to canvass. But I have mentioned circumstances related to this AfD at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Promotion. As a follow on to that, as well as this edit, I request that the closing admin considers relisting. At the moment there is debateably consensus to close as either delete or no consensus under the admin's discretion. Either outcome would be within the admin's discretion, and either action would upset a few people. Conversely, relisting may produce a clearer consensus. And it will certainly be beneficial to the entire encyclopaedia, by giving us a good idea of whether the newly-promoted Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is working. WFC (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering that with regards to footballers NSPORTS is exactly the same as ATHLETE, it should make very little difference. BigDom 21:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering that the recent discussion at WT:FOOTY stagnated due to the development of WP:NSPORTS, I doubt that was the intention. If you are correct, relisting should make no difference to the outcome of the discussion, other than verifying that you are indeed correct. Regards-- WFC (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - all arguments that led to the article being deleted in the past still apply. If any of you thinks differently, then please consider listing it to WP:DRV instead. --Angelo (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Productive, coming twelve minutes after an edit claiming to assert notability was advertised an inch above. Nonetheless, it would be easier to judge whether this should be speedied if non-admins were able to compare the deleted version with the current one. Regards, -- WFC (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody asserted his general notability in the first AfD. Two people have this time. You would think that an admin and an AfD addict would be aware that CSD G4 is therefore not applicable. Alas, they either are not aware, or are aware but decided to jump on the deletionist bandwagon anyway. Regards--WFC (talk) 23:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - First of all, this is not a speedy candidate, since the article is far more than a recreation of the previously deleted content, and indeed provides refs to at least indicate the subject's importance, even if notability is in question. From my perspective, there are at least 3 separate news articles cited which are specifically about this person. So he seems to pass WP:GNG, even if somewhat marginally and even though he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE (at least not yet). But since GNG is sufficient to demonstrate notability, regardless of the subject's chosen profession, he seems worthy of keeping, at least for the time being. If his notability remains marginal a few months hence and/or if the article becomes a vandalism magnet, it may be worth reconsidering. Rlendog (talk) 03:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This AFD discussion seems to suggest a troubling possibility--once a given subject has had an article deleted, there is no shortage of thoughtless editors who assume, just because the subject was not notable at some time in the past and a previous article on them was deleted, that any future article on the same subject is a re-creation and that the subject itself can never attain notability later on. There are good-faith arguments to delete this article for the time being (though I still disagree with them) but it is important for the closing admin to distinguish between these thoughtful arguments and the drive-by "speedy delete" votes which exhibit the tendency I am describing here. Philwelch (talk) 04:25, 21 July 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 (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Driss Kettani[edit]

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

Biography of a living person, no citations since 2009, no unequivocal indication of notability. Slashme (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am not ready to cast a !vote yet (although I lean towards delete at the moment), but I want to mention that, based on looking through GoogleBooks results, there may be several different individuals with the same name: an actor from 1970s, an extremist islamic scholar, a diplomat (looks to have been an ambassador to Belgium), and the subject of this article. So one would need to be careful here in sifting through various search results. Nsk92 (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The low academic impact (3 papers found in WoS using query "Author=(Kettani D*) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI": h-index = 2, 8 total citations over all papers), list of unsourced, red-linked "awards", and lack of any other sources whatsoever convince me that this article doesn't belong here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per Agricola44. Nuujinn (talk) 17:32, 17 July 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 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who)[edit]

2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient information at this very early stage to justify a separate article. We don't even have an episode title. Suggest a redirect to List of Doctor Who serials#Special (2010) which already contains all the information in this article. Maccy69 (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even if the event is virtually certain to happen, there's not much point in having an article before the official title is known. Powers T 14:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom until more information (sourced, obviously) is available. umrguy42 14:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have well-sourced information on guest stars, so WP: CRYSTAL doesn't apply.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, but do you think there is enough information to justify a separate article, given what already exists at List of Doctor Who serials#Special (2010)? Maccy69 (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I do think so, yes. And it's certain to grow in the coming weeks/months. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep—WP:CRYSTAL is completely irrelevant, as it merely notes that, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." This article contains no unverifiable speculation: it is all referenced. Indeed, point 1 of WP:CRYSTAL precisely covers such a situation. (Would you also nominate 2012 Summer Olympics for deletion on the basis that it's not happened yet?) ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 14:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to make it clear, I didn't nominate on the basis of WP:CRYSTAL and I agree it doesn't apply. Maccy69 (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what policy-based rationale does your nomination have? ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 14:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EPISODE on the basis that there isn't enough information to make notable outside of List of Doctor Who serials. Maccy69 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So what policy-based rationale does your nomination have? (WP:EPISODE does not appear to be a policy.) ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 15:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage in two reliable sources. From WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". This is both, and so long as original research is avoided (which it is at present), there is no policy-based reason not to keep this. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We are 165 days away from broadcast, deletion and recreation would be a waste of time and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektor (talk • contribs)
    I don't see how a redirect to the article with the same information wastes either. Maccy69 (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you nominated the article for deletion but, in fact, wanted it redirected? I'm not sure that's appropriate. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 15:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. From what Alzarian16 quoted above, this is most certainly notable and if it didn't take place, there would be riots on the street (my street anycase). The article is not unsourced; I see no reason for deletion. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 15:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I'm a bit leery about the lack of a actual title, but if sources are already confirming guest stars, then that tips the scale slightly in favor of retention. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a CRYSTAL problem - at worst, it's a variation of WP:HAMMER, but even then, there's enough production details in reliable sources to know this is happening. While it likely would have been better to keep this separate until the name was at least known, it's fine to keep this for now. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL applies. This is something that is almost certain to happen, and if it *doesn't* happen, the reasons why will be notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is about a real thing, which will happen. It's only a stub at this point, but will presumably be expanded when the episode airs. In the meantime, this article will be useful in providing background information. In addition, sources have been cited - there are no grounds for deletion. - TALLeN talk 16:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Sourced stub at this point will only grow Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Ottawa4ever and others. And we've done this before with the 2008 Christmas special, which was kept when there was apparently only a trailer available when it's article was written. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: we have a writer, basic plot summary, and confirmed guest stars. Balancing our policies, I think we can keep this article, especially regarding precedent. Sceptre (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cumulations of reasons: When more becomes known the title will change anyway. Still likely to be a stub for the foreseeable future. If didn't happen would be note in history of show and not need an article itself. (aside: Why wasn't title "Doctor Who 2010 Christmas special"?) GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Scarcely worth arguing with because the article's obviously safe, but just for the record... When more becomes known the title will change anyway – so then we change the title. Since when is that sort of thing a reason for deletion? Shall we get rid of 2020 Summer Olympics because it will need renaming once we know which city will host it? Of course not!
    Still likely to be a stub for the foreseeable future – WP:RUBBISH is absolutely not a reason to delete; there is no deadline and, in this case, we are certain to have expansion within months. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - at the moment I do think this should be a redirect, but I expect we will see more information and the article expanded very soon so it's not really worth arguing. Edgepedia (talk) 04:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has enough reliable sources that both confirm its existence and the details mentioned. As with previous Xmas specials, further information is likely to be added soon but even the current amount justifies this article's existence at this point. Neither the nominator nor those !voting "delete" have cited any policy-based reasons to delete this article; especially WP:CRYSTAL does not apply in this case since the information is not speculative and the event is certain to happen (or, as pointed out above, will be notable even if it for some reason does not). Regards SoWhy 10:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles should only be deleted if they will never be suitable for Wikipedia, and this is definitely not the first time an event has been put up before occurring or being named. A simple name change will be a lot easier, and a lot less prone to loss of information, than deleting and recreating it. What exactly is the point in deleting this article when we know that an article about the exact same thing will be justifiable- and almost certainly created- in the next few months? 122.106.151.166 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not going to speculate on the "why" of the AfD. htom (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Doctor Who serials#Special (2010) - to be honest, there's so little to say about this at the moment that it doesn't need a separate article, especially since all the information here is already contained in that list. However, I don't think it's much of a problem either - it's already notable and virtually certain to be shown on schedule, so WP:CBALL doesn't apply, and it's likely we'll need the article pretty soon. Redirecting would be the best approach as it would allow it to be restored when there's more to say about it. Either way, it shouldn't be deleted outright. Robofish (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - not enough info just now, but deletion seems pointless since there will be at some point. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will be expanded between now, airing and beyond as more information comes to light. I see little advantage to deleting this and starting over in December 2010. Donlock (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More information will come to light in the following weeks, and we'll need to start the article again using the same sourced information used in the article right now. It has already grown into a strong article, and we already know very valuable information about who will guest-star. Deletion is completely pointless. Hobapotter (talk) 22:59, 18 July 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 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starmin[edit]

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

Non-notable anime, unreferenced, no coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Strong suspicion of "Hoax" by a single purpose account as Verifiability isn't meet. Will change my mind if evidences of existence are found. --KrebMarkt (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not a hoax -- wishful thinking. Specifically, the part where the article says "is an american anime" when they meant to use a future tense (and possibly a subjunctive mode as well) -- it takes a while to weed out the other Starmins in the g-hits, but eventually you can find that this is an amateur project by a fan forum -- judging by the art quality, very amateur. It has not been filmed, let alone broadcast, and is not referenced by any reliable references, and so is not a notable TV series = delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete "Fan project" is no better than a WP:HOAX, and clearly unnotable self-advertisement and spam. Rapid delete. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to be rude. Some kid just made a simple mistake, not understanding how Wikipedia worked. I already posted on the person's talk page [51] telling them where this sort of thing can be published at, there a special wiki just for people to upload their own work for it. Dream Focus 07:18, 14 July 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.  Sandstein  06:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pimpri-Chinchwad Bus Rapid Transit System[edit]

Pimpri-Chinchwad Bus Rapid Transit System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject not notable enough to warrant an independent article. Either delete or merge with Pimpri-Chinchwad Forty twoThanks for all the fish! 13:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oops. i linked the wrong article. let me see if i can find the correct one.--Sodabottle (talk) 15:55, 14 July 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. I'll be happy to restore the article if an editor is interested in merging the content. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wheathills[edit]

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

Prod contested by article's author, who wrote in the edit summary, "Object to deletion, this took 6 months to research BECAUSE there are no web references to it; I placed the references to this piece with the original article but they were deleted." The "references" that the author included (which can be seen at the bottom of this version of the article) seem to suggest that most of the information was derived from personal communications, making the article essentially unverifiable original research. I can find no evidence of substantive treatment of this structure in published sources (save for the Web site of the company that now occupies it, which I don't believe to be a reliable source). Deor (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article to include an image, the co ords are attached to the image; updated with reference the previous occupiers; updated Present Day section with references to amongst others magazine articles and a notable Public Body (SPAB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickydav (talk • contribs) 14:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Mackworth. The majority of this article detailing the history of the building is still unverifiable and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. However, as Wheathills seems to have appeared on two TV programmes (I'll take your word that it was on Flog It), it seems reasonable for the Mackworth article to mention this place exists and what TV shows it was on. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - would appear, dispite the work done on it to be non notable, happy for it to be userfied so that Chris Neville-Smith's merge suggestion can happen, but unlikely search term and likely to be a term that could need to be re-used later. Codf1977 (talk) 11:45, 20 July 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 (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Risca Athletic F.C.[edit]

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

Amateur football club that appears to be at level 12 of the English football pyramid and therefore not notable per WP:FOOTY. No external sources, descriptions of players seem to be entirely based on the article author's sense of humor ("Mr Hamstring himself"). NawlinWiki (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "appears to be at level 12 of the English football pyramid" - this is a Welsh club, not an English one. The league they play in is not part of the English football pyramid at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By my reckoning, they play at level 11 of the Welsh football league system. The general rule of thumb for football club notability is playing in their national cup, and I can find no evidence of them ever competing in the Welsh Cup. A quick search on Google and Google News shows nothing that would suggest general notability. Bettia (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Looks like someone had a fun time,but the article has to go as there is no real evidence of the clubs existence —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlatan Ramić (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - given that the highest level of the Welsh league system is only semi-professional and probably equivalent to about level 6 in England, level 11 in Wales would appear to be pub league-level football and well below the bar for notability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think someone created this to support an internet forum rumour that former Swansea City striker Lee Trundle would be heading there. That aside, no ref's and doesn't meet notability under WP:FOOTY. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable team. GiantSnowman 21:26, 16 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Gould[edit]

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

Nicely written but no evidence of notability. The only source currently in the article is unreliable, and Google gives nothing trustworthy with the exception of this, which is hardly significant coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The full quote from WP:ENTERTAINER reads: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This person's significant role in multiple productions of talkSPORT is enough to pass WP:ENT. Other credits, such as his work on The Human Zoo, add to his notability. Inniverse (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but do any reliable sources attest to his roles in multiple productions? The only one in the article at present mentions only one show, so the article could still be deleted under the core policy WP:V, which generally overrules notability guidelines. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep During his long career he was a regularly on a notable radio show, that makes him notable. Dream Focus 00:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is debatable whether this person meets WP:ENTERTAINER. However, it should be borne in mind that the guidance is to assist in whether it is likely for someone to meet the GNG, rather than a replacement for the GNG. If it is not clear that someone meets the sub-guideline, then notability should be shown through the GNG. RS are not present in the article, and I could not find them from looking myself, therefore this article should be deleted. Quantpole (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quantpole's excellent argument. GregJackP Boomer! 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong spill the beans 04:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. SnottyWong spill the beans 04:21, 20 July 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 (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shup[edit]

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

Neologism that is better suited on Urban Dictionary (the article's only reference). APK whisper in my ear 10:28, 13 July 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)   -- Lear's Fool 14:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike L. Murphy[edit]

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

Previous AfD was "no consensus" even though the article clearly violates WP policy and guidelines in regards to notability and verifiability. The article's history shows that it was most likely written by the subject himself, and it has all the earmarks of a vanity page. There are literally no sufficient sources to establish notability. There is a brief mention in a Variety article and an award from a minor short film festival, but the subject ultimately cannot be said to be notable enough for a WP article. He is a minor visual effects and animation worker in Hollywood who wrote his own vanity page - comments from the previous AfD clearly showed an ignorance concerning what is appropriate for WP and what is not, and vanity articles about regular Hollywood workers (equivalent to the low level software programmers at companies like Microsoft) do not make the cut. If anyone thinks this low level previz/animation guy deserves an article simply because he was part of the crew for Hollywood films like Lord of the Rings, then clearly we must establish articles for every single other crew member who worked on every major Hollywood film, because this man is no more or less notable than the average Hollywood grunt worker. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of these vanity pages littered across WP, with more popping up everyday. Lets clear the clutter. Laval (talk) 09:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep To disagree with the previous close, is a reason to have gone to DRV and assert that User:Skomorokh erred then, rather then claim he'd erred last October when renominating now. The article is not a violation of WP:BLP, and a proper findsources (below) show his work can easily be verified. As even the nominator grants at least one Variety article exists about the man, it's time to use a far better means to "clear the clutter" by improving the article, as improving an article, if possible, benefits the project far more than a deletion. WP:NOEFFORT is a worry, but not a reason to delete. And arguments about other articles not involved in this specific deletion discussion feel of WP:WAX. But as the article is not a BLP1E and does not violate WP:NOT, the better option per WP:BLP and WP:ATD is to fix it... as deletion is not the only option available to editors, and Wikipedia itself does not demand immediate perfection. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep (a) it is fairly well sourced now, per WP:HEY, and (b) my opinion is that articles should rarely be nominated a second time for deletion without waiting at least 12 months. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the second time in a week I find myself supporting an article following massive improvement work by Schmidt. I'll have to stop, people'll start getting suspicious... at any rate, the sources provided show that this is easily notable under WP:ENT, WP:GNG and WP:BLP to name three. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, seeing as how a Hollywood crew member and utterly insignificant director of a couple of short films, whose article was started by himself, and seeing as how there is nothing else notable about him other than the fact he has been a previz animator (out of many others) on Hollywood films, then I daresay every single crew member of a Hollywood studio picture deserves an article about themselves, no matter how utterly insignificant they are, as in the case of Mike L. Murphy. Thanks very much for the clarifications. Laval (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:WAX arguments about non-existant articles aside, a personal opinion of "utterly insignificant director" must always be looked at per guideline and consensus. And while the author edited only this one article only 8 times over a 2 day period over 15 months ago,[52] I see no foundation for an accusation that User:Bale75 is actually Mike Murphy... but more to the point, the length of time since Bale75's last edit on Wikipedia, the number of other editors (including yourself) who have contributed to the article since his last edit, and the fact that the author apparently left the project over 15 months ago... I would think that even the unfounded accusation of COI has been long since rendered moot. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And need I remind everyone here that sufficient notability still has not been established. But if you argue that he is indeed notable, I will get started on creating articles for every single crew member of major Hollywood films, as none of them are any less "notable" than our dear friend, Mike Murphy. Laval (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is as guideline instructs, and will be confirmed or not through consensus. You are always welcome to author other articles in any case. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:52, 20 July 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 (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Morgan[edit]

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

This article cites no independent sources and is part of a walled garden on the Hillsong ministry, most of which appear to be written by members of the church. There is no claim of notability here which is not essentially self-referential: he is asserted to be notable as author of the songs which are asserted to be notable as written by him. I find no significant coverage outside of Hillsong and its dependent publications. Guy (Help!) 08:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he's the author of a Dove-winning song, he meets WP:COMPOSER #4. This definitely needs sourcing, though, so I'm going to flag it for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - per Jclemens, he's written a Dove-winning song, which is generally considered enough to establish notability. Sourcing is really needed however, and unless the information in this article can be verified independently, I wouldn't be too pleased if it was kept. Claritas § 18:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. Plenty of mention of him. Filter results by adding in the word "hillsong"[53] Soulshine [54]does an interview with him. Dream Focus 09:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources indicate that he is notable. Again, GHITS isn't a valid keep argument. Verbal chat 17:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cited the Dove award at this point. Now has a source for him meeting WP:COMPOSER #4. Still needs more, but there's now notability clearly sourced. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily notable per extensive coverage in reliable sources, some of which have been added to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:44, 16 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry Cocaine[edit]

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

Non-notable musician and a possible autobiography. The references are broken links, and the external links only lead to passing (and outdated) mentions. Prod contested by IP. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:01, 13 July 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. Feel free to contact me if you're interested in merging the content. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Des Blood 2[edit]

Des Blood 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game does not seem to meet the general notability guidelines. Malkinann (talk) 07:52, 13 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Phillips[edit]

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

Notability and sourcing issues. The web site included doesn't appear notable. Haven't been able to find a source that backs the claim that he's reported for BBC World Service. I have been able to verify the books listed exist, but they are (so far as I've seen) self-published (e.g., Empire Publications through a cooperative http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/History/EmpirePublications.html ), and themselves lacking (so far as I've been able to find) no secondary coverage. Unsourced for about three years. A challenging article to source b/c of the commonality of the names, it's certainly possible I've missed important coverage, but otherwise I recommend deletion. j⚛e deckertalk 16:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly difficult given the commonality of the name, but I find no results on gnews for his name plus "Shankly", which seems to be the main point of asserted notability. Delete due to failing to meet WP:V.  --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 05:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not necessarily saying he's notable, but would this be considered reliable? Because it verifies much (although not all) of the information in the article. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's reliable, but not necessarily to establish notability, since they are selling one of his books.  --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 01:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it appears looking at the About page there that the site is part of a group that's essentially a multi-publisher marketing cooperative including the publishers of those books. So I'd certainly say it's reliable and credible for questions of who wrote what book, but as Joshua says, it doesn't establish notability (it's not really secondary) and as a non-secondary source it requires a certain amount of special handling, I'd take a biography of the author on that site with the same grain of salt I'd use for an author auto-bio blurb. --j⚛e deckertalk 02:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: something must be screwy about this AfD for it still to be open!--Milowent (talk) 05:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You're absolutely right, there is something messed up. While listed on AfD's by biography, it appears that the edit into the June 30th page was immediately eaten by the next AfD placement on the June 30 page (which I also am responsible for) that day. I could guess how that happened, but I suppose the more immediate question is "what now?"--get it properly relisted on a new day so that other edtiors get a chance at it? --j⚛e deckertalk 07:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted on 13 July due to user error described above. --j⚛e deckertalk 07:13, 13 July 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 Sarah Palin email hack. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 14:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Kernell[edit]

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

Person is not notable for anything else besides the Sarah Palin email hack incident. Relevant content is already in said Sarah Palin email hack article, and it seems like the creator of the article is not intent on any redirect since the creator took it upon his/her self to create a POV-fork spinout of said Sarah Palin email hack article. –MuZemike 07:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 07:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 07:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Sarah Palin email hack, along with David kernell. Per WP:BLP1E, which states: Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. There is nothing to suggest that this man is notable beyond this event. Unfortunately User:Constitutionguard, who is somewhat new, has been edit warring in violation of this policy to try to create a new article at David Kernell and also at David kernell. His logic -- that it's not appropriate for this person to be unduly associated with the event itself -- is sound, but his solution isn't, since Kernell isn't notable enough beyond the event to support an article entirely on his own. The vast majority of the information that can be said about this man is related to the event in some way and our BLP policy is clear. — e. ripley\talk 11:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of "Sarah Palin email hack” created many empty articles with different versions of David Kernell's name and redirected them to the Palin article. Additionally, a short article with Mike Kernell's name, his father, was as similarly created and redirected. This violation of Wiki policy essentially brands David Kernell with a onetime incident. Sighting these concerns, I attempted to delete these redirects, only to have the changes reversed and harassing warnings issued. Currently, when one Googles David Kernell, the only Wiki article to appear is the "Sarah Palin email hack". This is a notably slanted article that barks of political enhancement.

Now, I believe that an article about David Kernell is valid not because he is associated with the email incident but rather in his continuing legal battle involving a number of serious constitutional issues that surround the incident, subsequent trial and upcoming appeals. The incursion is finished but lingering constitutional issues remain. His upcoming appeals of these issues will probably take years, but they will be the basis for digital case law. These issues include Fourth amendment search rights of computers, district court's legal ability to subpoena email from outside its district boundaries, the concept of ownership of an email account, and the applicably of present law to digital information. Lack of proper support, has prevented creating an article covering these issues, as in the past, the main stream media frequently inadequately reported testimony. Now, the David Kernell article uses the email incursion as a starting point. Its present content explains simply and briefly the incident, and refers readers to the palin article. Appeal of his conviction is pending and court documents will be available next week along with digitized versions of various legal opinions to support development this new article. It is a work in progress and by no means compete. My hope is to support it directly with court documentation as much as possible. I agree with the deletion of all empty articles created solely to redirect to the palin article, such as “ David C Kernell”, “ david kernell “ and others along with preventing any future redirects of his name to the "sarah palin email hack" article. I suppose an new article entitled the "Constitutional Challenges of the David Kernell Prosecution" may be a better title for the present David Kernell article, and any variations of his name or his father's name should be redirected there.Constitutionguard (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the legal battle and constitutional issues are/become notable and receive adequate third party coverage they are better suited in the email hack article. There is no rationale to say that such issues are specific to the individual in any notable way. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The palin email hack article is supported by news media reports that are generally infused with a political point of view. The entire article reads like a Sarah Palin commercial. I concur that the name of David Kernell should only be an article if he does something more than stumble into an unsecured email of a famous person. It is the legal issues that set him apart from the palin article. The federal government spent massive amounts of money on this case. He was never offered a plea bargain and now faces the maximum penalty for a crime that is rarely prosecuted. If he goes to jail, many will consider him a political prisoner. This will be of public interest, discussion and legal evaluation. The scope of the palin article is too narrow. Again, let us delete all his name variations and start a new article using court documents as support and call it, Constitutional Challenges of the David Kernell Prosecution, or some other name of equal nature.Constitutionguard (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC) The following is added from the discussion page of David Kernell- Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Your statement contains lots of ifs and supposition that may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Once the trial is done and there is some kind of legal or analytical scholarship that meets WP:RS then perhaps that's something an article here could explore, but for right now it's just a lot of original research and opinion, neither of which are appropriate here. Additionally, court records are primary soruces, which are inferior to secondary sources, generally speaking, per our sourcing policy -- precisely because there's too much opportunity for using them to reach novel syntheses of information that's not backed up by third-party sources. Do you have any reliable sources that discuss the potential for the trial to have some kind of constitutional impact? — e. ripley\talk 02:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC) One further note: This discussion should really be happening at Sarah Palin email hack, not here, since this is likely to end up being a redirect, per the AFD. I have copied portions of this discussion there. — e. ripley\talk 02:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Check out http://circuit6.blogspot.com/2009/07/computer-searches-fourth-amendment-and.html. Toward the end of the article –“I believe that the Kernell case might present an excellent situation for the Sixth Circuit to address the parameters of the 4thAmendment in the digital age, and the district court's actions in this case bears watching.” And later in the article “Maybe Mr. Kernell's case will give them the opportunity to do so, judging from the nature of his motion to suppress. Regardless, I believe this is an issue that is going to be addressed by higher courts in the immediate future, and the defense practitioner needs to take a second look at warrants that simply identify a 'computer' as the object of the search. POSTED BY RICHARD STRONG AT 9:58 AM. “That is one reference I could quickly come up with. Fact is that the trial is over. So is the email intrusion. The court documents are most factual record we have of what really happened in this complex situation. They are not open to interpretation, they are not novel. What comes from the court documents, the motions and decisions too are factual. The rulings of judges are factual. Unfortunately news reports fall short of correctly reporting the facts, this leads to misunderstanding and possible slander. Constitutionguard (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2010 Constitutionguard (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is copied from sarah palin email hack article.-
Seem as though your narrow interpretation of Wiki purpose stifles information transfer and open discussion. Stay simple ? Most articles that I read on Wiki would fail that test. Perhaps you underestimate the level of intelligence of people, or their ability to distinguish fact from political manipulation. The Palin article uses news media account to make factual assertions that just are not true. The sworn court testimony is the only way to correct these mis reports. There is little need to elaborate or manipulate testimony. Why would you limit the truth...in any form ? The cornerstone of a wiki article is that it is written by the collective. I am sure that any gross over statements will be edited out by those that have references to support the truth. Constitutionguard (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is from David Kernell talk, I am not sure while e. ripley does not want to discuss the deletion here. But I am being bold and adding it here because I think those that are judging the deletion should read it. From David Kernell talk- (UTC)Constitutionguard (talk) 12:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message about not copying things over to the David Kernell discussion delete page. I though I was helping since you were copying the discussion to the Sarah palin email hack page. Sorry. I am not having this discussion in terms of editing so I will confine my comments in the future to the deletion talk. Thanks for correcting me. Constitutionguard (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I found this under Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources page-" "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." I believe that the blog I sited is falls under this definition and should be considered an acceptable source. Constitutionguard (talk) 18:04, 16 July 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 per WP:HEY and per all delete !voters switching to "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esther's Diary (film)[edit]

Esther's Diary (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keyboard warrior killer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is a 2010 film. No substantial coverage. Not a bad article but sadly the refs are mainly IMDb and other unreliable. Fails WP:NFILM. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted in the article, the film was originally released under the title of Forgiveness a couple of years prior. The film was directed by Mariusz Kotowski, the screenplay written by Allan Knee, and the main actors were Juli Erickson and Shelley Calene-Black, all of whom are recognized in Wiki as notable people. Here is an article about the film under the title Forgiveness as listed in the Polish Film Festival of LA: [55], and an entry showing a screening at the West Hollywood International Film Festival of 2008: [56]. Maybe more information on its former title Forgiveness should be included in the article. Keyboard Warrior Killer (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyboard warrior killer (talk • contribs) [reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep and fix the shortcomings to reach Wikipedia standards. To me, notability has been met. My76Strat (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added a bunch of material to the article as requested; please check to see how it looks. Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid Keep per improvements that address all the nominator's concerns. Kudos to User:Keyboard warrior killer. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite baffled here. With regards to WP:NFILM, there are no full-length reviews by nationally known critics. There's one by the The Jewish Journal (Boston North) but I wouldn't say that is regarded as "nationally known". All of the awards won are very minor so would not count towards criteria 3. Neither does it satisfy any other criteria. Importantly, the articles Mariusz Kotowski and Juli Erickson were themselves created by User:Keyboard warrior killer and whom he claims "are recognized in Wiki as notable people". Creating an article and then pretending that that they "are recognized in Wiki as notable people" is an attempt to deceive others and is very very sneaky. So although I see three keep votes, I don't see particularly strong arguments for them. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Too many problems with the references. "Esther's Diary: Behind the Scenes" is cited twice but is a youtube interview done by Bright Shining City Productions, the film's production company. IMdB is cited four separate times but it is not always reliable/verifiable. The "Esther's Diary end credits" are cited 3 times. Also there is an issue that this 2010 release is essentially a re-editing of a previous movie "Forgiveness"(2008), I don't think an article about the 2010 release is noteworthy enough to have its own article, perhaps the 2008 release and the 2010 re-edit can be combined. If the article can be brought up to Wikipedia standards, then the article-writer can always re-submit. Shearonink (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vote struck, see below Shearonink (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
There is no article for the film "Forgiveness" here. So there is nothing to combine or from another point of view, this is the combination of this. So this is no reason to claim here deletion. How about more accuracy when trying to seperate good articles and perhaps bad articles? --Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point being made in my 'Delete' post is that in my opinion the 2010 release does not have enough notability on its own merit to warrant its own article. *If* press, reviews, awards were combined for both the 2008 release and the 2010 release then the combined information might be enough to warrant the article being kept. Besides, an article being deleted once does not mean that it cannot be re-submitted *ever*, it just means that the information needs to be re-worked/re-edited to be brought up to Wikipedia article standards before possible re-submission.Shearonink (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As per Wikipedia:NFILM, one of the criteria is "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Allan Knee in particular is no small potatoes; if you've ever seen the movie Finding Neverland, Allan Knee is the writer of the original play that movie was based on. I did indeed create the Juli Erickson and Mariusz Kotowski articles, but I did not create the articles on Allan Knee and Shelley Calene-Black. There is a completely different Wikipedia user that is covering Anime in Wikipedia and they have done updates on both the Juli Erickson article and the Shelley Calene-Black article because they are both Anime voiceover actresses. In the case of Shelley Calene-Black in particular, the user took the time to update her filmography, making separate lists for Calene-Black's Anime roles and live-action roles, the latter of which includes Esther's Diary. ¶As per the deception claims, there are two other notable people in the movie who I am not claiming as notable people because as, per the definition above, their involvement is minor. One is Cyndi Williams, another Anime voiceover actress who had a very small role voiceover role in the movie, and the other is photographer Michael Kenna, whose concentration camp photography is used in the opening credits. I consider both of those inclusions "minor" according to the definition above, and therefore did not include them in my list of notable people. ¶One of things I was asked to do was find places on the web where the movie had screened, and I did that. As Forgiveness, the film has its own page in the Polish Film Festival of Los Angeles' Film Gallery, and I listed that (all four of my notable people are listed in the credits on that page). I also added links to its award and screening at the Bayou City Inspirational Film Festival, and its screening at West Hollywood International Film Festival in Los Angeles (which is also a full page). ¶As for the Jewish Journal, the paper is a print publication and, according to the publication's official site, has a circulation of 150,000 (according to Wiki it has a circulation of 60,000 and a readership of 180,000), so in my mind it does not count as a minor source. ¶Shearonink suggested that this article be a combined story on both Forgiveness and Esther's Diary, which I think is a good idea. Actually, if you read my recent edits, that is exactly what I did. I haven't done it yet, but I was also planning to make a redirect link to the Esther's Dairy article from the Wikipedia article Forgiveness (film), which is about a completely different film (a 2004 South African film). From all the Wiki articles I've read, when you have two things that are really similar, you combine them into one article, and I want to respect that tradition. I could resubmit the article under the name "Forgiveness (2008 film)", but since the version that is circulating now is Esther's Diary, it seems to me that it would be less confusing to put it under the more recent title. Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep keep, remove all unverifiable stuff; trim the plot; remove unref'd awards in particular, and tidy-up. Add RS if possible. But appears notable. And merge stuff in, as appropriate, as described above.  Chzz  ►  02:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck. Erm, wait a minute. I need to check these sources a bit more. Chzz  ►  02:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete vote struck; see discussions below 11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Second thoughts; re-checking this, I realise that there is no significant coverage in RS - that journal thingy isn't about this film at all; in fact, much of the content seems to be a desparate attempt to show inherited notability. There is no significant coverage of THIS movie.  Chzz  ►  02:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Chzz, where do you see desperation? If "desperation" is in the details, then I could cut it down, that's not a problem. Look at the Jewish Journal article again; it's a full-on review of the movie under the original title of Forgiveness. I could see the point in some of these responses if Esther's Diary had no coverage whatsoever, but Forgiveness and Esther's Diary are two different versions of the same movie, and together there is enough information. I feel very strongly that I've provided enough of a "paper trail" above to show that there are notable people playing major roles in the movie and that it has been screened in festivals and received awards,and that therefore it fits the notability guidelines. Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Notability is not inherited, and it strikes me that much current content is only tangentially related to the topic. For example, "polanegri.com" is clearly not an independent source, but is used to reference the facts regarding other works by Sydney Barrosse and Jamie Goodwin. It is akin to writing an article about "Chzz", and stating that "Chzz once met David Beckham,<ref> Chzz's Website </ref> who played in over 100 Champions League matches.<ref> Legit ref re DB </ref>.
If I could see sufficient notability of the subject in RS, that'd be fine; if the only coverage is about the movie Forgiveness, and there is further coverage of that, then we should have an article on that subject, with a mention of its other name (sourced, of course). If it is notable under the name "Esther's Diary", then I have yet to see evidence of that notability.  Chzz  ►  16:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just denying notability is not enough. What about the awards, what about the original and the reedit film, what about the notable actors and director? The actual version shows better that this deletion request is nonsense. I am sad about some user, their behaviour and the workload they produce. -- Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon your keep vote is more nonsense than anything in my nomination. I have already gone through WP:NFILM and addressed all the issues you have raised. You on the other hand have no arguments based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. I think Chzz's response sums this up: upon stumbling across this article and seeing how nicely done it is, how large it is, how many refs it has, how many awards it has won, how many blue links to other articles there are - they automatically assume it must be notable. But upon closer examination, they realise this is not the case. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict)
Reply (to Ausgangskontrolle) We need to assert notability; that is the requirement - not to refute alleged notability. Notability is not inherited - the fame of the actors and director has no bearing on this matter. Chzz  ►  16:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (to Christopher Conner and Chzzz) I really do appreciate the kind words on the article, Christopher, thank you. But I am starting to wonder if these arguments are going into "That's my story and I'm sticking to it" territory as I've gone to a LOT of work to establish notability, and my talking points are being ignored and/or nitpicked for exceptions regardless of how many dots I connect. (P.S. the deflection tactic on Ausgangskontrolle is not exactly endearing.) Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don't nitpick, honestly; I keep it very simple: WP:VRS - that is all I ask, of any subject. If you could show me e.g. 3 newspaper articles that were substantially about the movie, I'd be happy to vote to keep it - and perhaps such coverage can be obtained, in time - but maybe not right now.  Chzz  ►  03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what we have here is a special circumstance where we must consider the cumulative coverage and awards of one film as released under two different titles... with the Forgiveness (2007 film) being the original release title and Ether's Diary being the later "director's cut" of the same film. I suggest that we do a move and redirect of the current title of Esther's Diary to Forgiveness (2007 film), where (and I am quite willing to do the editing) we can have the director's cut with its re-naming and re-release included in a "History" or "Release" section. And yes, Kwk points suggests above that we might keep in with its new title... but as it was under the original title that it was first released, first reviewed, and first seen as award-winning, a searchable redirect of the current name to the former, will then bring readers to an encyclopedic article where the film and its re-release can be dealt with in one place. And if after all this discussion, a closer decides to delete, I ask that the article be userfied to me so that I may do the re-write and create an new article for Forgiveness (2007 film) with information on the later re-cut and re-release as Esther's Diary included contextually as I have outlined above. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
I appreciate the circumstances. I can see how it might be possible to build an article on the alternate two names of the one film. Given the current article content, etc, I believe that deletion is a fair outcome, and in that event, that userfication would allow all the time in the world for the development of an appropriate, referenced, encyclopaedic article in userspace; I would also recommend getting it checked over before making it live again. This seems the best way forwards, to me.  Chzz  ►  03:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the close result is a keep, with a closer's suggestion of moving to the earlier name with editing to clarify its focus and history, I would be glad to assist in such improvements. As improvements are possible, a flat deletion based upon it not yet being moved and edited, might be seen as perhaps not the best outcome, as we do have other options. WP:Incubation is another possibility that has not been discussed... specially as rather than the article being off mainspace in only one userspace, it could be off mainspace but in a location where others may step in and assist... others who had never even heard of the topic... and as being in a community workspace, it would not be returned to mainspace until it has reviewed. But again, I think a "keep and fix" is a suitable outcome per its potential for improvement and Wikiepdia not demanding immediate perfection of articles that can be addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You believe deletion is a fair outcome? It looks like this is your only intention. Instead of adding the things you miss, you expect that someone starts from the beginning after your proposed deletion? Looks like you have no problem to disturb authors and delete their work so that some day another author begin from scratch. Your arguments are counterproductively to a relevant article about a film and its reedit. I gave arguments, just denying them is not correct. Notable actors and director makes this film notable. What else than films like this one makes these people notable? The inconsistency in your argumentation is obviously. --Ausgangskontrolle (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, WP:AGF, as User:Chzz is a decent editor, and just zeroing in on the article's current weaknesses. I see by his comment that he acknowledges that a properly encyclopedic article can be created from the information available, but that he feels it better to start from scratch than correct the one we have. My own thought is that if it can be fixed through regular editing, why then why must we start from scratch? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the "keep, fix, and move to different location" thing. In lieu of the situation and concerns, I would prefer it be moved to a Forgiveness (2008 film) article and Esther's Diary be a redirect. With that in mind, let me see if I can scrounge around and find a .jpg of the original poster so there can be an original Forgiveness poster and an Esther's Diary poster in the article (maybe I could email the production company and see if they would be willing to send one?) I think it's a good article with these new edits and I personally don't think it's so bad that it needs to be incubated (of course I'm the original author, so consider that bias). Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sticking with my keep suggestion. It was my initial reaction when I voted having only skimmed the surface, and I maintain my conviction having looked in further detail. I think the suggestions to perhaps move to a new title, strengthened by the combined references, is certainly viable. I do however assert that this is akin to a keep vote which is to say correct through normal editing. Moving an article to a different title is a normal editing procedure. The articles creator has demonstrated amicability during this process, and there is no reason to believe they would have been obstinate to constructive criticism brought forth on either the user or the article talk page. Those factors along with the articles creation date suggest AfD is perhaps the least preferred venue for making these kinds of corrections. If anything I suggest perhaps 'speedy keep' so as to allow this re titled article to emerge as the next step in its own manifestation. My76Strat 00:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just contributed a BOLD re-write of the article to address concerns brought up on this page and in anticipation of a move to its original title. I turned what first came to AFD[57] into THIS. While editors are welcome to revert, I believe the new version is leaner, better sourced, far less spammy, and seems now to be decently encyclopedic. I suggest then that if kept, the closer move the rewritten article to Forgiveness (2008 film) and set Esther's Diary (film) as a redirect... it being a likely search term. Best to all. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename as above - that seems fine to me; sorry I couldn't really vote "keep" previously, but we were talking about a different article, so it's tricky. Admin, please note, upon closing this the article needs moving (with a redir left behind).  Chzz  ►  11:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Schmidt's re-edited version - Article as it now stands is a keep vote with appropriate re-directs/moves, etc. Shearonink (talk) 14:01, 19 July 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 (talk) 05:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viraf Patel[edit]

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

Unremarkable person, despite some notability claimed. I admit I'm not an expert in this area, but I can't find anything notable about this person. Dengero (talk) 06:21, 13 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative student of pakistan[edit]

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

Unremarkable...award? Notability issues and verifiability. Dengero (talk) 06:18, 13 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick Mancino[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with only a few small roles; article creator has serious COI issues. Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete – fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not speediable. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering what needs to be done to get this page included in Wikipedia? Dominick is well known in his field and respected by many for his contributions to good causes. He has other things coming up this fall that would eventually be added. He was also mentioned by the American Gangsters museum to play the part of John Gotti so he is well known. I spent alot of time working on the page to meet the standards for Wikipedia. I know Dominick personally and I can tell you that he deserves to be included in Wikipedia. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you Tina — Preceding unsigned comment added by MancinoFanclub (talk • contribs) 08:15, 13 July 2010

  • A good place to start is by reading some of the guidelines we mentioned above. Also, as I mentioned on your talk page, your username suggests that you are here to represent a group (in this case, a fan club for Mr. Mancino), and that kind of activity is discouraged on Wikipedia. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least for now. No reliable sources are given, only IMDB, a YouTube video, and what looks like a personal page of some kind (it wouldn't load for me). --Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 15 July 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 San Jacinto Fault Zone#Notable earthquakes. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Borrego Springs earthquake[edit]

2010 Borrego Springs earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No deaths, no injuries, no major damage. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. 5.4 is in no way a major earthquake. —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 05:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As an alternative to deletion, merging more of the article to San Jacinto Fault Zone would be good. It already has a little blurb, but adding more is a good idea. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mikemoral. - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 12:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge (I would prefer straight delete without a redirect.) Yet another in a recent flurry of articles about non-notable earthquakes. No, wait - since I felt it myself, it actually is notable under the new policy WP:IFELTIT. (kidding) --MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Maybe this wasn't exactly the most devastating earthquake this year, but ones as strong as this are not an everyday occurence in the area. This particular quake was felt by a very large number of people and caused some degree of disruption. Justmeagain83 (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment According to the USGS, there were five earthquakes yesterday in California. An earthquake is an everyday occurrence. Just because an earthquake was felt do not make it notable. Notability for earthquakes requires massive damage/causalities/injuries, imo. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:03, 20 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark S. Joshi[edit]

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

Article doesn't have any third-party sources, and may fail WP:V elektrikSHOOS 04:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google Scholar search seems to easily establish notability. True, there are no references, but that's not a legitimate reason to delete an article. SwarmTalk 08:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Joshi is very well known in mathematical finiance, and influential as a result of the popularity of his books. Notability is fine. But the article needs to be WP:V (which should be easy). (Disclaimer: I am biased perhaps. I have published with Joshi but not on math. finance)Billlion (talk) 05:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Impressive distribution of citations in GS so passes WP:Prof, also significant published work of a more popular nature. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:05, 16 July 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, nomination withdrawn Richard Cavell (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC) (not an administrator)[reply]

Welfare's effect on poverty[edit]

Welfare's effect on poverty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is incredibly biased. I see no way to easily salvage it. elektrikSHOOS 03:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's an encyclopedic topic, although the article that we have at the moment isn't very impressive. I'd prefer it to be titled The effect of welfare on poverty. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I haven't finished it yet it's "biased" because I have yet to add in opposition. This is actually a controversial issue and uses different framing for each argument. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could have tried following our Wikipedia:Editing policy of improving a non-neutral article that doesn't include all points of view by including those points of view. Indeed, you could have followed the article creator's request that is in an HTML comment right at the top of the article. You nominated this for deletion just 13 minutes after its creation. Not only is that not enough time to incorporate all points of view on such a subject, it isn't even enough time to properly determine that there's no way to salvage the article. Uncle G (talk) 04:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to close, (with keep) as when I tagged it with Afd I wasn't aware of the article it came from and thought it was standalone. Though I will definitely keep an eye on it as it has potential to be a very contentious article. elektrikSHOOS 04:02, 13 July 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. Merge/redirecting is encouraged to be undertaken at editorial discretion (or after talk page discussion). Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Towers (MUD)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AVATAR (MUD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD 1st nomination • AfD statistics)
The Two Towers (MUD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could not find reliable secondary sources to verify this material (WP:V), and therefore nothing to fulfil the notability guidelines for inclusion (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 16:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looking at the article history, there were more sources earlier. Following the style of the Lost Souls (online game) article (an even longer-running MUD), here are some more sources.
    • Tisa, Steve (1995) rec.games.mud.lp, claiming it was a LP Mud[7]
    • Ekman, Fredrik, posted a list of Tolkien games which included it.[8]

    References[edit]

    1. ^ Short, Philip (2001). Mao: A Life. Owl Books. p. 631. ISBN 0805066381.; Chang, Jung and Halliday, Jon. Mao: The Unknown Story. Jonathan Cape, London, 2005. ISBN 0-224-07126-2 p. 3; Rummel, R. J. China’s Bloody Century: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 Transaction Publishers, 1991. ISBN 0-88738-417-X p. 205: In light of recent evidence, Rummel has increased Mao's democide toll to 77 million. See also: "Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm". Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century. Retrieved 2008-08-23.
    2. ^ Fenby, Jonathan. Modern China: The Fall and Rise of a Great Power, 1850 to the Present. Ecco, 2008. ISBN 0-06-166116-3 p. 351"Mao’s responsibility for the extinction of anywhere from 40 to 70 million lives brands him as a mass killer greater than Hitler or Stalin, his indifference to the suffering and the loss of humans breathtaking."
    3. ^ Asia times online
    4. ^ The People's Republic of China 1949-76, second edition, Michael Lynch (London: Hodder Education, 2008), p. 57
    5. ^ "What caused the great Chinese famine?" (PDF). 2000-01-01. Retrieved 2009-05-14.
    6. ^ "A hunger for the truth: A new book, banned on the mainland, is becoming the definitive account of the Great Famine.", chinaelections.org, 7 July 2008
    7. ^ Tisa, Steve (1995-05-09). "LP mud's". rec.arts.books.tolkien. Retrieved 2010-07-05. empires.stanford.edu 9999 {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |note= (help) early independently verifiable source indicating Two Towers was an LP Mud
    8. ^ Ekman, Fredrik (1995-05-09). "LP mud's". rec.arts.books.tolkien. Retrieved 2010-07-05. Tolkien computer games list version 1.6d early independently verifiable source including Two Towers in a Tolkien games list as an LP MUD

    Possible sources[edit]

    • This Google Books search has "Welcome to The Two Towers LPMud" on page 41 in the book Creating Web pages for dummies, by Bud E. Smith, Arthur Bebak - 1997, but the snippet view does not show the context. The preceding page 40 includes a brief "tip" on what a Mud is, so one could speculate[citation needed] that page 41 used the Two Towers mud as an example. Anyone who has the hardcopy could confirm this (I do not).

    Probable primary sources[edit]

    These were removed from the article but might still be useful to support "the mud operators claim ..." statements.

    Other sources[edit]

    • Alexa rank "Set entirely within Tolkien's world of Middle-Earth. Site contains detailed game information and a discussion forum."
    • Rudy, David, rec.games.mud.lp, Lima and TMI Mudlib questions: while discussing command parsing, mentioned it's based on TMI Mudlib

    And there are several mudlists posted on Usenet around 1995 and 1996 that include this mud, although many appear to have been out of date even then. I could not find any independent support for the started in 1994 claim for example.

-84user (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC) added 1998 mention of another book -84user (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The currently extant cite to theonering.net does appear to be an independent review; the source isn't the New York Times or anything but its value is probably nonzero. As far as the other stuff you mention, 84user, Usenet posts may yield specific sorts of information but they don't demonstrate anything for notability purposes, nor do Mudconnector and Mudmagic directory listings. However, I have copies of Creating Web Pages for Dummies and Most Popular Web Sites: The Best of the Net from A 2 Z being shipped to me now, and will add citations from them when available. I think that between these items, we should have enough for this article to squeak by. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Received Most Popular Web Sites: The Best of the Net from A 2 Z today and added cite from it. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great news. Although, I have to ask: is the coverage significant, or merely enough for verification? Marasmusine (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's minimal; I quoted the entirety of it. I don't think it contributes much toward notability in and of itself. It does establish that the MUD's web site was there in 1996 and doing well enough that it made it into a volume Lycos compiled based on link popularity (according to the preface), so maybe that's something. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So, um, yeah, I got the 9th edition (good God) of Creating Web Pages for Dummies when I needed the 2nd edition. The 2nd edition is being shipped now. I guess, like, if someone's looking to close as delete, it'd be nice if they would hold off a minute. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, CWP4D 2E received and reference added. The material is in context of a discussion of entertainment sites in general and MUDs in particular, and uses T2T as its sole example for that, with a screenshot, briefly described "Figure 2-5 shows an interesting entertainment site from Service Tech, Inc. at the following URL: http://www.angband.com/towers/core.html" and captioned "Figure 2-5: A site for sore eyes." About which the best thing one can probably say is, okay, somebody noticed them. Hopefully it adds up. —chaos5023 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch·comms 03:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or smerge-redirect to TMI Mudlib in the case that the consensus is this does not meet wikipedia's notability standard for a stand-alone article, but please wait until chaos5023 can check the 2nd edition of Creating Web Pages for Dummies. Note that here I added both MIRE and The Two Towers (MUD) to TMI Mudlib. -84user (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I appreciate chaos5023 source-gathering efforts, but so far we have nothing approaching the coverage asked for at WP:N. Since we now have additional verification, I'm open to a merge/redirect. Marasmusine (talk) 15:43, 20 July 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. ...But someone should incorporate those sources. Shimeru 00:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Alikhani[edit]

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

Non notable and unsourced. Page created by single page editor, possibly the subject himselfFarhikht (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One can search his name in Persian "یوسف علیخانی" in google to find out his impact on third generation of Persian novelists. As I know Ghabil Literary Magazine,[59], was an influential online journal for many years in Iran; his publishing house "Alamoot" is one of the leading publishing houses in Iran for avant-gard novels.--Newpoesia (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is one source for sure, not sure as to it's reliability. Gosox(55)(55) 13:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean ghabil.com?Farhikht (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Might be popular in Iran, but even searching on his name plus "novelist" yields only some book-reading circle report in English, at the top of the results; there's an Iranian microbiologist of the same name who's probably more notable. I tried to find the book where he's interviewed, at least to have an ISBN, but Google Book search turns up no such title. Yakushima (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to thank you for your comment, and your attention to the Iran-related articles. I have no problem reading again the policies, but honestly this manner of judging could just disappoint newcomers. I hate to talk about myself, but I'm not a newcomer, I'm an experienced editor here on Wikipedia with more than 20000 edits, I'm a writer with more than 5 books and many articles, I know Iranian culture, and be sure I don't want to create an article about myself!Farhikht (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Weak Keep I agree the Google hits in farsi have good quality, so maybe its a good article for Farsi wikipedia but the subject is not inernationally notable. --Spada 2 ♪♫ (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no such distinction as "good article for Farsi wikipedia but the subject is not inernationally notable". Non-English sources are perfectly acceptable as evidence of notability; attempts to change WP:N to state otherwise have repeatedly failed, most recently in October 2009. cab (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the current article reference is not in English, that's not a requirement, and the article appears (via automated translation) to cover the relevant information, appears to be reilable, secondary, independent, add the artab.ir link from CaliforniaAliBaba and the article passes GNG. Good enough. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —fetch·comms 03:16, 13 July 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 (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua West[edit]

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

Nothing to suggest how important or notable this person is. No sources, just two official external links. magnius (talk) 03:06, 13 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Future in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:


Back to the Future in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is unreferenced (save one notation about an episode of Fringe) and merely a laundry list of non-notable, sometimes one-line references in other media. Article is merely an indiscriminate collection of information. The article contains information such as "The Spanish band Delorean name themselves after the movies time travelling DMC-12", which may not entirely be true; just because a vehicle from DeLorean Motor Company appeared in Back to the Future doesn't necessarily mean that the band's name is a specific reference to the movie. Other trivial, non-specific/verifiable "references" include "Also in The Polar Express, the Hero Boy pulls the train's whistle and acknowledges that he's wanted to do that his whole life. This line was said by Doc Brown after he and Marty "borrow" the locomotive." Article survived one previous nomination on 21 March 2010 as a result of no consensus. Wikipedia:POPCULTURE provides an argument that pop culture references be included if they are verifiable, well-written and "contain facts of genuine interest" (not simply a laundry list of random notations) – none of which can be used as labels for this article. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture reference sections/articles are welcome, but this particular article contains an incredibly excessive amount of trivial references to the point where it would be incredibly time consuming and cumbersome to weed them out. The article, should it be merged back into the franchise article, definitely needs to be pared down and have a lot of the bloat removed per WP:IPCA. A lot of the information in the article as it stands is very unnecessary. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mish-mash of trivial references, "this guy said something that was also said in BTTF" entries and "this thing looks like that thing" original research. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a collection of trivia. We don't create articles by throwing together a hodgepodge of every instance when something appears as a namedrop. That is original research and unencyclopedic. I would vote to keep an article written in prose backed up by reliable sources that specifically discuss the cultural reception of a work in popular culture, but a trivia farm? Hell no. ThemFromSpace 00:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the "article" is in violation of WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA. 24.217.235.226 (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourcing can most probably be found for many of the entries, and if some entry is OR, it can (and should) be removed: since issues can be dealt with editing, deletion policy requires not to delete. --Cyclopiatalk 14:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails WP:IPC which states: "Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject". That's exactly what this is. It'll need a complete rewrite to bring it to WP:IPC standards. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:43, 21 July 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. A serious and worthy project but one that simply hasn't attained the coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. A short piece in a local newspaper, covering a protest march, for example, is insufficient. A clear consensus to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project negative[edit]

Project negative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ad0316 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is an "online campaign to raise awareness of the ban in force in the UK on blood donations by gay and bisexual men". No evidence that this is a major campaign. Indeed, only a few local groups in Birmingham (UK) cover the issue, and then not in great detail. Minor student activism. (SPA and COI issues.) Christopher Connor (talk) 02:28, 13 July 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 Reddy. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reddygandla[edit]

Reddygandla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reddy123456789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Contested prod. Subject appears to be some kind of caste in India. However, the article is so badly written that it's difficult to understand what it's saying. No sources. Cannot find sources that describe what this article is talking about. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article is vague to the point of near indiscernibility, but to me the decisive point is that, even if I don't know what a Reddygandla is, nobody else knows either.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong (or speedy) delete. It's borderline A7 as a group of people without a clear assertion of significance; the main reason I hadn't deleted it was to see if it developed any. With no sources cited, it clearly fails both notability and verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glenfarclas' search seals it for me. Speedy delete as WP:NONSENSE. (C.Fred, feel free to work your magic.) Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't agree that it qualifies for speedy deletion as nonsense so I am declining that nomination, but I do agree with C.Fred that it's borderline A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Reddy - sub-castes/social-groups aren't generally considered notable in their own right. Per this rather tenuous GBooks search - [64], it almost certainly exists, and there's probably paper coverage of it. A sentence in Reddy will do fine for now though. Claritas § 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable subcaste. Can be mentioned in a single line within the Reddy article.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: only until "sub-castes/social-groups aren't generally considered notable in their own right" assertion has an explicit and relevant notability policy reference will I change my !vote to delete.--Shirt58 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no specific notability guideline for sub-castes, but from my experience in AFD, almost all of them are merged or deleted, due to lack of notability and available sources. Claritas § 21:21, 17 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Inn (Film)[edit]

The King's Inn (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
OblivionsRow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

"Contested" prod. Subject appears to be non-notable film (2005). No sources except for IMD and own website. Seems to fail WP:NFILM. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete as failing WP:NF. Had there been an article on the award-winning young director, I might have considered a redirect to his filmography. However, as there is not, and this one fails independent notability, it can go. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not fulfill WP:NF. Practically no independent coverage of project. Shearonink (talk) 13:04, 20 July 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 userfy and delete. After discussion with author, he agreed to have it userifed and copied into the Martial Arts Wikia instead. —fetch·comms 01:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afrijitsu Combative System[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this martial art. —fetch·comms 01:23, 13 July 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. Clearly the situation has changed since this was first discussed, and the most recent consensus is that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support a separate article. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time for Annihilation[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Papa Roach Live Album. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to band. As is, the album fails WP:NN, no WP:V or WP:RS, all self-pub or youtube, etc. It also is close on WP:CRYSTAL. GregJackP (talk) 01:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge, per GregJackP. Sources are thin and unreliable. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we really should not have this hanging round based on Twitter etc, until there is more meat to put on the bones. Rodhullandemu 01:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Currently fails WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. This info is confirmed in the page of Eleven Music Records.. UltraHeadShot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. New details of album released today on Blabbermouth.net, a reliable source.Smaunsell (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Papa Roach per nom, GregJackP, Rodhullandemu, Nouse4aname, UltraHeadShot.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this fails WP:MUSIC. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge to Papa Roach. Omar 180 (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge; this AFD needs to be closed. Hairhorn (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporary delete? Papa Roach certainly isn't a non-notable band, so it's possible that the buzz and coverage for their first live album may spike after it's actually released. So, scrap it for now and maybe look at putting it back after release? Keyok (talk) 01:35, 13 July 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) 00:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. Please see this AN thread. Furthermore, this AFD was never transcluded. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – obviously there will be an article on this album in 5 or 6 weeks time (when it is released) so there seems little point now in this discussion (although in May when it was afd'd I might well have agreed). There's a whole Category:Upcoming albums of 210 unreleased albums. Occuli (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Occuli points out it is only a matter of weeks 'til release of the album by an already notable band. When the article was first nominated for deletion it was crystalball-ish but it is now listed for pre-sale on Amazon as well as b&n [65] and Best Buy [66], various radio DJs have mention of the album in their blogs [67] [68], so it is not so crystalball-ish as U2's Songs of Ascent. To delete it now is just inviting a history-merge in a matter of weeks or days when someone else re-creates the article. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many sources exist; arguably a notable album even before release, and even if it isn't, it will be very soon. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem to apply here. Robofish (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those above - has ample coverage and release seems imminent. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 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 article lacks the reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. There was a clear consensus to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock United[edit]

Rock United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
CjsRoxMySox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is non-notable music festival. Only sources in article is a blog and Facebook. Could find no substantial coverage of subject. Fails WP:GNG. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:30, 13 July 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) Mkativerata (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dany Saadia[edit]

Dany Saadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Great work, Michael! I'm changing my vote to a definite Keep based on your good research. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As it now stands, don't think there is much doubt this meets to notability guidelines. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:10, 12 July 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) 00:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so another comment or 2 would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a winner of multiple awards, he seems to meet the notability requirements for a filmmaker. --RL0919 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Critzos II[edit]

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

Non notable subject. No indication of importance. Vanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mephisto Panic (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears as though there are numerous articles supporting the keeping of this particular article. The subject, Critzos, seems to have had not only a notable career in the martial arts, but has also been inducted into several Halls of Fame. The assertions are also verified by several unrelated sources. As a noted practitioner who apparently still continues to train at the United States Naval Academy (this too is verified by the USNA web cite), it would appear that this is exactly the type of article that should stay in print as opposed to deletion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.246.136 (talk) 04:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references in the article itself, ALL lead to independent sources that verify the facts contained in the article itself. Independent web cites, publications, and news articles seem to provide not only notability, but also substantiation. Based on these sources it would appear that the article more than meets the required standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.145.22 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 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, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if reliable sources can be found and added to the article. The subject appears to be a multiple national champion/finalist, which would demonstrate notability under WP:WPMA/N criterion 4. There are no references provided for these claims in the article, but this is one possible source. The article does need improvement. Janggeom (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A review of the sources cited indicate independent and reliable information and sources. Further, a general internet search indicates that the subject is of notable stature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.154.37 (talk) 13:16, 10 July 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) 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have followed this thread and am unsure as to why this article has been re-listed so many times. A review of the article, its links to sources, and a general Google search of the subject reveals that notability has been more than satisfied. Also, the sources are numerous, independent, and authoritative. The style, however, could be somewhat improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.5.1 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Audur capital[edit]

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

I tagged this article for numerous issues something over three months ago; since then, no changes have been made. Issues with notability and spammishness remain. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance, and obvious advertising: The services that Audur offers, including wealth management, private equity and corporate advisory, can actually be found at any financial service company. However it is not the services that the company provides that makes it different but rather HOW it is done.... Audur’s values are the core to HOW the company conducts business. Audur is fiercely independent, risk aware and straight talking and believes in profit with principles and emotional capital. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article was a mess, but it cited (as external links, which I have converted into references) a lot of significant coverage in important international media. I cleared out most of the spam and wikified the references, and I believe the company clearly meets Wikipedia standards of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW if kept, the article should be moved to Audur Capital (with a capital C, no pun intended). --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 10 July 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, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks depth of coverage in secondary sources. This company was big news when it was first created per the footnotes, but nothing since then. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Spoke too soon) Keep - still being talked about in reliable sources [73] [74] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharkxFanSJ (talk • contribs) 20:21, 12 July 2010
  • Week Delete - Agree with SharkxFanSJ it is being mentioned, but not at the sort of significant levels to pass WP:CORP. Codf1977 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The sources currently cited in the article show a range of coverage in multiple reliable sources; they are not just trivial mentions. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:51, 21 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday (Basshunter song)[edit]

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

De prodded. This is a digital download single that is on an unnamed album (otherwise I would have redirected). It hasn't even been released yet as a digital download, apparently. We typically don't have articles on singles unless they've hit substantial chart positions. Shadowjams (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is being played to death on BBC Radio 1. It's almost certain to be a hit when it's released in less than 2 weeks, or according to this less than one week. There's already some coverage out there. The article's premature, but the single is very likely to become notable quite soon, as it's bound to get reviewed as its release approaches, so we can either delete it now only for it to reappear within 12 days, or incubate now and wait until there's more to say about it. Just don't spend too much time discussing it.--Michig (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Fails WP:NSONG, a non-controversial redirect would leave the edit history intact (in case Michig's comment proves accurate). I'm going to boldly do just that. Anyone contesting my call may certainly revert and call me on it. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.--Michig (talk) 05:39, 7 July 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, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Soon premiere in the U.S. and the UK watched video on YouTube nearly one million people. The song will surely be highly lisach listed on the charts. + [75] and [76] and [77] [78]. Eurohunter (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Soon premiere", YouTube views "will surely be" charted, etc. are not signs of notability. Please review WP:NSONG. The sources you list do not address this either. Wiki projects are not reliable sources and the others merely demonstrate the song exists. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:12, 15 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Bliss Team[edit]

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

Non-notable mixtape, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep That's why it's called a STUB. Maybe you should go find out what a stub is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoesquashfan5000 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck out since that's the most invalid deletion rationale I've heard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's the point of striking comments at an AfD? It's not a vote, and unless it's a sock or similar, I fail to see the meaning. The closing admin can and will weight everything in the closing procedure, no need for striking comments, especially given you're the nominator. I took the liberty to unstrike it, hope you don't mind. This is by no mean expression an opinion on the matter. Snowolf How can I help? 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article fails the notability criteria of WP:NALBUMS, since no significant coverage in independent reliable sources is demonstrated. —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't think the article should have been created with as little information as it has, but I think the creator of it deserves a chance to work on it. I think a deadline should be given and, if in that time, the article is not sufficiently improved, it be deleted. Nowyouseemetalk2me 13:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable compilation album which fails notability criteria at WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. I would have suggested a merge into the band article, but there isn't anything worth merging. --JD554 (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable album. Fails WP:SONGS. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:55, 12 July 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, 13 July 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. No prejudice against recreation once the album is closer to release. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screaming Bloody Murder[edit]

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

Neither the band (Sum 41) nor the label (Island Records) have officially announced this as an upcoming album. Gnews turns up nothing as of yet, and Gweb has a few interesting hits that more or less unofficially confirm this will be Sum 41's new album, but nothing of substance that could be used to expand or create an article. While this may or may not be an upcoming album, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we should not play guessing games. This article could be recreated once official confirmation is made, and there is enough information (confirmed title, full track listing, release date, etc.) provided by third-party published sources. See also, Complicity (album). Fezmar9 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The Sum 41 fan website of TheresNoSolution.com in connection with Fansite Connection are in close contact with Matt Whibley (The singer Deryck's cousin) has told owner of Fansite that the album will be called "Screaming Bloody Murder" but the record label is being difficult. Many stores have also put the album title as "Screaming Bloody Murder" as well as ChartAttack, a very good reliable source. - Boni Boy Blue Source: http://theresnosolution.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12567&view=unread#p282321 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.73.120 (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – So this entire article is being held up by something an indirect relative to a band member posted on a forum? Part of what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source is independence from the subject in question and a source that's published. According to this news source, posted yesterday and featuring quotes from an interview with Steve Jocz, Screaming Bloody Murder is only a tentative title and it only gives the tentative release date of "fall." Fezmar9 (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Two more things: Major labels need a couple months to promote new albums. Island Records released Brandon Flowers' new single "Crossfire" on June 21 to promote his album Flamingo to be released on September 6. This rumored release date of August 31 seems highly unlikely with still no official announcement made. It's also interesting that Sum 41 referred to the release of "Scumfuck" as a leak. Are we sure Theresnosolution.com had permission to release it? Fezmar9 (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well it is wrong to say that a source associated to the article is unreliable when it comes to such information, it mainly refers to biased or contestable claims. 66.131.29.222 (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I assume by "it" you mean Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. And, yeah it's wrong. First of all it's the ONLY source present in the article at the moment. It's not okay for an article to exist when it is based solely on an unreliable source. What this single source is verifying (title, release date, single) will have an abundance of sources once an official confirmation is made. See WP:GNG. Also, information about future events is considered contestable information. See WP:FUTURE. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:21, 11 July 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, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A future album which has not yet received significant coverage. Rehevkor ✉ 03:36, 16 July 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Andrew Dunckelman[edit]

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

The only claim to this person's importance is Dunckelman was named as one of America's top ten youth volunteers and recieved a national Prudential Spirt of Community Award for his outstanding volunteer community service. This does not seem to meet notability guidelines. — Timneu22 · talk 16:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak DeleteIf he has received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, then he satisfies notability, unless he is known for only one thing (per WP:BLP1E). He started a program "Project Fine Arts Motivating the Elderly" when he was about 12 which provided arts materials worth at least $30,000 to nursing home residents in 10 states. He received national recognition for this, such as USA Today in 2002 [79] and Buffalo News and other out of state papers in 2005. Other local press results show he received other local awards for this work, or in a baking contest and suchlike. He seems a young person with promise, but so far does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- —mono 21:35, 6 July 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, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The guy does seem to get around, and for somebody his age he certainly has made an impact in his community. Apparently he was even quoted extensively in a newspaper article about a recycling program in Louisiana (http://www.houmatoday.com/article/20090724/ARTICLES/907241004). For me this one is right on the line in terms of notability, where what he has accomplished certainly makes his contributions stand out in a crowd, but it is still rather modest. I don't know what to think about him showing up in the news for several issues above and beyond the initial claim to fame. Unfortunately, the real reason I'd like to keep this article isn't really valid as it is sort of a crystal ball hope that this guy might make something more of his life and become notable in the future. He does meet the very hard nosed technical qualifications for notability (sort of stretching the imagination a bit), but is that enough? --Robert Horning (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Smells like a vanity bio of an aspiring young pol, but his role as founder of Association of Cajun Americans < http://www.lsureveille.com/entertainment/cajun-french-and-creoles-celebrate-tradition-heritage-during-christmas-season-1.2110387 > probably suffices as notability. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 13 July 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.
  • Weak Keep Borderline, but I agree that if not very notable now, could easily become so in the future. --DThomsen8 (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Baum[edit]

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

The article Lindsey Baum has little information about the girl that went missing on June 26, 2009, which was more than a year ago and most of the information is about her movements on the day she went missing and the search efforts that occurred roughly to about a month after she went missing. The sources referenced on this article are low quality, which are from about a year ago, and there hasn't been any new information circulating about the case for many months now. I believe notability is a huge issue here because this girl doesn't seem to stand out from other people that have gone missing. Also, this article was proposed for a speedy deletion on the day that it was created, but the proposal was removed so that the article could be improved and about a year has gone by without any significant improvement. Zipotur (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Actually, I'm glad you nominated this one, since any attention on a missing child case is good, and this one should be updated. Regarding notability, it easily passes, see [80] and [81]. The only thing different I would recommend is that it should be moved to Kidnapping of Lindsey Baum. Hopefully, there will be an extended debate and a no consensus, rather than a snowball. Mandsford 16:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:ONEEVENT. We're not a news service and we're not a venue to help find missing people. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to Disappearance of Lindsey Baum, since that is how the FBI described it in an extensive piece on ABC Nightline in March 2010. Numerous reliable and independent news channels, magazines and newspapers have given the disappearance significant coverage from the time of the event until the present. She was on the cover of People magazine, and had extensive coverage on news channels far beyond the time of disappearance. Per Google News Archive, The disappearance received coverage on national TV on ABC, CBS, MSNBC and Fox. The FBI continued a task force investigation in March 2010, with investigators and profilors. They compiled a database of every ATM video and every celphone transmission around the time of the disappearance, and interviewed 2/3 of the town residents, many 2 or 3 times. The FBI says that about 800,000 children a year in the US are abducted by family members or run away, but that 100 to 200 are abducted by strangers. They are not treating this disappearance of a 10 year old as a runaway or a family custody dispute. We should not delete an article just because no one has bothered to add more recent sources. Edison (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed that this qualified as WP:ONEEVENT. Publicity in such a disappearance is good, but that's not wikipedia's role. Vartanza (talk) 00:20, 12 July 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, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. -Reconsider! 02:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Reconsider the static.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Weekly Shōnen Sunday. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onidere[edit]

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

Original prod rational was that it did not demonstrate notability by WP:N or WP:BK. A CGE search for reliable sources did not turn up anything of value. Depproded by an IP with no given reason with a history of WP:POINTedly deprodding articles. —Farix (t | c) 14:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Weekly Shōnen Sunday. This may have promise to become notable and get licensed but for now I think it should be redirected to the magazine article it currently is running in due to notability issues. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:03, 7 July 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, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect No evidence of notability found. Search returned illegal scanlation websites & blogs. No licensor outside Japan found. Scanlation seems up to date. --KrebMarkt (talk) 09:32, 14 July 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. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hajnal Ban[edit]

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

This was nominated and kept back in May, and I was one of the keep voters at the time. It was kept on the basis that, between her book about her cosmetic surgery, and her then-certain-of-election political candidacy, she was notable. In the meantime, she has become enmired in messy legal trouble, and is no longer a candidate. Her article is now being fought over by her supporters and opponents, and there's material that patently violates BLP being added and removed every second day. As such, I think this article really should go. Rebecca (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep & Protect - I came in the other day while doing vandal patrol and spent some time cleaning up sections. Since then it has only had one addition - I think something like pending changes or some other form of protection would be more suitable. Her book, I think, makes her notable - along with the controversy. It's worth pointing out that while user PropertySouth is clearly a Ban supporter (from his/her edits & comments) they have done a pretty good job at not bringing too much (positive) bias into the article & has been reasonable in his/her cleaning up. I know others are keeping an eye on the article so I don't think it is an issue --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 07:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP & Protect. 1) In May 2009 Hajnal Ban was not certain to be a candidate for election as the new federal seat of Wright was not created. In fact her original page just mentioned the fact that she was considering her political future. Hajnal Ban may in fact run for politics again now that her name has been cleared. 2) Hajnal Ban has continued to contribute to broader Australian political debate and has added to it, with numerous media mentions. 3) The fact she has been involved in a legal stoush (now over) is further evidence she is notable, as it has gained widespread media coverage to this day. 4) Her cosmetic surgery, continued interest in her and her book still make her notable. 5) her mere marriage to Black was widley covered by the media. 6) As a route to consensuses may I suggest that edits be blocked, as it is obvious people are trying to vandalise this entry. I ask that this debate remain focused on facts and show dignity to the person. I will ask that personal attacks be deleted.Propertysouth (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG (there is plenty of reliable secondary sources) and vandalism of an article isn't a valid argument for deletion. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of these sources aren't terribly reliable (for one, there's several press releases in there), and it's not a matter of vandalism - it's a matter of the article being a major BLP concern in a way that it wasn't before this legal mess broke. Rebecca (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:BLP#Deletion the AFDing it seems pre-emptive. The only BLP concerns seem to be over Ban's removal as candidate due to a controversy. The material seems to be pretty well (and fairly) dealt with in the article and there is no actual dispute over that other than some suspect edits by users to add in previously rejected text. On the other hand if consensus is that the section violates WP:BLP surely the sensible course is simply to remove it (as suggested by BLP policy) . WP:BLP says Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard. - I'd suggest these issues are addressed a) by a discussion of the content, b) a rewrite of the section based on that and c) protection of the page if necessary to prevent re-addition. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is only one press release, from Russell Lutton which was inserted to prove that he is a pro-pokies Councillor. All other sources are news papers and various other local and national media as well as media outlets from around the world. No press releases of Ban's are included in sources. In fact sources are amoung the most comprehensive of many articles. Also quoted are various books. Legal mess is now over, so as mentioned way to address this concern would be protection.Propertysouth (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think a discussion of the content would be more appropriate. This article exists in its current form because Propertysouth essentially 'owns' it. I can only see one change that is vandalism. A lot of it is opinion. Have a look at the edit history and tell me where the vandalism is. Propertysouth has continually deleated referenced material.Space cadet 2000 (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • many edits have been made to this wiki by various contributors, not just Propertysouth. It is important we refer to WP policy in guiding this debate and as such I ask; which policy has this wiki broken so as to be a candidate for deletion? If contributors have broken the BLP then the contributors (such as the IP address associated with spacecadet) should be the ones to be deleted (or barred) Propertysouth (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • propertysouth, please point to a single edit where I have breached a policy or vandalised this pageSpace cadet 2000 (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • focus of debate is this wiki, not you spacecadet, nor Propertysouth. This debate is just about Hajnal Ban's wiki entry and how it relates to wiki policy. Lets focus attention on policy and rules and keep this debate simple and focused. Propertysouth (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • agreed, but you refered specifically to me. Any and all changes I have attempted to make to this article have been entirely referenced, with sources such as the Australian and the Courier Mail. As it stands none of my changes are incorporated into this article because you have reverted all of them. Please point to one that is vandalism, not sourced or a breach of policy.Space cadet 2000 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • talk page is appropriate place to discuss edits and if they should be included, not this page. I have explained revisions and sought to seek consensus through proper outlet. I note you have never explained yourself and your edits anywhere. Happy to debate these issues in appropriate forum. Let’s debate issue to do with deletion on this page.Propertysouth (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but watch closely for BLP issues. The article in its current form needs some cleanup, but I'm not sure that this warrants deletion, and I'm also concerned about this being interpreted (even though I know that it is not) as part of the worrying trend towards deleting articles with BLP problems rather than just keeping a close eye on them. Ban has received substantial coverage in the national media, satisfying WP:GNG, and she overcomes any possible WP:ONEEVENT concerns easily (book, Forde candidacy, Wright candidacy, etc.). She passes these without having to worry about "near-certain" candidacy, which is a terrible reason for keeping an article anyway. Frickeg (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Frickeg (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Active politicians are inherently public figures and should be beset with the lowest of all possible notability bars for WP inclusion in the name of the public good. Protect the article if you must and do fix that crappy layout — but there seems absolutely zero place for a deletion challenge here. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The subject does not now, and never has in the past managed to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. The interest in the subject has not been about her political views anyway, but prurient interest in her personal life especially her leg extensions. No objections to re-creation if and when she is actually elected into a position other than a Councillor for a city-fringe local government area. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Politician guidelines cited above include: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Sounds about right, eh? Carrite (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously purporting that Beaudesert Shire Council members are "Major local political figures"??? That clause is designed to cover local government elected officials of major cities like Brisbane (and the other capitals in Australia) not semi-rural LGAs. Ban is not a major political figure of any note at this stage. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beaudesert Shire is not only political invlovement of Ban. Been a federal candidate twice, current Councillor in Australia's sixth larget Council (Logan City)and is often quote when ever she comments on Australia's political landscape. Is noteable. Propertysouth (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Active politician, and although not elected at the highest level clearly has large amounts of coverage and not just concerning a single event. Appears to sail past the GNG. If there's vandalism or edit warring we can semi-protect the page rather than deleting it! Fences&Windows 19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, which is our community standard for such people. Of course in some cases, the GNG might apply, but not here. The coverage relates to a string of isolated, unsuccessful candidacies and controversialtabloid events. It doesn't discuss her life and career at any holistic level and is therefore not "significant" coverage for the purposes of a proper biography. The article clearly suffers from this sourcing deficiency - it is a string of events, not a biography. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources as of now aren't perfect, but coverage seems significant enough to allow the subject to pass the general notability guideline. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN - cant put it any better than Mkativerata does above so wont try. Codf1977 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but you have to put it better then that. Many actually think Ban does pass the politican wiki policy, however various points have been made showing how Ban actually breezes other wiki polices as well. Propertysouth (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. She unquestionably fails WP:POLITICIAN. I, along with almost everyone else !voting keep, am asserting that she passes the general notability guideline. Frickeg (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Policy on politican states; ’ Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.” Logan City (her current office) is a major metropolitan city, in fact Australia’s sixth largest city. Within 2 years its predicted Logan may be Australia’s fourth Largest City. A simple Google search will also show the significant press Ban achieves. Ban sails past this test of a politician of note alone. Also sails past this test; ‘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." Ban marriage and enagement alone gained widespread coverage. Whenever she blogs it is covered in the media what she is saying.Propertysouth (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when evaluating sources it is important to assess their quality rather than weigh them. Here the sources do not cover her life or career in any depth. Pivotal for me is that she has yet to achieve anything notable. One phrase in the article, "Although she worked hard at her campaign and was credited with achieving a larger than expected swing, Ban only achieved 12.2% of the primary vote.", exemplifies the length to which the authors have gone, to attempt to make fine cloth out of off-cuts. TerriersFan (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    many achievements have been made, and as outlines, Ban has written books, been a commentator on certain issues, and is a current politician. She has had some success and some failure as a candidate. Your argument is general, and doesn't pay regard to policy. If it is your argument that her career needs to be explored in more depth than that can be done. However it is worth noting the number of sources and coverage of this person is greater hen many other wikis that have been allowed to stayPropertysouth (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Summary of my view - no one from the delete case has worked towards consensus, as required by wiki policy. Non of the contributors that have put the case for deletion have had regard to policy what-so-ever, or pointed out a failing of this wiki entry of any note. This debate now needs to be concluded and the article should be keptPropertysouth (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep for now. Has two claims to notability and news coverage is continuing. I would revisit at a later time, if coverage diminishes. --PinkBull 08:01, 21 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_July_13&oldid=1142641380"