Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 19 July 21 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of occupations[edit]

List of occupations (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 subject matter of this list is far too broad for this kind of coverage to work. Lists of occupations within certain fields might, but an holistic effort is doomed to be both bloated and perpetually incomplete. bd2412 T 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete failure of WP:NOTDIR. This list could never be complete. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Time to give this one a gold watch and retire it from service. Whatever purpose it might have had back in 2003, it's no better than a category. It is what it is, a list of articles from "accountant" to "zoologist". I think the original intent was to make a list of "professions", but it's been a sprawling and indiscriminate set of words. It started out boring and every contribution since then has been equally boring. Mandsford 02:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia space this is an index, part of Wikipedia's alternate navigation system. I think all indices should be moved to Wikipedia namespace, since they aren't articles or lists. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Deleting this article contradicts {{dynamic list}}, but the fact that it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE seems to hold more weight. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete duplication of category with no added value, unless one feels having a single list of all notable professions is a good alternative to the way the category has subcategories.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Our relevant policy makes it very clear that lists should not be deleted to promote categories instead. The list performs useful functions which the category cannot such as listing redlinks to assist article development. And, of course, it scarcely needs saying that the topic is highly notable as there are numerous surveys of occupations from many perspectives. We can enhance the list to include international standard codes such as ISCO-68 to again make the list more functional than the category. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As it stands, the list has no standards, provides no basis for determining what constitutes an "occupation", and contains several questionable examples of "occupations" (e.g., Master of ceremonies, Party leader and Queen mother). Were a list of ISCO definitions to be used as a standard, that would be a different list. Regarding redlinks, I have no great objection to moving this to project space as a place to list potential article topics. bd2412 T 20:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong express 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. SnottyWong express 20:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or make a main and sub-lists, such as List of occupations by occupation fields. Otherwise utterly unnecessary and WP:IINFO & WP:NOTDIR. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too broad in scope, per WP:SALAT, for a discriminate list to emerge from the subject. The WP:CLS argument doesn't hold water, as categories and lists have two separate purposes and while they may be complementary, they each have their own separate exclusive guidelines and their functions do not overlap entirely. This is a case where a category is ok and a list is not. Another viable option would be to carefully create sublists, each of a manageable scope that deals with a field notable for its job diversity. We could then use this as a place to link to the sublists. What we can't do is attempt to list every possible occupation on one page. ThemFromSpace 04:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't a directory, its a list. It aids in navigation, linking to other Wikipedia articles, that have something in common. Dream Focus 08:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see WP:SALAT). The only more general list I can think of is List of Wikipedia article names (please don't create that). We would be better served by a category. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of words?  pablo 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of all conceivable entities? Reyk YO! 08:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Lists of English words, List of places and List of minor planets. These have hundreds of thousands of entries and so have naturally been subdivided as they have grown. They are orders of magnitude greater in size and scope than the list which we consider here and so demonstrate that size does not matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but those three lists are actually navigational aids for other, discriminate, lists. Minor planets, for instance, have a regular and logical numbering scheme so that lists of them are capable of being complete, discriminate and useful. The List of places links to such undeniably useful articles as List of metropolitan areas by population and List of countries by area. Similarly for lists of English words. Did List of English words start its life as a haphazard collection of a few random words that came to someone's mind? Of course not. So your comparison is not really fitting, is it? Reyk YO! 09:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists of occupations are undeniably useful too because they are actually used by governments, the UN, economists and so on. If our list has yet to match their standards then this just shows that we have work to do. Deletion would obstruct this work and so would be disruptive contrary to our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this list become a useful one by a process of gradual editing? Maybe, though I'm far from convinces. Would it be better to wipe the slate clean and start over? Indisputably yes. Reyk YO! 09:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CLS, Colonel Warden and Dream Focus. There is a popular misconception that lists and categories are mutually exclusive. WP:CLS empathically says that they are mutually reinforcing, not exclusive. To paraphrase ThemFromSpace above, this is a case where a category is OK and a list is too, per WP:AOAL. Also let us remember that lists are navigational aids. They are not articles like others. They are more akin to navboxes. A list is therefore a case in which usefulness, which is usually not an inclusion criteria, becomes essential. The list in question is a clear case of a useful list for browsing WP (see first criteria of WP:AOAL). --Cyclopiatalk 19:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination has nothing to do with this being duplicative of a category, and everything to do with this being an impossible list to maintain. It has no standards to determine what belongs and what does not. Should it include every medical specialty? Every area of legal specialization (corporate tax attorney; individual tax attorney; estate tax attorney)? Should it include headings like Queen mother and Party leader? How about gambler, grifter, street mime, and shoplifter? Sorcerer, ninja, pirate, pimp, wife beater? How can we know which of these are properly listed as "occupations"? bd2412 T 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The standard is obvious: if RS call it an occupation, it is an occupation. About the size arguments, it can become a general list that links to specialized lists. WP:SALAT is clear in this respect: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. - So, we can organize this and create sub-lists to be linked. In any case, all of this is dealt with editing, and as such per our deletion policy it is not a reason to delete. --Cyclopiatalk 11:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly-defined and unmanageable.  pablo 20:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as Hellno2 ↓ and others have said, Lists of occupations would be useful as a logical navigational aid to more discriminate lists.  pablo 10:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but split into smaller lists so as to be more manageable and more user-friendly for readers. This list is helpful for navigation to other articles, and should be improved. And keep in mind that if this article is to be split, or smaller articles are to be created dealing with individual subject matter, deleting it is not a good idea because the informatioin on the current page can be used to create the others. Hellno2 (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Poorly defined and completely unmanageable as Pablo says. Way too broad to be useful and serves no conceivable navigational purpose. Reyk YO! 08:27, 25 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Whiteway[edit]

Erika Whiteway (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)

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. The subject has had an interesting life but none of her activities are particularly notable. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 23:30, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Freak Out Ever[edit]

Greatest Freak Out Ever (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 - fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Lacks independent reliable sources that attest to the notability of the series. Yes it's very popular but popularity does not confer or establish notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • So... what does? How is this different to star wars kid, numa numa, david after dentist, charlie bit my finger. They're all rather pointless, yet popular viral videos. That's the criteria. End of. I've already outlined different notable sources on the article discussion page; with respect, you're objections just don't make sense. Noodleki (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:GNG, notability is presumed when there are independent reliable sources that significantly cover the subject. The sources linked in the article are not reliable, for the most part being YouTube links to the videos themselves, sites that host one or more of the videos and blogs with no indication of editorial oversight. The counter-examples you've offered all have multiple reliable sources, including The New York Times, Business Week, the BBC, Globe and Mail and many more. Even if they didn't, their existence doesn't mean this series should have an article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daily Kos is a reliable, editorial site - look it up on wikipedia. As is the talk radio meltdown article and mahalo.com. I put a good few hours work into the article, I'd appreciate it, if it was left.Noodleki (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Daily Kos link is to a story that originated at mepreport.com (which is also linked as a source) for which I see no evidence of editorial oversight. Same goes for mahalo.com (which accepts content from anyone, making it as unreliable as Wikipedia itself as a source) and the talk radio podcast. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, the fact that it was posted on Daily Kos is good enough, as you appear to concede that it does have sufficient 'editorial oversight.' The talk radio podcast is clearly an official site. Take a look. Also, comedycentral.com have an article, as do rudetube; two eminent sites, i think you'll agree.Noodleki (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RudeTube is merely hosting a video, which per WP:WEB doesn't confer notability. That Daily Kos reposted something doesn't mean that the site exercised any editorial control over the piece. I don't know what "official site" means or why the site's being "official" has an effect on its status as a reliable source. The comedycentral video addresses a single installment and does not establish the notability of the series. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Noodleki, I understand that you put a lot of work into the article (by the way, read WP:MERCY), and the article is well-written with a lot of references, but the problem lies with notability. When I searched Google for this topic, I did find a lot of hits, but they all lead to blogs, YouTube and the like (as do the references in the article), and those kinds of sources do not qualify as reliable sources on Wikipedia. For starters, anyone can upload a video onto YouTube. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the WEP guidelines: "This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for the following:

Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[5] Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." Being reported on the Daily Kos is a 'reliable published work in the form of a website,' I don't see how the fact that it was reposted has any bearing on its reliability. If the Times were to publish an article that the editor had found lying in a garbage dump - it would still be considered reliable as The Times printed it. Can you not see that? It's not trivial coverage (as delineated above) I hope I don't have to prove that exhaustively as well - the fact that this series has attracted the attention of two TV broadcasters who have both interviewed them and aired the footage; how is that not notable?Noodleki (talk) 09:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Erpert and nom. (Not often I'm that brief - they've said it already. Peridon (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right; found a load of better source material, (just trawl through Google) the huffington post, the next web, heavy.com, the conservative journal, & lots more.Noodleki (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The Huffington Post did indeed have a posting about it, but that is a blog (albeit a very prolific and respected one). The coverage is very much a "hey, look at this" rather than a "this is of lasting importance." The remainder of the references I could find were not WP:RS. For the love of peace, this is a series of youtube videos about a teenager throwing a fit. Please remember that notability is not temporary - which would confer permanent notability if we established notability, yes, but it cuts both ways. What we're looking for is long-term historical liability, as it is said. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Direct quote from WP:RS ""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." As you admit, the Huffington Post falls squarely within that category; your objection that coverage was "hey, look at this"; is stated nowhere in the guidelines, you can't just invent problems out of thin air. "a series of youtube videos about a teenager throwing a fit:" - how is it any different to all the other 'unimportant' articles on other viral videos like Numa numa and chocolate rain; these have no innate importance to the furtherance of the pursuit of human knowledge and would definitely not be in a standard encyclopedia. However, the wiki guidelines are obviously more relaxed and allow for articles regarding unimportant topics, as long as they of interest to a large number of people. These clips have been seen by 100 million! people - that's more than many Hollywood films!! As to your objection about long-term notability, new clips are posted every month or so, with no signs of abating, his subscribers have grown steadily for over a year now, again with no signs of abating its far less temporary than similar articles about viral videos. I can only repeat, I've put up refs for lots of respected internet blogs that fall within the guidelines of wikipedia and I find this whole business rather unfair. The proof of the pudding is that the page has received hundreds of views in last couple of days. What more proof do you need that people are interested in this topic and want to read about it. If that's the case, is that not exactly the duty of Wikipedia to provide accurate information for its viewers on what they want to see??!!Noodleki (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, please format your comments to comport with guidelines through the use of indentations. It makes the conversation easier to follow. Second, "people like it" and "it's interesting" and "what about this other article?" are not valid reasons for keeping an article. Wikipedia's "duty" is to provide content that is reliably sourced to independent sources that significantly cover the subject. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this not reliably sourced; comedycentral.com, huffingtonpost.com, dailykos.com, theconservativejournal.wordpress.com talkradiomeltdown.com (official site of radio station) - how are these not reliable independent sources? I just don't understand. And just btw, I really don't understand why "people like it" is not a valid reason. That is the entire premise of what an encyclopedia is about. I shouldn't write an article about the contents of the blocked manhole in my garden, because no one is interested in that. One should, however, write articles on subjects that people are interested in.....No? And "what about this article" is definitely a valid reason. Either take down all similar articles or put them up; you can't deal with similar articles differently.Noodleki (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt because you're a new editor, but now it's become clear that you don't get it because you don't want to get it. Let's see what other editors have to say. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right; put up even more sources: knowyourmeme.com, videosift.com, kotaku.com, gametrailers.com, destructoid.com, jalopnik.com, inquistr.com. All official, reliable sites - is that enough? Please.... pretty please?Noodleki (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blogs that host video postings are not reliable sources. There is no such thing in Wikipedia terms as an "official" source so I don't know why you keep calling sources that. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they don't just host the video, they have articles written on them as well. How about actually checking them first - that would really be appreciated. And I do beg your pardon for calling them "official" - I'm new here and the jargon is a bit unfamiliar for me; I meant, of course "ex officio, ex cathedra." Sorry for the misunderstanding.Noodleki (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mean that, either... 'Ex officio' refers to that is part of someone's duties or priveleges as a result of them having a xertain job, 'Ex cathedra' refers to a pronouncement, literally by a bishop (the cathedra being his throne - and the cathedral being the church that houses it), that has the force of law. It is taken into other areas now, as bishops unless of Rome don't tend to lay down law without synods, convocations or whatever. Peridon (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are y'all talking about? Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a joke. It's difficult to convey sarcasm over the internet.Noodleki (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added ANOTHER source; an article on collegehumor.com who have the first clip on their hall of fame. So that's at least ten reliable sites right there, with editorial oversight that all have articles written on this subject. Could someone explain to me, (please humor me as I am a newcomer) what problem there is with that as at the moment I'm completely mystified.Noodleki (talk) 11:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That isn't reliable either. When it comes to videos, CollegeHumor isn't much different than YouTube. Erpert (let's talk about it) 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth not? Youtube isn't reliable because it doesn't have editorial oversight; collegehumor, however, does! And what's wrong with all the other sources I've put up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even assuming arguendo that every site you've found hosting the first video (with or without a few sentences of commentary) constitutes a reliable source, they would only establish the notability of the first video. The notability of any one episode does not confer notability onto subsequent episodes, any more than the pilot of a TV series being notable confers notability onto, say, episode 22. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • knowyourmeme.com talks about the first three videos, jalopnk.com talks about the third one, netinsanity.com references the second clip, talkradiomeltdown.com discusses the series as a whole, defaultprime.com discusses the Tosh.0 episode, videosift.com and dailymotion.com has a few of the videos, kotaku.com and destructoid.com have remixes and dailykos.com analyses the series as a whole.Noodleki (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop saying that dailykos covers the series. That site reposts an article from another blog. Hosting remixes of an episode doesn't make the site a reliable source. You can post a hundred links, a thousand links, to sites that host one or another of the videos and that still doesn't establish notability. All it establishes is that a lot of bloggers think watching this kid have a tantrum is amusing. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop saying that the site reposts an article from another blog, sir. So what? If the editor of the Times found a well-written article floating about in his bathtub, and decided to print it - THAT establishes notability. The fact that it wasn't originally written by a reporter for the Times in no way impugns on its notability. The fact that the editor decided to print it in his newspaper means that it was sufficiently notable to warrant it. This is obvious!!! You then repeat your statement that sites that host the videos don't confer notability, so I must wearily repeat what I've said many times before, that if you actually look at the sites I've referenced, you will see that many of them have written articles on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added article from gawker.tv and full length article from gamers.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodleki (talk • contribs) 23:49, 27 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 characters in the Back to the Future films. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McFly family[edit]

McFly family (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)

Filled with original research, the reference section is a quote farm and the contents of the article is essentially a duplication of information in List of characters Back to the Future films. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:12, 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 keep. However, this result was so tainted by canvassing that it should not prejudice a fresh AFD free of such activity. Courcelles (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nontheism[edit]

Nontheism (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 are virtually no Reliable Sources on the topic of "nontheism". Furthermore, the word "nontheism" does not appear in any reliable dictionary - and this encyclopedia should not be used as a platform to promote new words. The content in the article is not too bad, but could go into any of several articles on related topics, such as atheism, irreligion, antireligion, antitheism, etc. Noleander (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: This AFD, well-trafficked as it has been, was not actually transcluded to the WP:AFD daily log page properly. It has been transcluded onto today's log page, and thus the discussion will run for another seven days to ensure a representative sample is being drawn from AFD participants. –xenotalk 22:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- you need to look beyond the dictionary over here. I find this proposal to be seriously inappropriate. The term is a notable, encyclopedic term, period. Greg Bard 19:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give some details on why you think "nontheism" is notable, given that it does not appear in any reliable dictionaries? If you google "nontheism" you'll see some results, but in almost every case it appears to be used synonymously with "atheism", would you agree? --Noleander (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I see the developing discussion here, I'm leaning more towards Merge and Redirect, either to Nontheistic religions or to Atheism and religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know there was a recent "merge" discussion at that link you provide, but I believe that the AfD may get participation from a broader cross-section of editors, true? --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's true; I simply meant that editors here will find further discussion of the matter at that link. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like a lot of work is needed in this area. Wiktionary (about the only dictionary that does acknowledge the existence of the word "nontheism") says: "[nonthiesm] was intended as a generalization of atheism ... . Nontheism is not recorded in notable dictionaries as of 2007." and "[some use the term] nontheism to mean 'weak atheism'”. It looks to me like the path of least resistance has been taken: rather than do the hard job of writing a single article on atheism/nontheism, two articles (athiesm and nontheism) have been created independently, as a sort of an odd POV fork. In the corporate world, this would be termed "empire building" :-) --Noleander (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: The above editor is the nominator of this article for deletion.
  • Rename - to nontheistic religions or something similar, as that is the main content. Aside from most of the lede, very little of the article is about atheism. --JimWae (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but radically modify. Since pantheists and people like Paul Tillich qualify as nontheists but still believe in a "divine force", it seems this is quite a different concept than atheism. Atheism and religion will NOT suffice to contain all aspects of nontheism, for there are nontheists who are not atheists. There is also still room for a separate topic for Nontheistic religion --JimWae (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Another weird thing going on here: List of atheists redirects to List of nontheists. So, that means the two terms are synonyms, true? --Noleander (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- And a quote from the article List of nontheists: 'The term atheist, in its broadest sense, is synonymous with nontheist.' . This whole situation is really embarrasing for the encyclopedia. --Noleander (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no shortage of things that are mistaken across the Wiki. But WP:OTHERSTUFF is not relevant to this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I maintain that the statement 'The term atheist, in its broadest sense, is synonymous with nontheist' is true. The word "nontheism" is not in any reliable dictionary, so how can we know if an article named nontheism should be merged with atheism? The few (indirect) definitions we have of "nontheism" are very clear that it is a synonym of atheism. The discussion at List of atheists when it was re-named to List of nontheists shows that the change was made primarily because there are 2 or 3 definitions of "atheism" and that was causing confusion about which persons should be included in the list. So, the path of least resistance was taken: a very rare word, with no accepted definition, was adopted: "nontheists". Voila .. the handful of WP editors involved in the discussion were satifsfied, and so the change was made. And, thus, a handful of non-experts have introduced a new word into the most widely used encyclopedia in the world. The decision to give the imprimatur of WP to "nontheism" was not a deliberate decision based on sound reasoning, it was simply the choice that minimized dispute. --Noleander (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there is a distinction to be made from atheism, Wikipedia is not the place to make it. From a search of Google News and Google for "nontheism," it seems that common linguistic usage is against this article's definition; I get the same impression from the dictionaries. WP:V and WP:NOR suggest that there would have to be some source that claimed that secular theology, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, and Hegelianism all shared something important called "nontheism" and distinct from "atheism" before there could be this article. WP:N and WP:UNDUE would set the bar higher, demanding that this thesis have been discussed and repeated. Instead, this seem to be a mixture of original research and a non-notable neologism. Renaming to "nontheistic religions" would not get around the verifiability, original research, and notability problems with this article. RJC TalkContribs 20:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While occurring in a reliable dictionary is usually sufficient to establish WP:N, not occurring is not a proof of the opposite. Between Google Scholar and Scirus, we have a clear case for inclusion. Where the specific content resides is a separate issue and should be hashed out at the respective talk pages. Paradoctor (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the uses of Nontheism in those places, the word is nearly synonymous with Atheism. The fact is, "nontheism" is a very, very minor word. Yet, the article List of Atheists was recently re-named to List of nontheists. How did that happen when the word Atheism is about 1000 times more important and more commonly used than Nontheism? I submit that this is simply a case of people being tired of an old word, and relishing in the novelty of a new word. The dictionaries do not define nontheism, but there are some definitions of "non-theism" as "the opposite of theism", and "theism" is "belief in god(s)"; so non-theism is the opposite of believing in gods - which is synonymous with atheism. I don't deny that the word "nontheism" is occasionally used; my point is that by giving so much emphasis to it in this prominent encyclopedia, we are changing the language. People may come to this encyclopedia looking for lists of athiests, and end up at "List of nontheists" and then start using the word "nontheist". This encyclopedia should merely document the world, not proactively change it. --Noleander (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that your entire case rests on the Wikipedia usage of things. That is not how things are supposed to work at all.
A)The redirect from the list is not appropriate. There should either be a separate list, or the the atheist list should distinguish between atheist and nontheists.
B)The content of the nontheism article is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not it is a notable, separate topic for wikipedia. It is, and the article can be improved.Greg Bard 22:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, we must look outside WP to see if "Nontheism" is notable or not. A couple of questions:
1) What definition of "nontheism" are you using when you determine that it is notable?
2) What is the source(s) of the definition?
3) Would you agree that many sources use "nontheism" synonymously with "atheism"?
4) When you say that "nontheism" is notable: which source are you relying on for its notability?
5) Do you have any secondary sources that discuss the philosophy/attitude/belief of nontheism?
--Noleander (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are all kinds of interpretations of things. The idea is to account for the prevailing interpreations so as not to be POV. The idea is not to identify one interpretation as the one interpretation and then run with it. Do some people use the terms synonymously? Oh yes, many many people do. In my opinion they have a simplified, fairly ignorant view (no slight intended, a person's ignorance isn't a blameful thing). People who distinguish between atheists and nontheists including 61+ Wikipedians are making an intellectual distinction. In this case it is a distinction about themselves which is important. It is basic respect to call someone what they want to be called. These people have conspicuously made the distinction, and so it is only right that we respect that... and yes there are plenty of primary and secondary sources which are consistent with that view. Greg Bard (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't answer my questions. To determine notability, we dont look at the opinions of editors, we look at the outside sources, particularly secondary sources (that is, sources that analyze nontheism, rather than sources that merely use the term in passing). What are the sources that make you think "Nontheism" is notable? --Noleander (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mergeanddelete by first merging content into the Atheism and religion article. There is no need for there to be two article covering atheistic religion and the "Atheism and religion" article is already written in summary style with daughter articles. --Modocc (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reminder: could one of the "keep" editors reply to the requests (above) and identify some sources that show how the topic of "nontheism" meets the WP:Notability requirement? Secondary sources which analyze the philosophy/belief of nontheism are preferred over primary sources that merely use the term. --Noleander (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like User:Gregbard notified the 60 or so users who listed themselves as "nontheists" in the Category Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians. Obviously, since those editors self-identified themselves as nontheists, they probably are supportive of the term "nontheism" and their input here would distort this discussion significantly. Quoting from the WP:canvassing policy: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways .... from user categorization). " A list of the editors notified is (from GregBard contrib history):
14:31, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Zeke73SG ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:31, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Yadyn ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Valich ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:UBX/Userboxes/Religion ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:TylerSci ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Tsunamishadow ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:The Chinchou ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:30, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Tanstaafl28 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:29, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Suto ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:29, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Suitov ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:29, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Strappado ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:29, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Silence ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:29, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Saukkomies/My userboxes ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Saimdusan ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:RasqualTwilight ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Oashi ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Niffweed17 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:NatureA16 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:28, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Myheartinchile ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:MorisSlo ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Mikenassau ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Liwolf1 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Junh1024 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Janto ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:27, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Jamdav86 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Jambeeno ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:J Milburn ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:HoCkEy PUCK ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Helmandsare ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Hatsoff ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:26, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Full Shunyata ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:25, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:FisherQueen ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:25, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Fingerz ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:24, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Fahrenheit451 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:24, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Evertype ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:24, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Diabloman ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:24, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Chickenmonkey ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:24, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Carolmooredc ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Callmeanxious ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Bullhaddha ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Arzachel ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Arenaaz ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Archiviveer ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:23, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Amon Koth ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
14:20, July 3, 2010 (diff | hist) User talk:Akyoyo94 ‎ (Proposed deletion of Nontheism using AWB)
    • Reply - I disagree that "[our] input would distort this discussion significantly." The manner in which we were informed of this discussion was incorrect, yes, but that does not detract from the validity of anything we may say.  Chickenmonkey  04:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I also disagree that [our] imput would distort the discussion, especially my own. I personally called myself nontheist without clearly understanding the term. At the time (probably a year or so ago), I hadn't read the article on nontheism, and thought that the term meant "without an official religion", and not similar to atheism; however, I doubt that the opinions of nontheists in the discussion would distort it. If there would be a deletion discussion on Christianity (though I doubt there would be) would Christians have no valid say in the discussion? User talk:Liwolf1 - July 21, 2010 2:09 PM Eastern Time
  • moderate keep Personally, I have come to tend to see atheism and nontheism as quite different in the connotations they bring to mind, where atheism brings to mind a specific disbelief in the existence of a deity, whereas nontheism refers to a lack of any such belief -- in my mind, a subtle but nontrivial distinction, and so I disagree with Neolander's claim that "nontheism and atheism are essentially synonymous." However, those who argue that outside sources are necessary to validate this point are quite correct, and I don't know whether literature on philosophy is clear on this point. However, I would point out that wikipedia does already have a variety of somewhat esoteric philosophical points of view on the religious beliefs (e.g. apatheism, ignosticism, pantheism, antitheism, irreligion), all of which I think are perfectly reasonable and quite interesting bits of information to have on an encyclopedia. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 00:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot provide any sources to support the WP:Notability requirement, that means the article needs to be deleted or merged, I'm afraid. --Noleander (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this user (Niffweed17) is a member of Category:Nontheistic Wikipedians and was notified of this AfD by canvassing (see above). --Noleander (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cursory look at Google News Archive shows an emerging trend of the use of this term. No objection to redirecting it appropriately into a more comprehensive article. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jclemens. Unfortunately, terms such as this, which have worked their way into usage, but are only beginning to be in reference texts, require a bit of legwork, since the cites won't simply fall into your lap. Still, there's enough there, and the article is sufficiently sourced, for this to be kept. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nontheism is a construct encompassing atheism, antitheism, agnosticism, and any other instance where there is a lack of a god, or gods, as Nontheism is the lack of a god, or gods. One may lack god due to: a lack of belief in god, an opposition to god, a belief that one cannot know if a god exists, or some other reason. In my opinion, saying we should delete Nontheism in favor of keeping Atheism, Antitheism, and Agnosticism equates to saying we should delete Color in favor of keeping Red, Orange, Yellow, etc. It just doesn't make sense. Irreligion and Antireligion have nothing to do with Theism. Lastly, the fact that Nontheism and Atheism are often used interchangeably speaks further to my point. Agnosticism and Antitheism are also often used interchangeably with Nontheism, as all three (Atheism, Antitheism, and Agnosticism) are all recognizable as Nontheism.

Does this article need improvement? Yes, but Wikipedia is a work in progress.  Chickenmonkey  04:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply any sources other than blogs and online newspaper articles? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you do realize how ridiculous that request is, right? You're implying that the sources I supplied are not reliable sources, correct? Could you explain to me why you find that to be the case (i.e. why are "online newspaper articles" unreliable)? Nevertheless, more sources have been supplied by JimWae.  Chickenmonkey  22:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that these sources do not unambiguously support the usage of "nontheist" used in the article and some outright contradict it. This and the fact that they are not talking about nontheism so much as using it in a sentence; we then need to interpret them to figure out the meaning, which means they don't count as reliable sources. For example, the first link (to Harvard law review) clearly uses atheist and nontheist interchangeably, when what is needed is a source that says they are different. The second one uses nontheist as a blanket term, "atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheistic Americans," which again is different from the sense indicated in the article. My question stands, where are the secondary sources that discuss nontheism as such and distinguish it from atheism in the way the article does, linking Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Hegelianism, and the like together as "nontheistic religions." Without such a source this article is original research. RJC TalkContribs 17:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To your first point: This article certainly needs work, but that's no reason to delete it. If the article on Napoleon said he was seven feet tall, while we have sources that contradict that, would we delete Napoleon I? We wouldn't, of course.
To your second point: Looking at just the sources I've provided above (I've numbered them to make this simpler), source #1 does use Nontheist and Atheist somewhat interchangeably. This is because all Atheists are Nontheists, while all Nontheists are not all Atheists. Before you say this is original research (you would be correct to say that if I stopped here), source #2 provides proof of this (as do sources #3, #6, and #8). Sources #4, #5, #7, and #9 provide proof of the term's existence: yes, I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but as part of their reasoning for deletion the nom said "[...] and this encyclopedia should not be used as a platform to promote new words." These sources demonstrate that "nontheism" is not a new word -- in fact, source #9 is from 1963 (in a "real" newspaper).
This source, provided by JimWae below, makes a clear distinction between Atheism and Nontheism:

"Shortly after his conversion from Buddhism to Christianity, Buddhologist Paul Williams declared, 'All Buddhism is actually Atheism, whatever is said sometimes nowadays about its being agnostic.' However, contrary to this widespread classification, upon more careful examination, various Buddhist traditions appear to be nontheistic, polytheistic, and even monotheistic. Williams is correct, though, in refuting those who make the indefensible claim that Buddhism is agnostic."

Furthermore, the fact that books have been written discussing this topic (even though I haven't read them) would seem to indicate there are sources out there and, "an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present." The article currently has 40 references listed. I have not read all of them, have you? If so, does the article currently contain information that is not contained in those 40 references? If it does, perhaps that specific information should be removed, but I see no reason for the article to be deleted.  Chickenmonkey  19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you name these books? I do not deny that there is a distinction between various ways of not believing in God and that it might be useful to call one set of beliefs atheism and the other nontheism, but I just don't see the secondary sources to back it up. The link you provide is not a book on this topic: it is a book on Buddhism and neuroscience in which the word has been used as an alternative to atheism. That would suffice for an addition line in the wiktionary entry, were your interpretation accurate (the book says that Williams was incorrect to say Buddhism is atheistic rather than agnostic because it can be nontheistic, monotheistic, or polytheistic: nontheism and atheism are used interchangeably, the author claiming that Williams' view is too narrow. Buddhism can be nontheistic/atheistic, but it can also be mono- and poly-theistic). Where are the sources that discuss this distinction in depth rather than merely provide an example of usage? Articles that can be improved should not be deleted, but if the first step in improvement is to delete all of the current content and new content cannot be created without evading various content policies, deletion is the proper response. RJC TalkContribs 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that particular book was "on this topic"; I meant only that it draws a distinction between Atheism and Nontheism (which it does). As to what books are on this topic? Taking the simplest approach, a cursory search of Amazon.com yields a result of four books with "Nontheism" in the title, and there are likely multiple books on Theism, Pantheism, Atheism, Buddhism, etc., which discuss this topic. I believe a reasonable likelihood of source existence has been established, even if I myself cannot "name" them. Much of the current content is sourced (40 times). As I said, I have not read those sourcesHave you?, but I assume whoever added them did so in good faith.  Chickenmonkey  21:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did my homework before deciding the article failed our inclusion guidelines. That is why I keep claiming this article's notability rests on WP:SYNTH. There are sources, just not sources that claim that these religions and philosophies are linked together in an interesting way, let alone that the interesting way in which they are linked also differs from atheism. To the main issue I have not seen any reliable sources. (It is a mistake to say all Buddhism is atheism; there are nontheistic, polytheistic, and even monotheistic Buddhist traditions—that sounds pretty much like a statement that uses atheist and nontheist interchangeably, and it would certainly be poor writing to communicate the fact that that "nontheist" includes "atheist" and that it is safe only to label some traditions "nontheist" without having already raised a stink about the two being different). RJC TalkContribs 22:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to infer that you didn't do your homework; if that's how it seemed, I apologize. I was just wondering if you had read all of the sources, as some of the sources are not available online. If this article has an issue with WP:SYNTH, then perhaps it should be rewritten; that's no case for deletion, however.
During the previous deletion nomination for this article, this source was offered. It shows the existence of books on this topic.
While consensus can change the previous nom made the same case that is being made by the current nom, and that previous discussion resulted in "keep". What new information is there that should cause this discussion to come to any other conclusion?
It is my belief that more than sufficient notability has been established.  Chickenmonkey  23:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep—Noleander's thesis that the term does not exist in major dictionaries is false. The OED gives non-theistic in citations from 1863, 1879, 1964, and 1991. The OED gives non-theist in citations as a noun from 1857, 1894, 1944, 1995, and citations as an adjective from 1913, 1941, 1969, and 1996. The argument that the specific nominal form non-theism has not yet entered dictionaries is unconvincing. Everyone knows that lexicography lags behind usage. Atheist, atheistic, atheism—Theist, theistic, theism, Non-theist, non-theistic, non-theism. This is normal word-productivity in English. The concept is certainly valid—and it is not equivalent to either atheism or to theism. On a personal note, I am a non-theistic Buddhist. I am not an atheistic Buddhist. And I know the difference. This article should not be merged with Atheism. -- Evertype·✆ 09:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those definitions are with a hyphen, which is significantly different than the word without a hyphen, true? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, Noleander, there is no difference between nontheist and non-theist or between nontheistic and non-theistic or between nontheism and non-theism. Compare nonbeliever and non-believer. Both are found. Indeed the OED's citations under non-theist give spellings with and without the hyphen. Seems to me that you are dredging the barrel for reasons to get us all to believe your thesis that non-theism is not a real term. I for my part do not believe it, and think that the evidence shows that you are quite wrong. -- Evertype·✆ 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Evertype above. It does appear in dictionaries, and as there is a distinction between it and atheism, it ought to stay. And as per  Chicken, yes, there is still work to be done on that article. (BTW: this editor has not been canvassed by the Gregster.) ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you supply some sources that discuss (as opposed to merely use) the term nontheism? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment en.Wikipedia currently has about 20 times as many entries as Britannica, and it has more entries than any dictionary I know of. We are that big. Paradoctor (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That does not relieve us of the obligation of finding sources to support WP:Notability requirement. WP is not a Dictionary (WP:Not a dictionary) .. just because the word "nontheism" is used by a few sources is not a justification for an entire article. --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear enough: This comment was directed at the argument that nontheism does not appear in this or that reference work. We are so much bigger that this is not a valid argument, because it holds for the vast majority of our entries. Paradoctor (talk) 04:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick scan of those sources shows that the term is occasionally used, but not discussed in a way that would make it notable. Are there any sources that discuss "nontheism" in a way that demonstrates its Notability? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One person's quick scan may be different than anothers :-) In any case dictionary definitions as mentioned above, three or four longer WP:RS discussions and a bunch of mentions from other WP:RS seems to be more than enough to give the topic an article. The more problematic article is List_of_nontheists and the many linked pages with obvious synthesis from WP:RS. I have a feeling only a few of them actually have refs in which those people describe themselves as "nontheists" or are described as such and under WP:BLP they need more explicit refs. Feel free to deal with those and pressure the creator to do them the right way. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to strongly concur with Carol's statement "The more problematic article is List_of_nontheists''. I stumbled on that article after submitting this AfD. Whether or not this AfD succeeds or fails, we should re-consider the recent re-naming of List of Atheists to List of nontheists. There are hundreds of self-proclaimed atheists in that list, who find themselves under the "nontheist" rubric. Using a very rare word (nontheist) in lieu of a very common word (atheist) is unsatisfactory. --Noleander (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a Naturalistic Pantheist, I identify strongly as a nontheist and not at all as an atheist. I believe that the Universe is God, but without humanoid personality, therefore not a theistic god. To me, an atheist is someone who believes there is no God whatsoever, not even willing to venerate the Universe as being greater than the sum of its parts. As a humanist and environmentalist, I feel much closer to altruistic theists such as Reform Jews, United Church of Christ, or Muslims for Progressive Values than I do with egoistic objectivists, who like the atheist label. Mike Nassau (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your opinions, but decisions in WP are not made due to the feelings of editors. Can you supply some sources that discuss "nontheism" and demonstrate its notability in accordance with WP:Notability? --Noleander (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED citations already show that the term exists, and of course it is notable. Quit while you're behind, why don't you? -- Evertype·✆ 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I move for a speedy keep. -- Evertype·✆ 20:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Not a notable term. There is no such distinction between it and atheism as you can see that atheism is also used with the meaning that is being given to nontheism. The reason for this term is some atheists wanting a way to be completely distinguished from religion. Just a section in atheism's article will do. You can see that this is the case just by noticing that must of the info in the nontheism's article is repeated from atheism. Thoraeton (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, prefer Merge. I can see that this is a useful term to have, but I'm not sure it's yet a sufficiently notable one. Most of the sources that use it seem to do so essentially as a synonym for atheism; there are few that distinguish between 'atheism' and 'nontheism'. If a term hasn't received sufficient coverage in reliable sources, we shouldn't have an article on it, no matter how useful it might be. Perhaps this should be merged into Atheism, irreligion, or even theism. (For what it's worth, I am an atheist myself - and, according to this article, a nontheist - but I wasn't brought to this AFD by canvassing.) Robofish (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On further thought, considering the actual content of the article, the best place to merge it might be Atheism and religion. Robofish (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The OED gives citations for this going back to 1857. Leave it where it is and let the community improve the article. -- Evertype·✆ 21:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge This article definately has merit and potental but needs some work. Not totally clear the difference as compared to atheism. I think that has been the subject of much of the above debate. I have nothing to add to that debate, just wanted to voice my opinion that this material clearly does not deserve to be deleted. It should either be merged with atheism or kept as is with improved editing. WRFEC (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm confused I've looked at the redirects that took place in 2008. If they were correct, then nontheism is the same as atheism and we shouldn't have separate articles. In any case, does anyone here seriously agree that 'lists of atheists' should be 'lists of nontheists'? If we are having a hard time distinguishing between atheism and nontheism, then nontheism, which is not exactly at the tip of most people's tongues, should simply be part of an article on atheism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 09:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Ok, I've looked around more. It is definitely not in my 2000+ pages Oxford Dictionary of English. The argument that dictionaries lag behind doesn't cut the mustard. That the word is used, I agree, Charles Beard considers himself a nontheist. But we shouldn't be in the forefront of word-making and it shouldn't have its own article. I looked through the 'lists of nontheists' just now, and Beard is the only one I can find that self-identifies as a nontheist, the redirect is clearly wrong. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote above The more problematic article is List_of_nontheists and the many linked pages with obvious synthesis from WP:RS. I have a feeling only a few of them actually have refs in which those people describe themselves as "nontheists" or are described as such and under WP:BLP they need more explicit refs. Feel free to deal with those and pressure the creator to do them the right way. Please do not use the problems with another article to condemn this one. Of course, it would be nice if someone would got through and get rid of all the WP:OR and use some of the excellent sources mentioned below or available through various book/scholar and other internet searches. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Although the word Nontheism is not used in the OED, the concept is referred to. It defines the adjective 'non-theistic' as 'Not having or involving a belief in God, esp. as a being who reveals himself to humanity' and also defines the noun 'non-theist' who is 'a person who is not a theist.' These two definitions are subtly different. The first has it's origins in the 19c, and the idea is virtually synonymous with atheism. The second definition leaves room for less binary standpoints, which might account for why the idea has been adopted for use in religious studies. Nontheism in religious studies refers to religious and spiritual systems that hold a theistic deity is (at least) a relative concept, while retaining a notion of 'the divine' or some system we might term religious or spiritual. A good introduction to the notion of can be found in Nontheistic conceptions of the divine by Paul J Griffiths Chapter 3 in The Oxford handbook of philosophy of religion Ed. William J. Wainwright. You can also find the idea used in Pantheism: A Non-Theistic Concept of Deity by Michael P. Levine. Also, as well as the documents below, a simple Google books search will return 'non-theistic' and 'non-theism' used by a variety of scholars, notably Ninian Smart (a pioneer in the field of RS, according to Wikipedia). Allen Ginsberg referred to himself as a nontheist Buddhist. Smart said he'd never met anyone who has called themselves a pantheist (although various world views might be classified as such), likewise we might say that we'll never meet a nontheist, but only someone who holds nontheistic beliefs of one sort or another.--Evenmadderjon (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's plenty of sources discussing this, so forget dictionaries. And it's not the same are irreligion or atheism. Buddhists particularly identify as non-theists. Just a couple of sources:[2][3]. Fences&Windows 00:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a notable distinction between nontheism and atheism. The difference between the two may be (in my personal opinion, without fact or sources) comparable to the difference between Theism and Religion. So should the Theism article be deleted or merged into the Religion one? User talk:Liwolf1 July 21, 2010, 2:14 PM Eastern Time
  • Keep. The adjective "nontheistic" is often used to describe God-concepts that do not fit traditional definitions of God as a divine supernatural being. For example, John Shelby Spong uses this adjective in Why Christianity Must Change or Die starting in Chapter 4 Beyond Theism to New God Images in the top paragraph on p. 57: "Perhaps we can cast the Christian experience in nontheistic [God] images." This chapter is aptly preceded by a Chapter 3 titled In Search of God: Is Atheism the Only Alternative to Theism?. So obviously he intends for the two words to mean different things. Clan-destine (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources indicating currency of term
Journals
Books
More

--JimWae (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a long reply with a conclusion of Rename, Merge, or the alternate of Strong Delete with no acceptable solution. I would hope that;
  • #1)- All those that were "recruited" or otherwise informed of this discussion, with a direct agenda to see a keep vote, exempt themselves without a ban being requested. I am sure the keep or delete decision will exclude these comments anyway. It would be interesting to see how many of these recipients replied with a note that this was not per Wikipedia policy; the policy on canvassing, specifically votestacking. -from User:Gregbard. Asking input would be one thing but there can be no doubt this was a Wikipedia violation and members even acknowledge this per discussions above.
  • #2)- I would like to respectfully ask Noleander to take a breather for a short period. This is so others can dig through this and make sense of things without the repeated responses.
  • On a list submitted by chickenmonkey #5 gave reference that appeared the word nontheism was a misspelling (without the dash) by using non-theism.
  • A second link did not mention nontheism either but referred to, "The terms humanism, atheism, agnosticism, freethinking, rationalism and non-theism", [4].
  • A third link was to a discussion board and I could not discover what they believe, [5]. It was listed as an article but did use the word nontheist.
  • A fourth was a Wikipedia site Nontheist Friend and I would have to check the author and date it was set up.
  • A fifth was what appeared to be a reliable press release but was not, [6]. It was apparently an article by the organization to be released and no proof it was. Just the ones that I checked showed WP:Syn; "This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is... WP:OR", Also, WP:Sources states "Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.", and the above examples do not follow this.
  • #3)- I would like to ask an administrator to monitor this situation if this is possible.
Exploring nontheism or nontheist as a word, if a group of people is simply starting a new word, or if it is a misspelling or omission, which doesn't make it a "word". Just because a word has been used and has some recognition does not actually mean it is a word. It may become one or actually may not. Dictionary.com list a coined word, supercalifragilisticexpialidocious: "Used as a nonsense word by children to express approval or to represent the longest word in English." Several dictionaries I checked (including Merriam-Webster) either didn't list the word or gave similar results as Dictionary.com. Wikipedia listed it as an English word with 34 letters. Another word that is listed in several dictionaries; Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, also a coined (technical) word, listed in Wikipedia; "According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "a factitious word", so does not appear to be a word. The Wikipedia article, Longest word in English, does list it as a word though. This gives us a non-word (maybe nonword is acceptable) "word". My point is that the title is not a commonly accepted "word" so a commonly accepted word should be used and delve into "Nontheists" in the article with references.
So do we have a word? What about the absence in dictionaries per WP:N? It is a word just with a hyphen so does that make it alright to leave out the hyphen? If it is actually not a word but has been used on several occasions can we just leave it in Wikipedia, thus assuredly making it a word? In the second sentence of the lead of Nontheism the words, "Non-theism has various types." does give the accepted spelling. There apparently is no difference between atheism and Non-theism but now we have a solid known word that has been re-directed to a word that is in question. Anyone here knows that is improper. Now that the cat is out of the bag that should be changed back.

Finally, I looked into the Psychology of Atheism, Theism, Non-theism, and Nontheism. Of course being a supposedly new "word" there is nothing I could find on "Nontheism". There was mention on Urban Diction (yea I know) and a supposed discussion between a Theist and a "Nontheist". The results looked to go against the Theist but was also a good argument against the word "Nontheist", bringing into question (brought up by the "Nontheist) the Invisible Pink Unicorn and possibility of being the one responsible for the new word.

So far what I looked at proved "Nontheism, Nontheist" to be a non-word or misspellings of current words in use. There is evidence of attempts that Wikipedia is being used as a vehicle (and driven quite well) to create a new word as well as others. Part of this evidence is the re-direct from List of Atheists to List of nontheists which states in the lead "Nontheists, or non-theists...", Nontheist Friends, and any others (a list of 17 now using "Nontheists) on Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:WikiAtheism. It would be sad if there is a group of individuals seeking to turn Wikipedia into a "Nontheist" encyclopedia. In good faith I hope not.

In conclusion and with sound reasoning: When the "word" becomes a sourced word with a definition per WP:N, and as a "word" should be locatable and definable), then change is possible. Considering this there should be a RENAME (maybe Non-theism), the information merged per other suggestions, or the article by this name deleted. I would think there would be a problem, absent proof of existence, with the suggestion, "Nontheistic religions", again because of the purported non-word. I also, in light of what I have seen, feel sanctions should be explored. If Wikipedia is to begin being an avenue for new words there should be a new category for community consideration New word consideration list. That is a joke but is exactly what is going on now. Of course "this encyclopedia should not be used as a platform to promote new words", is argumentative using "should", and I hope not moving in that direction. An easy solution would be to rename using the hyphen thus the accepted spelling then go from there. Easy never seems to be the path taken. The title also appears to be a Wikipedia violation per Wikipedia:CONPOL; Article titles: "The ideal title for a Wikipedia article is recognizable to English speakers, easy to find, precise, concise, and consistent with other titles"; also, Naming conventions (use English): "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject that is most common in the English language, as found in reliable sources. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources." I would hate to vote delete on all points but if there is no other solution that would be my opinion. Otr500 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I respectfully decline your invitation to "exempt" myself from this discussion. There are no grounds for any sort of "ban", either (It's not polite to make threats). User:Gregbard improperly canvassed, yes; no one can deny that, nor is anyone denying it. As this is not a vote, but instead is a discussion. It doesn't matter how many !votes are tallied. What matters is the merit of what is said. In saying this, anyone who chooses to "exclude these comments anyway", while closing this discussion, should not be closing discussions; they are doing it wrong. I assume whomever does end up closing this discussion will not exclude any civil comments.
    • I also find it amusing that you asked me (indirectly) to "exempt" myself, but then you proceeded to engage me (also indirectly) in discussion.
    • Anyway, a rename would be acceptable, however unnecessary. "Non-theism" and "nontheism", I believe, are no more different from each other than "color" and "colour"; they're different spellings of the same word. That being said, after all of that, you appear to be in favor of keeping, if the article is renamed.
    • List of nontheists has nothing to do with this discussion -- as far as its renaming, that is.
  • Very Weak Keep; word is not in OED (but that is no biggie really) and is a marginal/little used term, the article is a mess and needs substantial work. But it seems reasonable to record the general area and with work the article could do that. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 08:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another indication of the sillyness of this article is the change made to it today, where the OED definition of the related term "non-theist" was changed in the article from "not having or involving a belief in God, especially as a being who reveals himself to humanity" to "A person who is not a theist". I don't have an OED with me, but the fact that we can't get a solid definition of a related word is telling. (No editor has suggested that the OED includes "nontheism" or "non-theism"). I repeat my assertion that "non-theism" and "nontheism" are exceedingly rare words which are simply synonyms of one of the meanings of "atheism". --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: That is the definition in my 2010 OED (CD), 2009 OED (print) and on OED Online. So I corrected it. There is categorically no word nontheism/non-theism in the OED. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is notable in that it is technically distinct from Atheism, which is itself notable as a well-heard-of but still not mainstream philosophy. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I have already not-voted Keep above I can't believe this little witch-hunt is still going on. There is abundant evidence that the term exists (along with related terms nontheist and nontheistic. Tmorton166's comment above is false. "There is categorically no word nontheism/non-theism in the OED" seems to misuse the term "categorically". There is at present no such headword, but please see my comments above. Regarding the suggestion that it was inappropriate to "canvass" for example my opinion because of a badge I have on my user page, it seems unlikely that anything but expert opinion would be brought to the debate. For my part I would recommend a keep and that an admin bring this argument to a close. -- Evertype·✆ 08:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; categorically was simply used to stress it really is not in the dictionary :) it's not on the pending list either as far as I can find out. I imagine if the term enters widespread EL usage it will come in. I don't necessairily see a lack of a dictionary entry as a problem though --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 08:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a merge and redirect to atheist#atheist religions.
    • comment There is no word nontheist defined in my copies of published dictionaries, nontheist is the same meaning as atheist and lastly atheism does not preclude being part of a religion that has no god. It is a problem as the "list of nontheists" which was moved from "list of atheists" is also in need of looking at. How many of those peopls called themselves "nontheist" and how many called themselves "atheist"? If the answer is simply a move by some wikipedian "philosophers" to fork out a new term then this page and the list page should be dealt with.
      • Nontheism "Nontheism is a term that covers a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of — or the rejection of — theism or any belief in a personal god or gods."
      • Atheism "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."
    • These two definitions are the same thing. It is akin to having a page for "Automobile" and one for "Car" Chaosdruid (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Some people seem not to understand what a dictionary is, or what productivity in language is. I will repeat what I said above. Noleander's thesis that the term does not exist in major dictionaries is false. The OED gives non-theistic in citations from 1863, 1879, 1964, and 1991. The OED gives non-theist in citations as a noun from 1857, 1894, 1944, 1995, and citations as an adjective from 1913, 1941, 1969, and 1996. The argument that the specific nominal form non-theism has not yet entered dictionaries is unconvincing. Everyone knows that lexicography lags behind usage. Atheist, atheistic, atheism—Theist, theistic, theism, Non-theist, non-theistic, non-theism. This is normal word-productivity in English. The concept is certainly valid—and it is not equivalent to either atheism or to theism. On a personal note, I am a non-theistic Buddhist. I am not an atheistic Buddhist. And I know the difference. This article should not be merged with Atheism. -- Evertype·✆ 14:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evertype: What is the difference between "nontheism" and "atheism" (specifically "negative atheism" as defined in Negative and positive atheism)? --14:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noleander (talk • contribs)
Personal knowledge is not a reliable source. If I think that a particular religion has overlooked an important distinction, I cannot introduce that distinction into Wikipedia. Others may have already drawn that distinction using different terms, for example. What remains of the article once it is trimmed of original research is discussed elsewhere. RJC TalkContribs 14:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh? Do not understand what a dictionary is? lol, I have in front of me the Shorter OED in two volumes (tot 2,672 A4 pages)
"Theism - a. gen. Belief in a deity or deities, as opp. to atheism. b. Belief in one god, as opp. to polytheism or pantheism." - please explain why this should prevent nontheism redirecting to atheism ? Chaosdruid (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone knows that lexicography lags behind usage., true, but I am not sure you quite understand the workings/evolution of dictionary English. It is not guaranteed by precedent that the word will enter the dictionary - only by assertion of use. While "little a" atheism is the same as nontheism (use just depends on which word is preffered) because we do not have a dictionary definition or meaningful citations asserting on it's definition then we cannot really be to specific, here, about what it is. By the way it is worth pointing out that atheism is a collective term for people w/o theistic belief - non-theistic describes someone with that belief. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for as exempting yourself that is your option at this point. As far as a ban (or block), reference to threats, reference to "not a vote", and reference as to the responsibility of the closing administrator:
When there are possible violations I feel there is a mandate to bring this to light. This was done at the top of the discussion by the notification of one party of interest in clear violation of Votestacking. This can be seen as as serious violation that can lead to a block or ban. assuming good faith was at the least impugned and editors have agreed that it is improper. The point at which it becomes only a violation against the offending party is of course surpassed with proof from the further comments. Most Wikipedia policies advocate being bold but I assure anyone on here that for clear violations, especially against policies that use the words "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." per Wikipedia: Disruptive editing, and bringing possible violations to light is not being a bully. This type of activity is "not" being Bold as can show evidence of tendentious editing. Evidence of improprieties have been noted and even agreed to so continued participation of any involved would depend on that persons boldness, but may be arguments that they are right regardless, and can be #Characteristics of problem editors.
Wikipedia policy concerning the words "vote". WP does refer to Votestacking. I present that when editors weigh in on an article, with constructive reasoning the information is counted on the merit , it could be inferred to be taken as a vote. Considering this I will concede that a proposed name change from votestacking might be warranted for clarity.
I have an opinion that an administrator will certainly exclude tainted comments so I disagree with your comment that an administrator that thought thus would be wrong and also find it amusing that you consider such a person should not perform the task.
I am glad I was able to amuse someone. I have been amused to physical laughter concerning a couple of your comments. The comments you presented and I referred to obviously involve your name and your comment. ----Sorry I had to stop and laugh----If that is your definition of "indirectly engaging you".
The list of "nontheists" may be very related to this discussion. You submitted the words "conspiracy theory" as being mine and I had not even entertained the words. I did state, " It would be sad if there is a group of individuals seeking to turn Wikipedia into a "Nontheist" encyclopedia. In good faith I hope not." The part I failed to consider, but a can of worms you have opened, is if the group I referred to (editors) is actually working together. At this point I had not even considered if the some 17 ( I did not recount to verify) articles are in fact contributed by individuals on the above list. I was just referring to the fact that there were many articles using variations of "nontheism". Other editors might have read the name and by propagation began to be used. You choose to assume (possibly lacking a minute amount of good faith) that I was trying to forward a notion I in fact had not. However, reading comments like, "I can't believe this little witch-hunt is still going on.". Prima facie this could be taken to mean, that the certainly important AfD discussion is a witch-hunt, that there are editors on such a "witch-hunt", or that there is an agenda against a supposed good cause. This is a sad accusation against many editors. What is strange, after such a statement, is, "it seems unlikely that anything but expert opinion would be brought to the debate.", followed by, "I would recommend a keep and that an admin bring this argument to a close." Maybe it is just me but these comments are disturbing. I could write a few paragraphs on the reasoning but the statements are self-explanatory. It seems irrelevant how far "lexicography lags behind usage" advancing "assertion of use" through Wikipedia is not acceptable.
I was one of the ones that was not against a rename or merge but now must consider that I was mistaken and will have to invest some time to see if a delete is the direction I am leaning. I came to this page because the name of the title caught my eye. I was not familiar with the term "nontheism (or the variations) so looked at it. Wikipedia is a number one return on a search. I use Wikipedia for reference and search. Wikipedia is not (certainly as I am to understand) a dictionary. This means that no matter how noble the cause, or how right it might or could be, no matter how passionate the interested parties are, or no matter how much some might wish it, there are problems. This is the wrong venue for the action to attempt to create a new word. It is equally a problem to use redirects to change words or meanings (and to revert a good faith edit), and it is wrong on so many levels to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to assist in creating new words, to create new meanings, to fit a particular thought or belief.

I am inclined now, since an esteemed colleague brought a possible theory to my attention, to look at this (and the like named associated articles) and study policies and possible recourse if it appears to be justified. Otr500 (talk) 05:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, when improper canvassing takes place, it should be noted and the editor at fault should be made aware of their error (as I chose to do here when Gregbard first informed me of this discussion, on my talk page). That, however, does not mean anyone who was informed improperly has any less of a right to discuss a topic. As I assume you've noticed, at the top of this page, there is a notice ({{Afdnewbies}}) to inform those who were improperly canvassed that simply !voting will not suffice; they must substantiate their comments if they wish to be taken seriously. That's how this works, after all. Yes, I believe an administrator excluding legitimate comments because they are tainted should not be closing discussions. Legitimate comments, even from those unwittingly involved in a policy violation, should be taken into equal consideration.
In regards to wikibullying: you did ostensibly make a "no-edit" order to those of us "recruited" here and made reference to a nonexistent, possible "ban". That's just not very nice; that's all.
Yes, what you did is my definition of "indirectly engaging" me. I didn't mean it as a negative thing; it's just what you did. You mentioned me, and my comments, but you didn't direct the mention to me; that's indirectly engaging me.
I apologize for using the phrase "conspiracy theory", it just seemed to fit. With all due respect, I didn't "assume" anything you didn't say. You said "[...]a group of individuals[...]" and I said I am not a part of any such "group".
I apologize, once more, for being "amused"; I didn't mean for the term to be taken any other way than literally. The situation did amuse me, as you had -- seemingly unwittingly -- asked me to exempt myself and engaged me at the same time. That amused me; it was merely an observation.
Quite frankly, I am not passionate about "nontheism", at all. Simply, in my opinion, there doesn't seem to be any reason to delete this article. I believe, as I said earlier, sufficient notability and a reasonable likelihood of source existence have been established. It's up to the closer of this discussion to decide, now (that is, if my comments aren't disappearedhumor).
A cursory look at my contributions will reveal that I am not a disruptive editor (as I also assume you are not); however, as we've wandered so far off-topic I wouldn't be surprised if we happen upon a gingerbread house, I believe further engaging you would, in actuality, amount to disruptive editing on my part. Therefore, I will not do so.  Chickenmonkey  07:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All atheists (and perhaps agnostics) are nontheists, but not all nontheists choose to call themselves atheists, due to the pejorative associations that commonly attach to the expression. It is unlikely, however, that an atheist would object strenuously at being described as a nontheist. Nihil novi (talk) 07:10, 25 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Holiday[edit]

Royal Holiday (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)

Does not indicate notability. Promotional in nature. No references. Creator appears to have a WP:COI. Contested CSD & Prod. GregJackP Boomer! 22:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or add sources ASAP. Right now, this article fails WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - either as spam or lack of context. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It isn't completely and utterly spam like I would prefer to speedy, but it does seem a bit suspect due to the use of so many images that came out of promotional works. I must agree that it makes no meaningful assertion of notability. I remain neutral on the issue of speedy deletion of this page. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 09:26, 22 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) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church (Raleigh, North Carolina)[edit]

St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church (Raleigh, North Carolina) (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 church, with no WP:V or WP:RS in the article, based on the common name, it will be extremely difficult to sort out GHits. Church is less than 30 years old. GregJackP Boomer! 22:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence that this is anything other than a perfectly ordinary, non-notable parish church. (The article is also somewhat promotional.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tone of article pushes the limits of WP:PROMO. Only two Web sites provided as reference material, one of which is a self-reference for the subject. Without more reliable source material for support, the article fails WP:NOTE. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs vast improvement, but is still within WP:PROMO. The subject is notable, if more reliable information could be added about the Church's School. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No independent sources in article, and none found by a quick search. Fails WP:GNG. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a brief summary (with link to church website) to Raleigh, North Carolina, starting a new section "churches", with the school added (if necessary) to Education. This is usually the best solution for institutions only of local significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:35, 25 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McVey[edit]

Keith McVey (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 to belittle the man but this does not come even close to meeting the requirements of WP:BIO. The article is constructed from a single human interest news story. I see no conceivable way in which this can come close to being of encyclopedic interest. Pichpich (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable, but fair play to the guy IJA (talk) 22:18, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Said Bourarach[edit]

Death of Said Bourarach (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 is a one time event with little coverage at the time, and even less ongoing. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) by virtue of not having "multiple, independent sources" Lionel (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Lionel (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Lionel (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Most hits on Google show this article and the countless Wikipedia mirrors. It's getting a lot of free publicity. The inflammatory tone of the article IMO is a concern. Lionel (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, most hits on Google are in French. This article could use some assistance from users who speak French (unfortunately, I don't), but it has received a great deal of publicity in French-language media. Also, your comment about "free publicity" seems to suggest that you may have a personal bias behind your desire to delete this article. I don't know how the writing could be construed as "inflammatory", anyway. The JDL is a very, very extreme organization, and its history of promoting violence is well-known and not controversial at all. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do have a personal bias: the truth. In this case the truth of the matter is not yet known, yet the title of the sole source is French Jews killed Muslim out of racist motives. The bias of the source couldn't be more obvious. This source has convicted the suspects, and somehow determined the motive to be racist. It seems however, Stonemason, that you may have a bias by your implication that the JDL promoted this tragedy. Anyone reading the source would find it extraordinary to implicate the JDL: that's why I tagged the See Also. Full disclosure: I'm not in JDL, not a Zionist, not a Jew, and I eat bacon. Lionel (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never said the entire JDL promoted the tragedy, only that the attacks were carried out by a young man who is a member of the JDL and who embraces their ideology. The "See Also" link simply means that there is a relationship between the two topics, it says nothing about the type of relationship, nor does it "implicate". Stonemason89 (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Most of the media attention is in French and has not really been covered in the English speaking world. IJA (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's notable in one language, shouldn't it be notable in them all? I don't think that is a legitimate reason to delete. There's nothing stopping us from using French-language sources in an English-language article. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said above, if it's notable in one language (French), then it's notable in every language. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the following reasons
    1. )There is no article on the subject in the French language Wikipedia, meaning that any argument of it being notable in French is false. (While there is a brief mention of the event on the French Wikipedia, even it isn't consistent with this article, which is beside the point)
    2. ) While there is nothing wrong with using foreign language sources, there aren't any major national/international sources which seem to be covering it. Some news sites may have information on it, but there are plenty of news reports on events which aren't on Wikipedia.
  • ...thus the article appears to fail notability guidelines. --khfan93 (t) (c) 23:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That first point is wrong. The non-existence or existence of a Wikipedia article proves nothing at all — except perhaps statements as to what Wikipedia editors care to write about.

      As to the second: Where did you actually look? I found this coverage by TF1 News, this coverage by Le Progrès, this and this coverage by Le Figaro, this coverage by CultureFemme, and this coverage by Le Point, and this Associated Press report (carried by Le Nouvel Observateur) in a matter of a minute or so. But then I knew what French word for "security guard" to search for. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • The Le Progres link is dead, neither Le Figaro source is about the victim, and they predate the crime anyway, the CultureFemme appears biased. "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act" but IMO we're not there yet. Lionel (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • False on pretty much every claim. The Le Progrès article was there when I wrote the above and is still there now, and just required a little thinking on your part to find. There's no reason to suppose that the CultureFemme article is biased, since it appears to be simple reportage of statements made. And the Le Figaro articles would be amazingly prescient to pre-date the incident (which of course they clearly do not) given that in fact they describe the events and the subsequent discovery of the body. I have to ask, given what you erroneously claim: Have you actually read the Le Figaro and CultureFemme articles? Uncle G (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Initially I scanned the sources. I went back just now and read them as best I could with my limited French. The sources are in fact relevant. I forgot that in Euro they transpose Day & Month. Specifically, the TFI and first Le Progres are just basic run of the mill police (or should I say gendarme) blotter reports and at this point the victim's identity is still a mystery. The 2nd Le Progres is about a small protest. I was mistaken about my suspicion of CultureFemme. It isn't biased, just the opposite: it disputes any racial motive. Le Point also addresses the crime and it too disputes racial motivation. Jewish/JDL assertions were non-existent. The user who contested my PROD wrote in the edit summary "A major event in the history of religious violence in France." Nothing could be further from reality. The racial/Jewish connection, that being the rationale for notability, isn't there. Lionel (talk) 04:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your statement that CultureFemme is not biased because it "disputes any racial motive" doesn't make sense. Disputing a racial motive is a bias, by definition, just like claiming one is. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is my assessment. We are each entitled to one.--khfan93 (t) (c) 00:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just to note a minor BLP violation. In the title. The title asserts that the accused (living people) committed a murder. There is no indication of either a confession or conviction of murder, however. Whether RS support for notability is unearthed, or not, the article as it stands is a BLP violation.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This has now been addressed.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously supported in reliable sources - of which Wikipedia is not one, so the fact that this subject doesn't have an article on a (smaller) different language version of Wikipedia is of no consideration. Weakopedia (talk) 09:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the death of a man in France is supported by sources. But since when does that justify an article? I guess when, according to an editor, it's "a major event in the history of religious violence in France." As it turns out the single source that makes that claim is too over-the-top biased to take seriously. Lionel (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - what we've got is a terribly written, badly sourced, not very notable, news story. I might be willing to change my opinion if someone did a proper re-write, but given the BLP violations we cannot keep this in the hope someone will fix it.--Scott Mac 10:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per ScottMac ukexpat (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - comment - I have trimmed the article to comply with policy especially BLP and exceptional claims about living people require exceptional citations and suchlike. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One source is not sufficient notability.40Chestnut (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - — 40Chestnut (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete this piece of obvious utter conjecture. This man is not notable and neither is his demise, with all due respects to his family and friends. IZAK (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep:[1][2][3]
  1. ^ Hartl, Iris (2010-05-20). "Frankreich - Die Leiche im Kanal". Jüdische Allgemeine (in German). Retrieved 2010-07-23.
  2. ^ Ligue des Droits de l'Homme (2010-04-22). "Meurtre de Saïd Bourarach : faire la lumière sans rien préjuger ni rien exclure" (in French). Retrieved 2010-07-23.
  3. ^ Le Devin, Willy (2010-05-10). "Mort du vigile: la piste tenace du racisme". Libération (in French). Retrieved 2010-07-23.
--Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Playmobileonhishorse has added those citations, a couple of them are quite lengthy, translated to english [7] and [8] Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The citations are nothing more than what are known as police or crime blotter reports that many papers have for a variety of crimes that they think may interest readers but have no great notability in and of themselves. IZAK (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally wrong. See :
Sorry, I've not the time to translate. Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—the killing of any non-notable individual is generally covered in all the major news outlets in western countries (or all major local news outlets in larger countries). This does not mean that every death needs to go on Wikipedia, even if sources exist. Wikipedia is not news. —Ynhockey (Talk) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that the surrounding issues and the coverage in multiple coverages that are going to be covering and reporting this is actually clearly notable and the trial will also be notable and well covered, I have seen quite a few such well covered trial and murders covered here. I think as a neutral , I am not an Israeli and not an Arabic person, but as I see, this will clearly be a well reported issue and a high profile trial that will likely be covered in multiple countries as it already is. Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"are gong to be" "will also be" "will clearly be" "will likely be" - you know what I'm going to say--Scott Mac 22:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is deleted and any of what you said happens, you would have all the justifications a deletion review. As Scott MacDonald correctly noted, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Ynhockey (Talk) 15:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree w/Ynhockey, with all due respect. If the article is deleted due to the apparent consensus, I don't believe a deletion review is appropriate--inasmuch as the deletion will have been proper. However, should notable coverage appear in time, then at some future point in time after such coverage has developed then re-creation would IMHO be appropriate. All of that is, of course, contingent upon there being the appropriate measure of coverage in the future in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I like the fact that there are articles from different countries (that militates in favor of notability). But I'm not at this point seeing the breadth of coverage that we see in articles we deem notable, as reflected in number of RS-coverage newspaper articles. Also, as the article has now been trimmed, it seems less notable on its face, references aside. But I'm holding back on !voting as I am interested in seeing what further indicia of RS-coverage may be unearthed, to reflect notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As the clear majority of the above comments (75% or so have !voted delete at this point) reflect, while there is some international coverage, there simply isn't the level of coverage in terms of number of articles by RSs that would reflect notability for WP purposes. If appropriate coverage does develop over time, I would support the article being recreated.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:44, 26 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. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitsch controversy in Sarasota, Florida[edit]

Kitsch controversy in Sarasota, Florida (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)

An essay (and not a bad one at all) that originally (and negatively) synthesizes material about the styrofoam creation of some artist. (Or of some kitschist, but I remain neutral on this issue.) The lead and list of further reading are particularly grand and impressive, but Wikipedia isn't the right place for such polemics.

This styrofoam creation seems to have long exerted a horrifying fascination over the author of this article, who has been most insistent here that its details and dreadfulness should be written up within an article on a much older photograph by somebody unrelated. (I temporarily forgot about that a short time ago when I impatiently deleted two entire paragraphs about it from that article.) The artist claims that it's based on another, much less celebrated photograph taken of the same scene, and trivia hounds as well perhaps as lawyers are most concerned about this distinction (keyword here: legs).

There's already a fair amount on this thing (or the set thereof) in the article on the artist. If this isn't sufficient, then I suppose an article could be written on this set of sculptures. However such an article shouldn't be an OS of various expressions of disgruntlement and charges of kitsch. If there's to be a controversy, let it be concocted and confected elsewhere, and then written up on Wikipedia.

(Oh, if anyone's interested: Of course I'd agree that kitsch is endemic within the art that sells for very major moolah. Robert Hughes is among the critics who have kindly provided plenty of examples for our black amusement over the years. And yes, this looks like kitsch to me. But I'm just a nobody; my opinions don't matter.)

Now, for a work of art (or of kitsch, or merely of PR flatus) that's generated a controversy that needs description rather than stoking at Wikipedia, consider "For the Love of God". The article deals with the artifact, and then goes into the brouhaha and the "controversy"; and nothing about the write-up suggests that the authors are worked up about the matter one way or another. This is the way an art (or not) controversy should be written up -- IFF there is any sizable controversy to write up in the first place. -- Hoary (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep After a quick read I see in-line citations from The Washington Post, People Magazine, the San Diego Union-Tribune and other smaller sources, which significantly lessens any arguments of pure original research (as well as notability). Not being original research then, this is an issue of bias and neutrality, and wikipedia's standard AfD policy is that issues of bias be addressed by improving or altering the article, not deleting it. I'm completely unfamiliar with any arguments or theories about either kitsch or this artist or work, but as a matter for AfD this article seems to clearly pass wikipedia's guidelines. Improve the article, suggest it be merged to the artists article, etc, and work toward consensus. If consensus cannot be reached on these things, then it's an error to think one would find such here in AfD. -Markeer 13:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The WashPo articles are not ones we can read without paying for the pleasure, but I note that even the WP article summarizes one as about an exhibit in "a reputable museum in Washington, D.C." and the other as about goings-on in N.J. The People article is about something in N.J. and was published 21 years before these allegedly kitschy erections appeared. None of these three is about Sarasota, Fl. The San Diego Union Tribune article, by that paper's art critic, is relevant (though again hardly about Sarasota). As for the Sarasota Herald Tribune material, we're offered an angry letter from somebody describing himself as a veteran and editor, a video (on which I cannot comment, as all I see is "Click here to download plugin"), and a long and interesting article about legal issues that hardly raises the question of kitschiness and certainly does not present any clear charge that the thing is kitsch or relate any kitsch controversy. So yes, sources that can't be immediately dismissed are neatly cited, but vanishingly little of this is solid information on (or noteworthy allegations about) any kitsch controversy in Sarasota. Rather, it's just miscellaneous dirt about the hapless artist. -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Unconditional surrender (sculpture). There's enough third party coverage [9] [10] [11] to justify an article about the work. The so-called kitsch controversy doesn't seem to exist - although there appears to be some dispute over copyright.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not implacably opposed to that proposal, but when I consider the history of en:WP coverage of Seward Johnson's works (including the article on him in its current state), I worry that a newly renamed article would merely present an opportunity for the continuation of one editor's personal campaign to persuade readers that these works are of minimal worth: derivative, kitschy, made by others, titillating (upskirt!), dependent for exposure on Johnson's own personal wealth, etc. Any small real-world controversy or dispute has been maximized in en:WP (though I don't think Johnson has yet been charged with any involvement in the Touchdown Jesus). -- Hoary (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but is WP:N...?--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation of possibly cryptic comment: Hoary's arguments for delete have validity, but if an article has multiple sources it meets WP:N.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To redirect -- "There's bias in this article and I'm worried that there might be bias in the future" is emphatically NOT an argument for AfD. Take that to the talk page and seek consensus. -Markeer 02:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rightly or wrongly, it or something like it has recently been a persuasive argument for AfD: see AfD/Six Families of Berlin. (And no I am not saying that the articles are cut from the same cloth or that there's any racism here.) "Wikipedia:Attack page" (a policy page) starts: An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Now, to say that this page was created primarily to disparage its subject would be to ascribe a particular motivation to its creator, and I'm reluctant to do that. And a good wikilawyer would add that the page doesn't disparage its ostensible subject: a controversy. But move it to "Unconditional surrender (sculpture)", as Ethicoaestheticist suggests above, and it could indeed be reasonably considered to be an attack on its subject. And this edit does raise the possibility that the creator of this article has it in for Johnson. I quote: There is no current issue about kitsch that is more focused on the nature of kitsch, its appeal to the numb audiences being satisfied by the kitsch, the motivations of the creators of the kitsch, and opposition resounding from the professional and critical art arenas -- than this case. [...] [P]ermanent acceptance at unrelated venues has failed [Johnson] until this elderly "donor" [...] has been used by Johnson and many sycophants to assure that the twenty-five-feet-tall example of quintessential kitsch be placed at the most public place in a city that is noted for its cultural values and appreciation of fine art. [...] Essentially [Johnson] is giving it away so that he can deny that his work is kitsch as it has been labeled since the 1980s. -- Hoary (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but make it un-essay-fied It shouldn't read like an essay. IJA (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IJA, what reliable evidence do you think there is for there having been any "kitsch controversy" in Sarasota, Florida? As I have stated above, I find remarkably little evidence, and Ethicoaestheticist bluntly writes above: "The so-called kitsch controversy doesn't seem to exist". (Or what is this "it" that you think is worthy of preservation once unessayfied?) -- Hoary (talk) 22:09, 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 keep. Courcelles (talk) 10:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Gentlemen[edit]

Virginia Gentlemen (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 fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. TM 15:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:MUSIC. (Disclosure: I am a principle editor on this article.) The article now cites multiple non-University media, including a published book, CSPAN, and NPR about the group. Additionally, WP:MUSIC#Others indicates that, for performers outside mass media traditions, frequent coverage in "publications devoted to a notable sub-culture" establishes notability. Judging from the number of times that the VGs are cited in RARB, the main web site for review of college a cappella recordings (see citations on the article for an example), they surely pass muster as an influential group in collegiate a cappella. -Tjarrett (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mentions on CSPAN and an 89 word news story which we cannot read on a local newspaper are simply passing mentions, not a demonstration of notability.--TM 17:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to repost the Richmond Times-Dispatch article -- major regional newspaper, btw, not local. I'd argue that dismissing a news article because it's behind a paywall is unreasonable. Plus, how about the Sports Illustrated reference and the notable alums? -17:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The article just gives a passing mention of the group, and thus does not meet the "Significant coverage" of WP:N. As for the Richmond newspaper article: The whole article has 89 words. It is nothing more than a short blurb in a regional newspaper. Until there are multiple reliable sources which provide significant independent coverage of this group, it fails WP:N.--TM 17:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:N. Not only have multiple independent media outlets addressed the subject, but their notability is long-term, having risen to the level of performing at the White House by invitation of the president. Also important is that this entry provides supplementary material that's valuable for the Virginia Glee Club and Parachute entries. I tend towards deletionist—heck, I successfully lobbied to have my own entry deleted a few years ago, since I believe that lack notability—but this is precisely the sort of entry that Wikipedia needs more of to remain vibrant and relevant. --WaldoJ (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way have multiple independent sources addressed the topic? It is mentioned in passing in a number of places. The only one close to covering the subject is the SI article and even that is only partial.--TM 17:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you also need to consider the BoCA CDs and the reviews on RARB. These are the relevant sources for this particular sub-culture and they establish the notability of the group through their performances, and the influence of the group through their arrangements, particularly for "Insomniac." -Tjarrett (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Mild notability IJA (talk) 22:24, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spiro Duni[edit]

Spiro Duni (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 does not pass notability. In addition, there seems to be a conflict of interest. Sulmues (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment: I really appreciate your research and please understand that I am a big fan of the Albanian movies. Unfortunately he was a minor actor and a minor movie director or theater director. I have seen his performances in some secondary roles only. He is clearly not notable in the Albanian movie environment, as a matter of fact he isn't a Merited Artist of Albania, or People's Artist of Albania, which were the notability-help articles that I started last year. The problem is that there are no sources for now and I doubt that there will be for a long time. I have had a very hard time finding sources for the greatest Albanian movie director of the 20th century, Dhimiter Anagnosti. Spiro Duni would be at a very low in the ranking of the Albanian movie directors, let alone actors' rankings.
Agreed... sourcing is a grave concern, and in its lack, it fails en.Wikipedia's WP:BIO. Perhaps the article might be better off on the Albanian Wikipedia. Is there one? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is one indeed [13]. The Albanian wikipedia is actually extremely poor, but it includes Duni. --Sulmues (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references IJA (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -I judge the word of people familar with Albanian cinema that he is not notable. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:07, 22 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 Interstate_80_in_California#Eastshore_Freeway. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastshore Freeway[edit]

Eastshore Freeway (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)

Redundant to Interstate 80 in California and Interstate 580 (California). Rschen7754 20:47, 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 delete a7, I didn't see an assertion of actual notability here. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Shapiro Marketing and Advertising[edit]

Alan Shapiro Marketing and Advertising (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)

Is this article about the person or his agency? Did we really decline advert speedy (fall in love and stay in love..."? Did we really decline A7 (no importance asserted)? I can see no reason to keep this unless Wikipedia has become a promotional tool. — Timneu22 · talk 20:22, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My WINGS[edit]

My WINGS (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, while perfectly formatted, referenced, etc. is based on an "airline" which will consist of 1 (one) aircraft. Hardly notable by anyone's standards... Same (similar?) article was previously speedy deleted. Technopat (talk) 19:57, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aboud Zazi[edit]

Aboud Zazi (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)

Unable to locate any reliable sources independent of the subject in order to establish notability. This article is a WP:BLP and has existed without sources for four year. Sources may exist in the subject's native language but I have been unable to locate them. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 19:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete no citations. and from research, there isn't much I can find... OorjaNights (talk) 09:54, 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 A difficult call. The overall subject Afro-Latinos has sufficient coverage to claim notability. Thus as a list of [notable] Afro-Latinos, this list meets WP:List. The deletes have valid point about individual entries, referencing and whether or not they meet relatively clear inclusion criteria: [notable Afro Latinos]. Entries that cannot be verified thru reliable sources as Afro-Latinos can and should be removed from the list. All the arguments about relevancy, list size and otherstuff are not policy based and have been discounted. If an entry is unsourced or unsourceable based on inclusion criteria it can be removed. If this equates to 100% of the entries, then there is no list, otherwise there is a valid list. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Afro-Latinos[edit]

List of Afro-Latinos (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)

Large list of uncited genetic claims Off2riorob (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per norm Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Having read [14], I have withdrawn my delete vote. I wonder if there are enough Irish-Latinos to form their own list? :)) Prsaucer1958 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Believe it or not, that's not far-fetched. It would start with guys like Bernardo O'Higgins, who led Chile to independence, and Álvaro Obregón, one-time President of Mexico (Obregón being a form of O'Brian). Essentially, this is sourced to a list of black people who were born in Latin America. There's nothing genetic about being "Hispanic", which is purely an invention of the U.S. Census Bureau. Mandsford 20:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 21:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 21:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:V. Categorizing notable people by their ancestry is not relevant. List of Caucasians would be an equally ridiculous list. SnottyWong gossip 21:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Snotty Wong, in that case, maybe you should consider listing List of Asian Americans too? Maashatra11 (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People of African descent are just as much of a minority in Latin America as they are in the United States. Somehow, we have entire categories (Category:Lists of African American people) and in no case do we require individual citations to prove the "blackness" of the persons (such as those listed in African Americans in the United States Congress). The practice, rather than a bunch of insulting footnotes, it's usually enough to cite a general source (in this case, [15]. I'm afraid that we've never lived in a world where the ancestry of people was "not relevant". Try nominating a list of African-Americans (or for that matter, Italian-Americans) and see how far you get. Mandsford 21:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It passes WP:LIST, also notable ethnic group. IJA (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Comment - Its a huge uncited list, as its uncited that is the issue, so lets move the uncited to the talkpage and people who support keeping the list can cite and replace it . Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, uncited list and questionable criteria for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO, "Uncited" entries can be removed or eventually cited; I have added a criteria for inclusion open to improvements. Regards, Maashatra11 (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "It'll eventually be cited" doesn't cut it for a BLP-related article. Stifle (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uncited, and although it could be fixed, it won't be. Someone said "move all the uncited to the talk page" - that would be the whole article - same as deleting. I'll allow recreation, or reconsider this vote, if someone offers to maintain it and keep uncited stuff out. Otherwise might as well rename to "people who look afro-latino or have names that make wikipedians think they might be".--Scott Mac 14:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am holding back as this AFD is ongoing, but if this list is kept I am going to remove all the uncited claims, and then there will be nothing left. Off2riorob (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I offer to maintain the list, as you suggested. For the moment I removed some entries unbacked by reliable sources, and added sources proving Black ancestry to an article (Melissa de Sousa). You voted "Delete" but what you are actually saying is "Keep and improve" ("I'll allow recreation, or reconsider this vote, if someone offers to maintain it and keep uncited stuff out"). Please clarify your stance. Maashatra11 (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it has to be a delete. There are hundreds of entries here, all unreferenced. Are you seriously going to reference them all?--Scott Mac 15:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Scott. I didn't vote to keep, but if this article survives AfD, I will try my best to reference all the entries, and delete the unverifiable entries. When I say "entries", I don't mean the individual ones on this list, but the individual articles. As previously stated, I have already added references to AfroLatino ancestry to an article. Regards, Maashatra11 (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid criteria for a list. Uncited, but we are discussing here the existence of the article, not its contents. Citations can be added. But not if the article doesn't exist. Herostratus (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not good enough for a BLP list. This type of eventualism ignores the fact that it simply will not be referenced. Nothing has been till now.--Scott Mac 15:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the references asserting Afro Latino affiliation don't necessarily have to be included in the list - they can be added to the individual articles. I'm sure I read it somewhere (in one of the policies or guidelines)... But on the other hand, the refs can be included, such as in List of Jews in sports and similar lists. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Claims need to be backed up by reliable sources. end of. Especially claims of genetic background and genome type, especially, specially, about anybody who is alive. Off2riorob (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really understand your concerns. But there are so many similar lists. I'm not trying to put up some WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument (I didn't vote and I'm quite ambivalent about the outcome of this AfD) but there are hundreds of similar lists. I don't really see what's the difference between this and, say, List of Asian Americans or List of black Britons. Maashatra11 (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I just stumbled on this list, as an article I watch was added to the list and I had a look at it and it was a huge uncited weakly defined list and so here we are today. There may well be other lists in a similar state but I have yet to stumble on those... If this AFD helps to create improvements in other list that will also be a benefit. Keeping large weakly defined uncited lists is not IMO a benefit to the project. Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. May be worthy for a list, but the entire article is unsourced.--PinkBull 01:57, 30 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) 10:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified submerged object[edit]

Unidentified submerged object (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 long-standing article has had numerous sourcing problems for a number of years. I just made a careful examination of possible sources written about this topic and found way too insufficient coverage to warrant an article on the subject. The article appears to have served, from time-to-time, as a coatrack for a website entitled "Water UFO", an originally researched list of UFO-incidents that may have involved water in some way, and an inappropriate conglomeration of trivia. One of the most reliable sources related to this article is a TIME magazine piece from Feb. 22, 1960 stating, rather whimsically, that every time naval appropriations is discussed in the Argentine Congress, an unidentified foreign submarine is reported to have been spotted in Argentine waters. "Unidentified submerged object" doesn't appear in the article. A search through Google scholar has uncovered almost no discussion of the term as a notable idea, and any mention of it at all is either a minor consideration or almost completely off-handed. Strictly speaking, I think we have a fringe subject not warranting inclusion. Note, for example, that the History Channel did a special on "Deep Sea UFOs" and did not call them "USOs". This is telling: even the pop-culture coverage of these ideas do not agree on collating them under this term.

We should include reports of UFO-like sightings associated with bodies of water (and under bodies of water) in articles on the UFO phenomenon, but a separate article on USOs is impossible to write given the paucity of sources which actually deal with the subject as written here at Wikipedia. Right now, this article is actually serving as a verification for the very existence of such a term: in effect, Wikipedia is being used to promote the idea that this is the way such objects should be labeled: [16] If there was ever a reason to delete an article, I think this is it. The last thing we need is for Wikipedia to become a primary source for paranormal entities. Let these concepts develop outside of Wikipedia and after third-party sources take notice THEN we should write the article. NOT before. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete should have been done long ago Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there appear to be reliable sources under the terms "unidentified submersible objects" and "unidentified submarine objects". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, move to Unidentified submersible object, and then do a massive cleanup. This article is currently not very well written. SnottyWong confess 21:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No indication that such a term is any more common than the one considered above. Compare [17] and [18] for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a terrible article, but in looking around, I see that we have no general article (or even a category) for what would be referred to as "submarine incursions", which is what the Argentine incidents in 1958, 1959, and 1960 would properly be called. I have no use for stories about Australian banana farmers seeing something that might be a sub from another planet, but there have been numerous incidents of sovereign nations discovering something in their territorial waters. We have some articles, such as Soviet submarine S-363, but these are usually submerged in a dumb location like Category:Maritime incidents in 1981 where nobody will find them. Assuming that this article is deleted, the Argentine incursions (which were assumed to be by Soviet submarines, though the craft were never caught, so nothing was proven) would be lost. At the time, they were quite notable. Perhaps we can forget the alien fish people stuff and someone can take this in a new direction. Mandsford 22:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Submarine incursion would be a good article to write, indeed. I'm not convinced that the term "USO" is ever used in an official capacity, though, or has even been connected to these situations by any source except Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it goes in that direction, fine, but there does need to be some mention of the paranormal theory because it has been covered in reliable sources. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect you'll just dismiss this, but Jerome Clark's book Unexplained has a chapter titled "Unidentified Submarine Objects". I think it's pretty objective, and provides a good general overview of the topic. If you have an Amazon account, you can read almost the entire entry. Zagalejo^^^ 05:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be something useful here, although I can only see that snippet. Zagalejo^^^ 05:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't seem really developed enough for this to serve as the basis for an entire new article. This is the third name for this idea. That fact alone leads me to believe that it is probably too underdeveloped to deserve an article yet. Maybe in the future there will be increased interest in USOs, but until then I think they are essentially a footnote to UFo stories. The book chapter does not really look like an encyclopedic source to me for anything more than a sentence or two. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any serious coverage by reliable sources that warrants an article for Unidentified submerged object. If it is a nautical term it may deserve mention in submarine warfare or related article, and the alien angle could be mentioned in UFO or similar, provided they are backed up by good sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The last two sentences of the nomination statement say it all. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:46, 26 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OSRIC-Compatible Adventure Modules[edit]

OSRIC-Compatible Adventure Modules (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 list compilation is not referenced to non-published sources. Creation of a 'sales catalog' (the products are not for sale, but that is the effect of having this article) from primary sources makes this an original research issue.

The authors are using Wikipedia as a primary source of documentation for their game creating specialized catalog lists. Miami33139 (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I authored most of the content on this page. To date, I am not associated with any of the publishers, nor have I written any of the items listed. Also note the various publishers are unafilliated. The article is meant as a useful index for interested readers to find all OSRIC-compatible adventure modules. I believe Wikipedia is the best place for such information because the list is independent of publisher, author, and distributor bias. So, it is the ideal place for the reader to fin all published OSRIC-Compatible adventures, regardless of publisher, author, or distributor bias. I know there are a number of people interested in RPGs that use this article as a reference. I believe the article should be kept for those who want a comprehensive list of OSRIC adventures. -Terrex2112 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrex2112 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory service -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like a useful consolidated list, not much different to lists of Baldur's Gate characters that have been hosted here for years, or other computer game franchise lists of available material. M.J.Stanham (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other stuff exists isn't a valid argument for keep. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 10:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not saying it is, just that it seems like there is a bit of a double standard at work. I am not opposed to merging the information into the general OSRIC page. M.J.Stanham (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a double standard when the lists you're comparing this too have twice as many sources on both the list and parent article, ignoring the fact that those list are on much lengthier topics than OSRIC. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 06:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, but it is a double standard if the reason for deletion is that it is a list. By the same token, if the reason for deletion is that the article needs to be lengthier (and honestly, a list of Baldur's Gate characters is not a lengthier topic by any stretch of the imagination) or requires more citations or whatever, then I am sure those issues can be addressed. Perhaps a general "Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrum Games" page would fit that bill more closely, bringing together articles on OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, and so on. The tendency towards sub-entries on Wikipedia is natural, but many are quite unnecessary. M.J.Stanham (talk) 13:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you should create a "Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrum Games" article and move those other games to it. Miami33139 (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • But that's not the reason for deletion, thus there is no double standard. For this list to survive, it doesn't just need sources, it needs second and third party sources. At the moment, all the sources listed are first part and, as nom points out, reads like a catalog. At first thought, a list of Dungeon & Dragons Simulacrum etc seems like it would be long and sprawling, but I'm not against the attempt. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sure, as I say, I am sure the criteria can be met, once what they are is understood. I am fairly certain that the creation of pages listing material is for the convenience of organising information and not intended as a catalogue, since that function is met in many other places. I would not imagine that a Dungeons & Dragons Simulacrums page would be any more sprawling than the Dungeons & Dragons page it would be modelled on, but I suppose we will never know until we give it a go.M.J.Stanham (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you feel the criteria can be met, prove it. If you think a greater list of items would be more functional, "give it a go". -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I am in the process of doing just that; any constructive help from people who know more about the whys and wherefores of the criteria of Wikipedia would, of course, be appreciated. M.J.Stanham (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Transwiki option I think the nomination statement brings up a pretty good point. Regardless of whether the author is or is not affiliated, the condition of the article comes across as a directory. I think the transwiki option though enables the information to be preserved (as obviously there was a great effort to make the page) in an appropriate venue. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per Jelly Soup. SnottyWong express 22:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the transwiki folks, why not merge? Hobit (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certain elements of the page could certainly be adopted to the OSRIC page. So long as that page did not become a directory itself (my main concern). I'm not opposed to merging some information in there. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:05, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ragonetti[edit]

Peter Ragonetti (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 industrial designer with no claim of notability. Motorsports experience fails WP:NSPORT/Motorsports. Drdisque (talk) 18:42, 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 22:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J-sKy[edit]

J-sKy (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)

Despite the numerous references cited in this article, this does not appear to be a notable MC, rapper, radio announcer and screenwriter. The refs cited include brief mentions and not interviews or full-scale articles. There seems to be no substantial coverage, and google searches don't appear to be promising. This is borderline A7, because there isn't really an assertion of significance. Nominating procedurally for more input; I vote delete. — Timneu22 · talk 18:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE there is substantial coverage indicating j-sKy's notability, I have included several articles that I could find on the internet about him, there are others that I can include and there are also numerous third party youtube videos (that Wikipedia does not allow) of his performances, interviews and even recordings with well known artists that certify his notability. you can look at some of the following -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9uiQDFCbf, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUHTfTi1aX4&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hy7AWL87qg. Furthermore, Jupiter Entertainment artists such as Cristian Alexanda are included on Wikipedia with little or no citations. Amongst other artists included in the referenced Hip Hop Musicians book such as Israel (singer) who are also included on Wikipedia. I vote to keep this article John Mosden 08:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikkant (talk • contribs)
  • after searching i've also found this link - keep - [REDACTED piracy link] OorjaNights (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete fails our notability guidelines, and the creator has recently put up a paid-editing request asking for fake third party websites to add to this article to keep it from being deleted. ThemFromSpace 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome! How did you find that? — Timneu22 · talk 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable. So called reference in the article do not link to sources naming the band. Google search on j-sKy [19] or Jasky Singh [20] do not readily provide secondary sources of any relevance. Arnoutf (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. No indication of notability. Examples from other wikipedia articles are not instructive, here - we're talking about this subject on its own merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This looks like an autobiography to me. It appears that User:Sikkant is himself J-sKy based on the twitter handle and profile pics for sikkant and J-sKy's facebook page.DCmacnut<> 13:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice research! — Timneu22 · talk 13:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject is not notable. Yworo (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable to the point that the author has requested fake sources. Mauler90 talk 22:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability test. — raekyT 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just a vanity page. —Torchiest talk/contribs 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I just deleted 1 reference from the article, as books published by "Books LLC" are just print-on-demand books containing only Wikipedia articles. --Kam Solusar (talk) 02:10, 23 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. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox parishes in California[edit]

Orthodox parishes in California (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)

We've deleted Orthodox parishes in Washington D.C. and Orthodox parishes in Arkansas; it's high time this one goes as well. I think the Washington, D.C. discussion raised some good arguments for deletion, and they revolve around WP:NOTDIR. We're not here to provide a directory of non-notable parish churches; the Yellow Pages are for that. A few of these, such as the cathedrals, may be notable, and we should think of how/if to list those (perhaps at List of cathedrals in the United States?), but this particular list is not encyclopedic. - Biruitorul Talk 18:00, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cătălin Josan[edit]

Cătălin Josan (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 don't believe this individual has been the subject of enough "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to warrant an article. Footnote 1 links to a self-published site, while the second footnote is from his own website (not independent coverage). Footnotes 3 and 4 are to Youtube videos, which don't count as the published sources Wikipedia relies on. An unverified claim is made that he won the Megastar competition, whatever that is. He's also tried for Eurovision (or so the article claims), but not gotten very far. This article is good PR ("[His] "unique sound and delivery of a song that Romania has never seen before...[He] brings a promising fresh vibe on the music arena and is certainly a name to be watched"), but appears to be promoting someone not yet notable. - Biruitorul Talk 18:00, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of Lando Freeman[edit]

The Story of Lando Freeman (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)
  • Looks to be almost entirely unreliable blogs, some of which no longer exist, which offer brief plot summaries announcing when the episode will air. They don't establish notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an episode of a well known television show in the United States. If this is deleted, then other episodes should be deleted for the same reason. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE!" Contribs 17:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IKNOWIT and WP:WAX are not valid reasons for keeping an article. There need to be reliable sources to establish notability. The notability of the series does not confer notability on each individual episode. If there are other TV episodes that are similarly non-notable then you are correct, they should be deleted. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, copying and pasting a link to an essay to complain that I'm overlinking to guidelines. That's pretty hilarious. And also non-responsive. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not notable, then none of the other Boondocks episodes are notable, but the other ones are on here, so this episode is notable. I have a reliable source [22] if this source is not reliable, then Wikipedia is not reliable because Wikipedia is the source.

  • Wikipedia is absolutely not a reliable source for itself because anyone can edit it. The notability of other Boondocks episodes does not make this individual episode notable. Compare for example Pause (The Boondocks), which has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources including The Los Angeles Times and Slate.com. It is the existence of independent reliable sources that establish notability, not being part of a notable series. Maybe instead of trying to be cute about links to guidelines you should read them. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honey, when I'm being condescending there won't be any question about it. Have you read those guidelines yet? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I have been heavily involved in editing other Boondocks episode articles, your bad faith accusation is demonstrably false. "Other episodes are notable" is an invalid argument, since the notability of other episodes or the series as a whole do not confer notability on each individual episode. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a sec -- who is the ultimate arbiter of what is notable enough...you? The onion review works for me, and it also counters the claim of no third party sources noted in at least one delete vote. --166.137.142.69 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Articles about individual episodes that consist of nothing but plot summary, and which derive all their notability from the parent series rather than have it in their own right, are not to be encouraged on Wikipedia. Reyk YO! 05:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • when 90% of The Simpsons episode articles get deleted, that policy will have teeth. Now it just comes off as a weird bias. --166.137.142.69 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every other television episode that has ever been broadcast since television began could have its own article and that wouldn't mean that this one should. Each article stands and falls on its own merits and arguing for the retention of one episode article because other episodes have articles is invalid. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEMOLISH It consists of just a plot summary, but there could be more added to the page, don't delete it because it is not finished yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- the deletionists mean well, but in this instance the onion A/V seals it for me. That article puts the episode in the context of the season as well. --166.137.142.69 (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, you've already !voted. No doublesies. Reyk YO! 05:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe. But when three IPs from the same range edit the same AfD as their first edits it's pretty clear they're the same person. You're not fooling anyone. Reyk YO! 19:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[24] Seems to establish notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheClerksWell (talk • contribs) 18:14, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Super-Spectacular Day[edit]

It's a Super-Spectacular 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)

Non-notable song issued by Mad Magazine. Search for the title turns up no results on Google News or Google Books. The only reference was a personal blog on Blogspot; not a reliable soure. Search for "Alto and Mantia" turns up 78 results. Bobby Alto does have a page, but his notability looks so thin that he's up for AFD too. There is absolutely nothing notable about this single, and its tie to Mad Magazine does not give it a free pass. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:46, 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. Trevor MacInnis contribs 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Potomac-Shenandoah earthquake[edit]

2010 Potomac-Shenandoah 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 fatalities, no big damage or injuries, only 3.6 MW - not notable. Hundreds of such earthquakes happen on earth and they don't have an article - so why this one has? Kubek15 write/sign 16:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, A minor earthquake by magnitude but a record for the Washington, D.C. area, quite a deal of media coverage as well, many being listed in the reference section. --Taktser 17:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being mentioned in the media for a couple of days means no more that this is just another ephemeral news event, not something to have an article about. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a notable event, definitely. Also per Takster. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be notable if just in Poland, every year there is such an earthquake at least 10 times a year, so it's like more than 1000 times a year in whole world, and THIS ONE is notable, and the rest - not? Kubek15 write/sign 16:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, If it was in California or Japan or some other place that commonly has earth quakes it'd be one thing. I read somewhere that seimologist were unaware this fault was cabable of still producing one this size. I expect more sources revolve on the scientific aspects of this to come in the next years. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the papers get written then write an article about the fault, there will never be enough reason to have an article on this minor tremor. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. —Jujutacular T · C 21:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While it was a somewhat unusual event for the region, a 3.6 earthquake is scarcely noticeable. 35 earthquakes larger than this one happened yesterday (7/19/10) in Alaska alone [25]. Takster indicates above that the earthquake was a record for the region, but considering that records have only been kept in this area since 1974 (36 years), the fact that "it's a record" doesn't really mean much. SnottyWong chat 22:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. At 3.6, there's no damage or lasting significance and it's barely noticeable; it might deserve a mention in the seismic region article if it exists.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although only very small, the earthquake is still notable for the area. Justmeagain83 (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A minor earthquake with no notability, it fails to come close the recently proposed 'guidelines for notability' on WikiProject:Earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial earthquake, not worth an article or even a merge. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW for those who insist that minor earthquakes are notable if they occur someplace that doesn't get many earthquakes: Thunderstorms are unusual here in San Diego where I live. They almost always make the news when they happen, and everybody talks about them for days. In other parts of the country, thunderstorms are an everyday occurrence. Would a San Diego thunderstorm be worthy of a Wikipedia article, on account of its rarity? That's pretty much the argument that people make when they say "well, yes, it was a minor earthquake, but it was unusual for the area." For that matter, it snowed here once, back in the 1940s - up to an inch in places. That inch of snow would certainly be worth an article, 1948 San Diego snowstorm [26], per the standards that are being proposed here for earthquakes. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per MelanieN. WP:NOTNEWS applies. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are too many earthquakes to ever write an article for each one, so there must be standards. This earthquake is tiny; less than a one kiloton explosion. It didn't do anything noteworthy, and the article should be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 10:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's verifiable and there's obviously enough sources to make an article.--Scott Mac 15:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS as noted above and, though meets WP:GNG, lacks "enduring historical significance" to meet WP:EVENT ("Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect."). Novaseminary (talk) 16:48, 28 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. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Nottage[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pete Nottage (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 person, no evidence that he's been the subject of reliable, independent sources - fails WP:BIO, WP:RS andy (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm willing to reconsider if more sources come to the table, but what's in the article now either isn't significant coverage or doesn't establish him as a notable individual. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable, not least as a nominee for a Sony Radio Award. I was in the process of improving the article and adding refs when this AfD was posted. As noted on the talk page, it had already been considerably expanded since the prior deletion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - it was the radio station that was nominated, not the subject of this article. andy (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes... awarded to the station... but as the hosting station of the listed individuals involved in production.[27] Without them, there would would have been no award. Kinda like in baseball or hockey... winning a Pennant or a Stanley Cup is notability for the team that created the circumstances leading to the award. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delving further, I find that 6 Music did not win that award (and therefore Pete Nottage didn't either). This was merely a nomination. What they actually won is given here - awards for Jarvis Cocker, Adam Buxton and Joe Cornish... but not Nottage. andy (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You didn't need to delve very far, since I used - deliberately - the word "nominee" not "recipient". Being a nominee - he's named on the awards page - for "[one] of the most prestigious awards in the British radio industry" makes him notable. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So please show me where in wikipedia's guidelines being one member of a team that is nominated for an award but fails to win it confers notability. Now winning the award, that's a different thing and in fact 6 Music did win two awards - with Nottage nowhere in evidence. Face it, he's just a guy and no more notable than anyone else who knows one end of a microphone from the other. andy (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ANYBIO... first thing.. "has won or been nominated"... As for members of a team being being notable when the team receives recognition through the efforts of the team... well, those precedents are throughout Wikipedia. For instance, lok at how WP:MUSICBIO deals with notability for individual "members" of notable groups. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...nominated multiple times", which he hasn't been, and it is also worth pointing out that "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles". If you were to extend that to this case, it would mean being redirected to the 6Music article. Quantpole (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)F[reply]
  • Delete. He appears to be a busy person but he does not seem to have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and hence is not shown to be notable at the moment. Of the sources currently in the article, all are trivial mentions, and a couple are not independent. The article contains a lot of information which is completely unsourced. The radio station you worked at being nominated for an award is not an indication of notability to my mind - is it likely that he has received significant coverage as a result? If good sources can be found then I'll change my mind, but not with what is in the article at present. Quantpole (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is turning into a dialogue of the deaf. Yes, the Sony Awards page is a reliable source... and it clearly shows he didn't win anything. And yes, the Oxford Mail is a reliable source... and he's not the subject of an article! So if failing to win anything and failing to gain more than a passing mention confers notability then he's notable. Otherwise... please read wikipedia's guidelines. (Sigh!) andy (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since nobody has claimed that he won anything, it would seem to be you who is not listening. I was thus not refuting a claim that he didn't win; but that the mention was trivial. It is not. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean now - by 'trivial mention' I meant the coverage. The award nomination in itself may not be trivial, but there is nothing in that source beyond the nomination, no biographical or work details, so I do not consider it to be significant coverage and hence 'trivial'. I should have perhaps used a more precise wording. Quantpole (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same goes for the Oxford Mail article, which is simply an event listing. The source isn't trivial but the coverage certainly is - literally, just a mention. andy (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

from looking at the talk section and history of the page it looks like many other links that provided exaples were offered but unfairly denied by an admin without a seconds thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.61 (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that is incorrect - no one has 'denied' anyone anything - they have offered advice as a more experienced user. I don't think the person offering the advice was an admin either. And it looked like they did consider the sources that had been offered, but they were simply not what wikipedia has decided to accept. It might seem strange if you are new around here, but the policies on sourcing and so on have been discussed at very great length over a long period of time, and there is actually good reason for them. Quantpole (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pete Nottage is quite a popular voice over artist in the UK and many of his fans will likely want to find out more about him and other work he has done which is why I think this page should be kept so fans can find more information about him. If you think the page needs more information or tidying up I am happy to do anything I can and get some information from Pete himself on Twitter.

I have known some Wikipedia pages for much lesser known stars to still be around, so I don't see why this page should get removed when it's not doing anything wrong. tomo359 (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.95.151 (talk) — 91.109.95.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

i have found a coupl of more websites with details on. 1 is another news site about the oxford thing http://fashionmovement.blogspot.com/2009/04/channel-4s-pete-nottage-to-host-catwalk.html and i have found the original interview what is saved on the main page as a pdf. i found it through archive.org http://web.archive.org/web/20071206211430/http://www.theanchorwoman.com/2007/11/30/pete-nottage/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.197.164 (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC) and there is also this to http://radiotalent.co.uk/profile_show.php?id=7380&usertype=Presenters&page=&search=nottage[reply]

  • The first reference is a blog, and Nottage is not the subject of it anyway; the second reference is also a blog; the third reference is promotional. None of these count as reliable sources. WP:BIO requires substantial or widespread coverage in reliable and independent sources. andy (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps people aren't aware that Channel 4 is one of the UK's only five national free-to-air terrestrial TV channels. Here are the [http://www.google.co.uk/search?&q="Pete+Nottage"+"channel+4" search results for "Peter Nottage" "channel 4". Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proving what? As a presenter he's bound to be mentioned in various places. But if you scroll through the results you'll find that there are actually 67 hits, not one of which supports a claim of notability. andy (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally couldn't care either way, however if some voice artists have got pages for doing far less than him then surely in the interests of fairness then he should have one too? in terms of other pages its just taken a two second search and i've found wikipedia pages for people who appear to have done muxh less. Equality for all, and everything... J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.51 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other stuff exists. Whether or not other voice artists of similar/lesser standing have articles is not a factor in whether this page should be kept. The issue is this article, this presenter, and whether he has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely the evidence provided on the page in terms of examples of his work, coupled up with links to his talent agency suggest he is a more than credible source? He's certainly done more than a lot of us have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.34 (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable ordinary voiceover announcer. Coverage not substanstial enough to meet WP:CREATIVE. Vanity article. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:46, 25 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 G3 Obvious Hoax RN 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pilchini[edit]

Pilchini (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 cocktail. Author says it has been "verified" but only that cites will be added eventually once some ext source does...something. Well that's the definition of WP:V failure at this time, an article that is at this time crystal-balling on its future status and upcoming popularity. If and when it does become notable according to reliable sources, then it would merit an article, written in a factual tone. DMacks (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, this is just vandalism, it's a copypaste of Martini (cocktail) with a few words changed and a lot of bullshit thrown in. No need to keep this around for a week. Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I agree with Hairhorn. Very essay-like and POV. Sentences like "The Pilchini is not a drink for idiots, not your average wanker off the street can create this masterpiece." make the article seem like a joke. GorillaWarfare talk 15:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:NFT. Pichpich (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Can't bring myself to speedy this, too much on the edge of the policy (It's a partial A10 duplicate & G3 hoax/vandalism combo), but if another admin wants to, go ahead. I enjoyed the bit about "'Well frankly, my dear. I don't give a damn'. If James Bond had known about the Pilchini, he would have been downing those by the dozen." though.... RN 17:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the time yes, I'll speedy it anyway; it's close enough. RN 19:03, 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. Courcelles (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zygmunt Witymir Bieńkowski[edit]

Zygmunt Witymir Bieńkowski (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)

Appears to fail the notability guidelines. Being a pilot, the son of an MP and writing a diary are not sufficient and I find nothing relevant on Google Books to support notability as an author. Raising for discussion to account for potential BIAS due to difficulties with non-English sources which might exist and be completely un-cited in English works. Fæ (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion, Keep article: He was a highly decorated flier, he got Virtuti Militari, 3 times the Krzyż Walecznych (the Polish Cross of Valor) and according to Dutch wikipedia he even got the Vliegerkruis (the Dutch Airman's Cross), source here: [28]. He is more than enough notable for a wikipedia article.  Dr. Loosmark  15:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm no expert, perhaps you could express this in terms of meeting the guidance of WP:MILPEOPLE? If these are the highest national awards then this would be a good rationale to keep. Fæ (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • From the article about the award: The Order Virtuti Militari (Latin for "To Military Valour") is Poland's highest military decoration for courage in the face of the enemy. It was created in 1792 by Poland's King Stanisław August Poniatowski and is considered as one of the oldest military decorations in the world still in use.  Dr. Loosmark  16:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that Bienkowski's diary is housed in not one but two universities tends to indicate that this is a figure of some historical import. This is not a Biography of a Living Person, nothing is being hyped or sold. Keeping the information accessible harms nothing, deleting the information helps nothing. Please use eyes, common sense, and touch rather than rigid adherence to formulaic rules when considering deletion of articles on historical figures. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Cross[edit]

Bloody Cross (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 coverage by reliable third-party sources. Fails the inclusion guidelines at WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Prod disputed by article's creator. —Farix (t | c) 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability found to pass either WP:BK or the GNG. No licensor found outside Japan. No Anime News Network users editable encyclopedia entry. Scanlation is at chapter 7. Side-comment: Out of the series serialized in the monthly Shonen Gangan why Bloody Cross? Pick Tripeace instead it's at least licensed in France. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:49, 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 redirect to Resident Evil. Scott Mac 15:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoon City[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Raccoon City (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)

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Lack of reliable third-party publications. Although the previous AfD discussions mentioned that sources likely exist, they were not provided later and a search did not turn up any either (googled "raccoon city" "resident evil" "setting" -review -wiki -wikipedia -"is a fictional city for the"). The entirety of the overview and the Hive sections as well as the first paragraph of the appearances section are plot summaries of the games and movies. The second paragraph of the appearances section is the only original aspect, but it is also mentioned under production in the film articles. Prime Blue (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Zero real-world notability or references. Being name-dropped within a larger review of the game or movie doesn't cut it. The previous AfD runs suffers from awful keep rationales ("This fictional city transcends the original game media"), banned inclusionists (Le Grande Roi...), and indef-blocked non-admin closers. Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto), a "if we delete this then we have to delete that" from AfD #2, may need to be evaluated as well. Tarc (talk) 13:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—It has notability as the setting for two feature films, a series of computer games and the associated RE books. There are plenty of reliable references available. I suggest trimming out the unsourced entries and cutting this down to a stub, if necessary.—RJH (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then by all means, you should point out these reliable sources if there are so many available. I could not find any. Prime Blue (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect: On the current list of references we have two primary sources (official game guide and the DVD of one of the films), one Sci Fi Weekly dead link, and two others. The first, about 130 words, discusses a would-be game creator making a Left 4 Dead campaign based on R.C. The second, a New York Times piece, while more substantial merely grazes the topic of R.C. So, unless some better sources can be found (I couldn't find any), I say delete or redirect to Resident Evil. TheTito Discuss 21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Resident Evil franchise article. It is the primary setting for the first few games, and first two movies. or Merge all locations to a List of Resident Evil locations, as exists for other fictional universes. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Resident Evil series page to retain article history, the city's name was repeatedly used in the games and in other media to refer to Resident Evil so a redirect should be in place. Raccoon City is an unremarkable fictional city where remarkable things happened, and then it got blown up, the lack of secondary sources covering it in detail is no surprise. Someoneanother 10:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, it will be a clean solution. Abductive (reasoning) 10:21, 28 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian pop music performers and genres[edit]

List of Russian pop music performers and genres (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)

unusefel list. What is the criteria? What is "performers and genres" ? "Pop" is a loose and vague, broad term. The notable entries can be listed in Russian pop instead. Wikipedia is not a repository of loosely associated topics nor an indiscriminate collection of information. See wp:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC, WP:SALAT. p.s. List of Turkish pop music performers is redirecting to "List of turkish musicians". I am also nominating the following related pages:

List of Israeli pop music performers and genres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of German pop music performers and genres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Maashatra11 (talk) 12:40, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian rock and pop musicians born overseas[edit]

List of Australian rock and pop musicians born overseas (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)

unuseful list, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, see wp:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC, WP:SALAT. Interesting only to those who created the list. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:34, 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 Moved. Well, this could have been closed a few days earlier, as someone already moved it elsewhere. —fetch·comms 01:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of South Korean teen idol musical bands[edit]

List of South Korean teen idol musical bands (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)

COMPLETELY unsourced, intricate, unuseful list. The description says "List of South Korean musical bands who have been called "teen idols" by the media; why do we need such a list? Anyway, it is coupletely unsourced, making it even worse. See wp:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC, WP:SALAT, the relevant policies or guidelines. This list is interesting only to those who created it. Maybe we should create an article called South Korean teen idols or Teen idol music instead, or merge the relevant entries to other articles or categories. Maashatra11 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to vote yet, but I suggest removing the last column (as it only repeat things in the linked articles). This list is good for comparison which can not be made through categories. Since this is a list of people (technically bands are labeled groups of people), and each of them has an article of its own...please see WP:Notability (People), it says that every entry should have a source...that is exactly what we need to improve...as for notability of the entries, I suggest removing all entries that do not follow at least one of the twelve stated points in WP:Music...I will vote after the AfD is discussed further, and if I am convinced...Yeah, the title of the article can also be changed...see Korean wave. Farjad0322 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are in the article links. Listen before trying to remove the article from its existence. lets discuss its positive and negative points. Farjad0322 (talk) 08:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good Points Bad Points
This list/article tells which band debuted in which year making it good for a comparison. This is unlike List of K-pop artists. In case of bands, categorizing is helpful. It is a list (like a directory) while it should be an article. I suggest it should be moved because it only serves the purpose of List of K-pop artists (K-pop does not mean it would include rock and ballad Korean artists/bands).
General knowledge like 'gender' and '# members' is NEEDED. Band is not only its name. There is a difference between a 3 member band and 13 member band. There is always a difference between Male and Female bands. They don't need to be sourced. It would be just dumb. As if Barack Obama is a male or a female (Prove it!). :P Use common sense. Too much trivial (not general) knowledge which is unsourced. Columns like 'leader', 'breakup' and 'references and notes' should be removed. (Since none of them are sourced and would be present in the provided link to the respective band article anyway). 'Record Label' should be removed as well.
All entries are notable since they have their own articles. The list contain not only K-Pop bands but as well as others like TRAX. This might conflict with List of Korean musicians or List of K-pop artists. But the content is similar. If it is possible to make another section in 'List of Korean Musicians' or 'List of K-pop artists' that only lists the bands (not solo artists), then I suggest merging of this article with either of them. 'Teen Idols'? There is no criteria for being a teen idol. The title should be changed into "South Korean bands" only.
  • Comment Farjad, what a great piece of work you have done here! :) It's great to know there are people who actually care about the article. If I understand it right, there was never any list akin to listing simply musical artists/musicians/bands from South Korea - but I erroneously thought that there MUST be such kind of list, and I'm only now aware of the fact that it simply never existed. Farjad - if I understand it right - the best way to deal with this article is merely renaming it to List of South Korean bands. If you agree to make the move, and there is agreement upon the creation of such a title , I shall withdraw. My new suggestion is thus Move to List of South Korean bands and delete this redirect , as the title containing "teen idol" is simply arbitrary/implausible. Cheers , Maashatra11 (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! :) Farjad0322 (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not a very good choice. This list now duplicates many of the artists in List of Korean musicians. In my opinion, these 2 lists should be merged to one. Bands and musicians are interchangeable, so it's senseless that they have separate articles (see List of Belgian bands and artists). As you probably know, North Korea doesn't give much artistic freedom to its civilians, so saying "South Korea" or "Korea" when talking about popular musicians is similar. Maashatra11 (talk) 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why, I just noted you suggested something similar to my suggestion : "If it is possible to make another section in 'List of Korean Musicians' or 'List of K-pop artists' that only lists the bands (not solo artists), then I suggest merging of this article with either of them." Very very good call, so I suggest we make some merging work first (add a section called "bands" in List of Korean musicians) , then request speedy deletion of the implausible "List of South Korean teen idol musical bands" which is a redirect now, and redirect List of South Korean bands to List of Korean musicians. I withdraw. Maashatra11 (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! This is a very good idea. It would clear up so many articles of the same purpose. However, the article List of K-Pop artists is not a good choice because it only lists pop artists/bands and not ballad and rock artists/bands. List of Korean musicians is the right choice for merging. Farjad0322 (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest making sections because there are entries of articles on Taeyeon, Jessica and Tiffany and as well as Girls Generation - who they are the member of. This is what makes necessary for us to separate solo artists from bands. Just about anyone can be a solo artist but making a band is a little more challenging, Bands dont own their music, in fact not even their own name. It belongs to their label company. In case of solo artists, they can own their music, if not in all cases. Farjad0322 (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article appears to have been moved during this discussion; that appears to be a satisfactory outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! and the new list is now way better than before: List of Korean musicians. Could you close this discussion because the article does not exist anymore. Farjad0322 (talk) 13:58, 28 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 all. T. Canens (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of British pop musicians of the 1940s[edit]

List of British pop musicians of the 1940s (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:IINFO, WP:NOTDIR, WP:LSC, WP:SALAT. Wikipedia isnt a repository of loosely associated topics nor a directory. Not a useful list, because inclusion criteria isn't mentioned, and isn't clear at all. All the terms in these lists' name are too vague, see wp:LISTNAME. Most of the entries are rock artists though, so lists should be at least renamed to List of British rock musicians. (Further, Pop music didn't exist until the 1950s). See also

List of British pop musicians of the 1930s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 1950s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 1960s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 1970s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 1980s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 1990s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of British pop musicians of the 2000s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Maashatra11 (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Didn't you just withdraw a very similar nomination here? If so, why list it again?--Michig (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated them together with many bundled articles which I now feel weren't totally suited to the same deletion rationale. Now I split them into several AfDs. I hope this is fine now. An user suggested me to "consider individually if there is a deletion rationale for them. This omnibus nomination is too broad and covers too many items, which are not all functionally identical. " Maashatra11 (talk) 13:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best you read the article pop music if you don't know the definitions. Lugnuts (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per previous AfD, there is nothing preventing inclusion criteria from being spelled out, pop music is not as oblique or vague as the nominator argues, and if an artist isn't a pop artist they can be removed. Kate (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is contemporaneous use of a term relevant? Issac Newton is described (rightfully) as a physicist, a term that wasn't in use until some 113 years after his death. Kate (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need empty lists? Maashatra11 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You removed all entries in an article, during an active AFD. Both of those musicians had articles, and were popular musicians of their day. [29] Dream Focus 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, didn't you just write that this is a list of "pop musicians" and not "popular musicians", and that the "popular" word is in itself a problem?! I'm quoting: "The media coverage is for "pop musicians", it the same as "pop" is in "pop culture". "Pop musician" is understand to be popular in the culture as a whole. The word "popular" itself however has problems, since many things can be considered popular to a small group, and remain totally unknown to the masses.". I'm so puzzled. Maashatra11 (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only two people commented on that, and one obviously has no clue to the guidelines for WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all The idea that there was no popular music in Britain before 1950 is ludicrous. See Popular music in England, 1840-1914, for example. By coincidence, I just created an article about a singer who was popular in the fifties — the 1850s that is. The idea that we can't or shouldn't have a list of such articles is nonsensical recentism. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the titles? There never was any mention of "popular music", but of "pop music". So according to you, maybe it's a good idea to move all these titles to "List of British popular musicians" instead of "pop"? I saw many artists of the rock genre on this lists, which is definitely not "pop" but certainly "popular music". The question here is precisely what is the definition of pop. The criteria for inclusion should be clearer. I now moved them to "popular" so the rock bands are more clearly suited to the title. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pop is just a contraction of popular and means exactly the same thing. Your proposition is like claiming that rock is not the same thing as rock and roll or that a bus is not the same thing as an omnibus. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pop IS NOT popular music. From popular music article: "Although popular music sometimes is known as "pop music", the two terms are not interchangeable. Popular music is a generic term for music of all ages that appeals to popular tastes";[5] on the other hand, pop music usually refers to a specific musical genre." And this is not a bus. So saying omnibus = bus is also wrong. Buses are a distinct modern "species" of transport, whereas "omnibus", from which "bus" derived, is an obsolete term used to describe any means of transport set up to carry many people usually horse carriages etc., but today this function is accomplished by modern buses. Maashatra11 (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see popular music and pop music for a better understanding of the terms. Rock is popular music, rock is not pop music, i.e. pop and popular are separate terms. The same is true for Rock'n'roll and Rock, which are distinct terms. Coldplay are generally said to be a rock band, but not a rock'n'roll band. Rock'n'roll is at the origin of the rock genre but is not so popular anymore. Please take a look at the articles for more thorough information on the subject. And, you see, I don't mean to cause chaos, Colonel. I'm just willing to make the pedia as accurate and encyclopaedic as possible. I think the resolution I found now, changing to "popular" instead of "pop", is not controversial, because as you say, the 2 terms are used (erroneously) sometimes interchangeably, though they are distinct terms. At least popular music is such a broad term that it may cover pretty much any of the artists that will be added there eventually. The only thing I was worried about is the term "pop". "Pop", quite like "rock" is one of the few terms whose exact definition was't, and will never be unanimously agreed upon. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire pop music article says its an abbreviation for popular music, and always has been. The only place in it that says differently is just one sentence, which I have tagged with a citation needed, since it seems totally out of place, someone's original research. "Pop music has absorbed influences from most other forms of popular music, but as a genre is particularly associated with the rock and roll and later rock style." Dream Focus 23:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, the article doesn't say that pop music is an abbreviation for popular music. It only says that "pop" is an abbreviation of "popular". Do you understand this? And you didn't seem to have read what I wrote above about the vast differences between the pop subgenre and the generic term of "popular music". Maashatra11 (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning Please note that the nominator is making bold edits and moves of the articles under consideration without consensus. This moving of the goal posts during the discussion seems likely to cause chaos and so I suggest that this discussion be speedily closed and the nominator warned not to start any more deletion discussions until he has a better grasp of our usual practise. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong yak 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I remember just a few weeks ago you were making bold edits and moves of articles under consideration without consensus, Warden. Specifically, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of renamed Indian public places. Requesting a speedy close at this point in the process is ludicrous, and I suggest you refrain from making such requests until you have a better grasp of our usual practices. And tagging the article for rescue (without notification or explanation) because someone is making bold edits doesn't seem like an appropriate use of the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong yak 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO Renaming/Moving pages shouldn't be considered "disruptive" if there is agreement that the renamed title/move is uncontroversial. I don't know yet regarding the pop articles, but it seems to me that SnottyWong's renaming wasn't controversial because his move wasn't reverted since your revert. And, as a matter of fact, I see that it's actually your move that was deemed controversial and was deleted, with a comment saying "Move made by Col Warden was against consensus formed at the AfD for this article" ([30]). Maashatra11 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that this discussion is particularly relevant here, but it is clearly you who are misrepresenting the facts, which are clearly laid out in the AfD and edit histories. The move I made had consensus, as can be seen clearly in the AfD. The moves you made were disruptive, had to be undone by an admin, and the page had to be move-protected to prevent you from moving it again. SnottyWong communicate 21:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sources in the media that call them pop musicians. This a perfectly valid list article. Dream Focus 23:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing the names of all of the articles from "pop musicians" to "popular musicians", as the nominator has done during this AFD, is absurd! The media coverage is for "pop musicians", it the same as "pop" is in "pop culture". "Pop musician" is understand to be popular in the culture as a whole. The word "popular" itself however has problems, since many things can be considered popular to a small group, and remain totally unknown to the masses. I suggest changing it back. Dream Focus 00:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Popular music means generally music that is not classical. I didn't find a better word to put because most of the entries don't belong to the pop genre but rather to rock, so popular would fit in them both best. If the inclusion criteria is so clear for you, please add it to the articles because they lack any description of criteria, and remove all the entries who don't meet this criteria. Thanks, Maashatra11 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read my above discussion about your misinterpretation of what pop musician means. Dream Focus 00:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry for making that controversial move. But if we're already at it, I have another suggestion that I feel will be maybe less controversial; rename all the entries to List of British pop and rock musicians. I feel that labeling so many rock bands as "pop music" is not a good idea. Thoughts ? Maashatra11 (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to comment. As there is no option to revert my move, and the word "popular" is, as DreamFocus points out, not very useful, I'm performing the move I described above. Maashatra11 (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or merge sourced content (same result) with no sourced content in any of the articles, deletion will result in zero harm to the encyclopedic content. The grouping of these entertainers by decade is in itself arbitrary. As popular (or pop) music changes over time, there is nothing that defines or connects an artist from 1961 to an artist from 1969, and artists perform over periods that span these arbitrary breaking dates. Active Banana (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Active Banana. Grouping artists by arbitrary 10 year periods goes against WP:NOTDIR. SnottyWong express 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment re organizing by decades: Its common human practice to organize things by decades, (E.g., "Best Albums of the 80s" even if, say, Argybargy is completely different than Doolittle), or centuries, or millenia (Category:Populated places established in the 8th millennium BC), even if those divisions are somewhat arbitrary. That's just a matter of organization of data more than whether its worthwhile to have these articles.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there is still the issue of clarity here. A band formed late in one decade might not be known until the next (and thus be associated with the latter rather than the former). Some bands actually lasted through more than one decade. Where do we put the bands? It's not hard to make it objective, but it has to be stated clearly, just like what constitutes "pop". Pink Floyd is listed both in the 1960s article and the 1970s one, though it has produced albums up to the 1990s.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The examples you give work just fine though. When an album is released, it is released on a specific date. When a city is established, it is established on a particular date. However, the existence of a band is not a singular event that you can easily group by decade. SnottyWong confabulate 13:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ActiveBanana and Snotty. WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. It's also anachronistic as there was no "pop music" on 1940, and the decade grouping is arbitrary and useless. Verbal chat 19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Maashatra11 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, arbitrary lists, questionable inclusion criteria, and better dealt with by categories. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This can be handled by categories. Lists are useful if they have the potential to be enlarged to contain info not available in a category. However, no argument has been made that this is likely. We are talking here about bluelinked persons, so any relevant info will be in their articles. Herostratus (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, arbitrary lists and good arguments as per Stifle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.194.87.125 (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 192.194.87.125 has made three edits ever, all of which were in AFDs. Dream Focus 20:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Arbitrary standards, full of unsourced content, and useless compared to the categories. Courcelles (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete It's not really a list if there is only one person now is it?--LAAFan 05:52, 31 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 List of Resident Evil characters. Or some other relevant article, which can be hashed out at the talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umbrella Corporation[edit]

Umbrella Corporation (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)

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction): Could not find reliable third-party publications on the subject (googled "Umbrella" "james marcus" "resident evil" -chronicles -wiki -wikipedia). As it was probably transcribed fully in the article, the "top ten list" GameInformer reference has not covered the subject sufficiently enough. Furthermore, the whole history section is merely repeating information from the plot sections of the individual games. And the paramilitary units section is leaning towards fancruft. Prime Blue (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the notability of the game itself can not be questioned. Would it not have been a better choice to tag the article as needing attention/3rd party references, verification, WP:Plot, fancruft (leaning) and/or such, then see if some can be supplied, than to just do a G-search and tag it AfD? I am sure it can not be assumed that if something is not on Google it can't exist or be verified. That would be assuming that all things are listed on Google and I am sure this would not be accurate. All of the other listed problems are solvable not requiring deletion. I am not a fan of this game, and have never played it however, I do feel that a channel followed by Wikipedia policy might be a better option, and would certainly not clog up AfD with undue and maybe premature requests, barring any clear "serious" violations. I also have a small problem with some of the above reasoning, "GameInformer reference has not covered the subject sufficiently enough." This indicates that;
  • 1)- Some information was in fact found (G-search or not?) but,
  • 2)- The editor felt it not "sufficient" on his/her own merit.

My main problems are (among several) either "GameInformer" is not considered a "reliable" third-party source, but this was not used as a reasoning (and "publications" are not the only Wiki- accepted sources), or there is at least one 3rd party source so maybe more. The included "GameInformer" source, provided being reliable, would make the statement, ": Could not find reliable third-party publications on the subject", not accurate. I do feel, but this is not an AfD issue, that the title should be "Umbrella Corporation (Fictional game)" (or something similar), and noted this on the talk page. The tag should be removed pending above listed Wikipedia advocated process or more sound reasoning be supplied. Otr500 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GameInformer reference is the one in the article itself, probably transcribed in full there (given it is a top ten list). It is a reliable and a third-party source, but it does not go much beyond a trivial mention and a plot summary and thus hardly fulfills the criteria for notability (see "trivial coverage"). Having lots of knowledge on the game series, I think it is nearly impossible to accurately expand this particular article while not just providing plot summaries mixed with very, very hard to verify fancruft (I forgot to mention that this section is also mostly just plot summaries of RE2, RE3, and Survivor). Prime Blue (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the Resident Evil franchise article. or to a list of characters and organizations in Resident Evil article. It is the primary antagonist in the four Resident Evil feature films, and most of the videogames, and functions as a character. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Resident Evil characters (even though it's not strictly a character), or to Resident Evil (the article on the whole series). Either way, it should be drastically cut down - this article basically consists of original research and plot summary not supported by independent reliable sources. Although individual Resident Evil characters such as Albert Wesker may be notable enough for their own articles, I'm not convinced that the Umbrella Corporation is. Robofish (talk) 16:38, 22 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zoecracy[edit]

Zoecracy (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 appears to be made-up; either original research, or possibly a hoax. The two references stated are available online, and neither mentions 'zoe' - [31] [32]. To avoid deletion, demonstrate notability, through reliable sources. (Contested PROD by User:Chzz) Schuhpuppe (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:ONEDAY; it describes and justifies a novel procedure for passing legislation that has to do with the environment; no sources beyond the importance of the environment in general. Google is convinced that I must be searching for "seocracy," "zoecrack," or "zoecrazy" (the last two are usernames); the only hits for zoecracy are Wikipedia or derived from it. The prod for this article was removed by the page's creator without giving a reason and the "references" section renamed to "further reading" (which would explain why the term does not appear in those books). RJC TalkContribs 16:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, reliable or otherwise. No proof of existence, let alone notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:00, 24 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 closed as moot, article already speedily deleted by User:JamesBWatson. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klee Data System[edit]

Klee Data 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)

This article reads like an advert for a wholly unremarkable company with no credible references. Other (newly registered) user has removed speedy deletion tag so I'm pursuing this route. Biker Biker (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • After the speedy deletion tag was removed (by an editor who may or may not have been different from the creator of the article) another user restored it. The article has now been speedily deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:18, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raine De Vant[edit]

Raine De Vant (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 speedy. Not a true speedy as some notability is asserted, but not near enough. Easily fails WP:NOTABILITY in my opinion. I can't find any real buzz about this persons, articles, that sort of thing. I have no idea if its true that she's dressed Tommy Lee and Pam Anderson (and even if so, so what) -- didn't see any evidence to that effect on Google -- and the other people I've never even heard of. Red carpet events, catwalks -- even if this sort of thing does convey notability (which I seriously doubt), why doesn't Google show some evidence of these? The poor refs provided don't. Herostratus (talk) 07:57, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adopt Child Online India[edit]

Adopt Child Online India (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)

Appears to be nothing more than an advertisement. No true sources; simply organization website(s). No notability asserted. Jmlk17 07:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly I have modified the content so that now it looks more of information rather than publicity. Secondly we believe that wikipedia is the best place to make ourselves appear so that it would be beneficial for children who are in need and who would like to sponsor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsrkrishna (talk • contribs) 10:12, 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 Speedy delete as WP:CSD#A7 and borderline WP:CSD#A1. Sorry, but discussing a one line unreferenced BLP which makes no assertion to notability whatsoever is just silly. - filelakeshoe 12:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aleta Custer[edit]

Aleta Custer (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. It crossed my mind to nominate this for speedy deletion but I prefer the old fashioned way. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:32, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Conference[edit]

Apollo Conference (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)

A local high school athletic conference. I can not find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. This is like hundreds of athletic conferences across the US. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 15:03, 5 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) 00:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common practice appears to be that sports conferences are inherently notable. Mandsford 14:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to where this has been discussed, because I can't find anything. In what way does this conference meet the general notability guideline? ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry put it is common practice that the subject of every article meets one or more of the various notability guidelines and this one does not appear to. Codf1977 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a news source for the latest news on a subject or a webhost so people can keep up to date with the latest changes. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 03:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a kin to WP:ITSUSEFUL and as GB fan said WP is not a news source or a replacement for a organisations own website. Codf1977 (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have gone back and reviewed the changes that have been made since I nominated this article for deletion. It is better, but notability is still not established. There are now six references in the article. Two of them are significant and reliable, but they are just local news reports about changes to the conference this year, nothing to establish notability. The other four sources are all primary sources and do not help establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 03:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a GB Fan, high school sports may not be important to you, but in East Central Illinois it is. Just because you do not find it relevant does not mean someone should as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiomanil (talk • contribs) 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with what sports I am a fan of. This only has to do with whether this article complies with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. So far I have not seen anything that says it does. Please leave personal motivation out of it and discuss how the article complies with Wikipedia policy. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 15:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets look at this coverage, in order presented above:
  1. A local news story about residents discussing the pros and cons of joining the conference.
  2. A story about how the school district in #1 declined the offer to join the conference.
  3. A local news story about how the school district above and another district are going to save the conference.
  4. Another story about the the school district in #1 and #2 declined the invitation to join the conference.
  5. A story about how it might be time for a different school district to leave the conference.
  6. A report on a football game that does not even mention the Apollo Conference.
  7. Finally a report on a Apollo conference basketball game.
I do not see how this group of links establish that this is a notable conference. This is all just local coverage about a conference, nothing to say it is notable ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 05:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the article that fails to mention the subject, I believe the rest of the sources are enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

I consider local sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight to be sufficient sources to establish notability. That there are sources from multiple newspapers discussing the conference demonstrates the impact it has had on the community. Though ref #2 may not seem to establish notability, ref #1 clearly does in that it provides an analysis of the benefits and negatives of the conferences. Ref #3 also demonstrates that the community deems it important enough to seek to salvage it. I stand by my position that this article should be kept since it passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry Cunard but local sources are fine for the facts in the article, they are no good in showing that a subject is notable, either way can you show how this meets WP:CLUB. Codf1977 (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see WP:CLUB#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations:

No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization. These criteria constitute an optional, alternative method for demonstrating notability. Organizations are considered notable if they meet the sourcing requirements of

  1. these alternate criteria, and/or
  2. the primary criteria, and/or
  3. the general notability guideline.

I have demonstrated that Apollo Conference passes the general notability guideline, which means that it passes WP:CLUB#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations as well. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 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, Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In it's current stub like state and with the aforementioned arguments, I feel that this article has passed both WP:N and WP:V. Pmedema (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zbigniew Jaworowski[edit]

Zbigniew Jaworowski (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 scientist is basically not notable - he's served on a bunch of comittees, but holds no chair. He has some publications, but nothing major. His real claim to fame is some less-than-well-known work in Lyndon LaRouche related publications where he denies all kinds of things. Fails WP:PROF. Hipocrite (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd further note that I have serious concerns about the accuracy of the introductory paragraph. It appears that Dr. Jaworowski is merely a consultant at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, whatever that is. It appears that the intro-bio as presented is from a less-than-reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That bio is from the NP, and so isn't reliable. Outside the nest of echoing dubious sources, real sources are thin. [33], nominally by ZJ, says he is prof emeritus there. [34] (again, of unclear reliability) says Between 1970 and 1987 Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski worked in the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw as the head of the Department of Radiation Hygiene. Between 1982 and 1984 he worked in the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires in Fontenay-aux-Roses near Paris as a guest professor. In 1987-1988 Professor Jaworowski worked at the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo. In 1988-1990 he worked at the Norwegian Polar Research Institute in Oslo. Between 1990 and 1991 Zbigniew Jaworowski worked for six months as a visiting professor at the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo. Between 1991 and 1993 he was working in the Institute for Energy Technology at Kjeller near Oslo. Since 1993 he is working at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, now as the chairman of the Scientific Council. William M. Connolley (talk) 16:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is notable enough, far more notable for his work than another WP article i can think of mark nutley (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? What leads you to believe he passes WP:PROF? Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6 does. [35] mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Prof #1 states "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." What significant impact has he made, and what independent reliable sources demonstrate this? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence of the very first footnote of WP:PROF reads "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". In other words, citation counts are the proxy by which impact is judged and this is the standard way in which WP:PROF #1 is measured for AfDs. Those citations come from other published research articles, which are themselves the reliable sources in question. Again, this is well-established convention and cases like this having >200 citations present and extremely strong case. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, although with some hesitation. Seems to be a sufficiently prominent figure in the global warming skeptics movement to justify inclusion. Let me note first that WP:PROF does mention that WP:FRINGE authors essentially need to be evaluated under the general WP:BIO standards. So we basically need to look to general newsmedia type sources here. GoogleNews[36] gives 98 hits for his name. As a raw number, that's reasonably high. On closer inspection, many of these hits do not seem to really pass WP:RS, but there seems to be enough of them that do. E.g. BBC[37][38],TheHindu[39]. There is also some coverage back from 1986 from the time of the Chernobyl disaster, e.g. [40]. None of this coverage seems to be particularly detailed, but I think in this case the quantity of coverage is sufficient to overcome that. Raw numbers in GoogleBooks are also reasonably large[41] - 144 hits. Many of these appear to be citations of his views in various global warning denial books, but it still does constitute coverage. Some of it is fairly specifically biographical, e.g. here[42][43]. Apparently his research even inspired a novel[44]. Overall seems to be enough here to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this appears to be notability by google search - yes, his name is used quite a few times, but none of those times goes into the depth required to write a biography. For instance, can you verify his career path - a task that is trivial for most notable persons? Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't, but sometimes primary sources can be used for that, per WP:SELFPUB. Or the non-verified career info could simply be removed from the article. Nsk92 (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will emphasize that the citation numbers I found came from WoS, so these are all articles from "legit" journals like Physics Today, Health Physics, Nature, Toxicology and Appl. Pharm. et al. In other words, he passes on mainstream WP:PROF grounds, irrespective of anything else he's said or done. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
My experience with WP:PROF leads me to understand that merely being cited does not make someone notable - Like I said, per WP:PROF #1 - What significant impact has he made, and what independent reliable sources demonstrate this? Hipocrite (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, like I said earlier, I think WP:PROF should not be applied here at all. The spirit of WP:PROF, as made clear by several footnotes there, is to exclude fringe/pseudoscience proponents from the guideline and route them through WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, you're correct. A person must not just be "cited", but "highly cited". The latter condition demonstrates impact ipso facto. You should be aware that assessing WP:PROF #1 according to citation count is a long-standing convention here, so pushing your line of argument further would be a waste of everyone's time here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. GS cites give h index of 13. That suffices for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete -- I think WP:PROF applies rather than an h index. I cannot see how this man has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
h index is a weighted measure of citation count. It is usually assumed on these pages (see past history) that a high h index indicates that WP:Prof #1 is satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • To add to Xxanthippe's point, let me repeat from above for all of you who are unfamiliar with the conventions here: The very first sentence of the very first footnote of WP:PROF reads "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work". Agricola44 (talk) 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Sure, but the same footnote also states "Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used." Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely why I reported the collective number of citations above ("but the collective citations well exceed 200"). In cases which are not borderline with respect to the h-index (for example h>15), there's no need to do the summation (and indeed it is not normally done) because those values ensure, by definition, that there are several hundred citations, which is enough to pass criterion 1. A long-standing consensus, that is. You seem to be looking for some theory named after him or some other conspicuous proof of impact, but hundreds of citations to his work is indeed sufficient here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment -- can there really be a single h-index for all fields? Number theorists will tend to have low h-indices and experimental physicists higher ones -- even if the mathematician is an acclaimed one and the physicists garden variety. This seems a very flawed notability criterion. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if used indiscriminately. WP:PROF says that citation statistics should be used in the light of the particular field. So an h-index that makes a mathematician notable would not suffice for a physicist. (And the same for any other citation statistic). --Crusio (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree -- but that seems to be what people tend to do. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted. However, I would like to note that a citation record of 200 total, with an h-index of 13 is not at all notable in my eyes. I know postdocs and junior assistant professors that have that much and most notable researchers will get 50-100 citations per year... It might be different if this were about a mathematician (where citation rates are very low), but this is a high-citation density field. --Crusio (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a good point. But let me add (and offer apology for not mentioning sooner) that lots of papers in such areas that tend to get highly cited are many-author "big physics" projects – and, in such instances, there is no widely accepted way to divide the "citation credit". For example, in our own article on the h-index, the first point under the criticisms section says: "the h-index and similar indexes tend to favor fields with larger groups". In checking the citation record, Jaworowski is either the first author or the only author on almost every one of his publications. So, I think one could make a case that he would be "fully credited" with those citations, rather than having only partial credit, as perhaps one could argue for many postdocs or junior faculty who are often not the primary contributor on highly-cited papers. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • I don't agree completely. In those big physics projects, most people don't publish many papers. So the few they publish (as 36th author among 325 or so) don't really add up to a large h. I should perhaps have specified above that I know postdocs and junior assistant professors that have 200+ citations and an h above 10 and that are either first or last author (this does not go for the postdocs, of course). Just one example that I am familiar with. See in WoS, Yann Mineur (search for "Mineur Y" and "Mineur YS" and remove one computer science article that is not his). Obtained his PhD less than 6 years ago, 398 citations, H of 10 and first author on 8 of the 10 highest cited papers. He's not even an assistant prof yet [45]. There are many more like that. --Crusio (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 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) 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midori (author)[edit]

Midori (author) (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)

recently prodded, advert-like, skirts notability but does not establish it, unsourced tags have remained for two years Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - incredibly famous writer; it just needs rescuing. Her genre is unpopular/controversial, so I can't do this at work. :-) Bearian (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lies just outside my main area of editing interest, but has been on my watchlist for a long time. Kintetsu's concerns are valid, and I've had them myself-- particularly about the article reading like self-promotion. A glance at the article's history increases this concern. However, notable people are capable of self-promotion at times. In Midori's case, she seems to have done some of our work for us at THIS page ("The Buzz About Midori" section). Most of the cited articles seem to be unviewable (at least to me), but this one in the SF Chronicle: (Zinko, Carolyne (2008-02-10). "Midori explains how to have sex, with props". San Francisco Chronicle.) alone is almost enough to build an article. Combine that with THIS magazine article (proclaiming her "The world's most famous bondage expert and international lecturer..."), and the others linked on Midori's page, and I think we've got a definitely notable person. Article just needs work for sourcing, and to remove the obvious self-promotion. Dekkappai (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news search for "Midori" AND "sex" [46] and you get ample results. This one stands out, "Sex educator Midori" A.V. Club Milwaukee - Aug 21, 2009, "An internationally acclaimed educator artist and author Midori holds a place of high esteem among people who like to learn everything they can about sex". Dream Focus 09:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong babble 23:57, 22 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. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jelani Smith[edit]

Jelani Smith (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)

Player is non-notable soccer player; article confirms its own non-notability of having only played college soccer, for youth teams in the Canadian Soccer League (which is not a fully professional league), and for Canadian youth national teams. He currently plays for Toronto Lynx in the PDL (http://pdl.uslsoccer.com/stats/2010/1584595.html), another amateur league. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATH and WP:FOOTY/N. There are also portions of the page which fail WP:COPYVIO as they seem to be unedited lifts from his college bio JonBroxton (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment: I also just discovered that this player is still in college, attending Florida Gulf Coast University as per http://fgcuathletics.com/msoccer/roster/113/1197/; further strengthens his status as an amateur player. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's represented both Canada and Ontario! He has amateur status but is playing at the highest possible level, it's evident that he has a future and is a NOTABLE Soccer player. What stage is higher then the international level. There are multiple articles on CSL based players that have much less of a resume then him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada Soccer Fan (talk • contribs) 02:48, 24 July 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Tudor Vianu National High School of Computer Science[edit]

Awards Tudor Vianu National High School of Computer Science (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)

Yes, high schools do like to brag about the hardware their students take home from competitions, but this encyclopedia isn't the place to do it. At Tudor Vianu National High School of Computer Science, it's certainly appropriate to mention in a general way that students do well at such contests (indeed such mention is already made), but this list strikes me as WP:NOTDIR overkill. - Biruitorul Talk 06:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per wp:iinfo as a list of non-notable people by an achievement which does not confer notability.Claritas § 07:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree with you, but there is already an example that resembles this article: ro:Lista câștigătorilor la Olimpiada Internațională de Fizică . If this one has been accepted, why can't Awards Tudor Vianu National High School of Computer Science be accepted too? Radu1204 (talk) 09:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Radu, let's just say ro.wiki has less stringent notability requirements (or less stringently enforced ones) than en.wiki does. - Biruitorul Talk 14:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then, I have no other arguments. I was just frustrated because I lost some time creating and editing this article. But I guess I'll start learning from my mistakes. You can delete the article. All the best, Radu1204 (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Delete is the result, you may ask the closing admin to userfy the article into your space so that you can keep it. I don't want you to feel bad for the work that you feel has gone for not. I'm nobody special but I do think that Wikipedia is always looking for good editors... and your not bad! Pmedema (talk)
Thank you, Peter! Radu1204 (talk) 14:01, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notion (magazine)[edit]

Notion (magazine) (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 verifiable sources can be found to substantiate notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:31, 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, Courcelles (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of any kind of notability outside a small coterie of fans. No coverage in the music or fashion press, etc. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:53, 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.

NOBODY UNDERSTANDS HOW TO USE WIKIPEDIA... FACT. AND THIS IS A REAL, NATIONAL, LONG-RUNNING MAGAZINE SO NO REASON TO DELETE IT'S PAGE YOU MORONS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.8.214 (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2013 (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 keep. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Melady[edit]

John Melady (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 can find no indication that this individual meets WP:BIO - he has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Claritas § 19:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing delete vote per the author's comments below. Cunard (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Melady is at least minimally "notable" in a Canadian popular history writers context. Please see this articles talk page for further details. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copying from talk page:
    "I'd like to request that the deletion of the article be at least "delayed" at this time.Although Melady might be regarded as a "minor" historical writer on a global scale; in my opinion he meets at least a minimum standard of notability here in Canada as a fairly significant popular history and occasional space science writer. He's written at least nine books on Canadian history that I'm aware of; published by several well known larger Canadian publishing companies such as MacMillan of Canada and Dundern Press.[47] Although he appears to have a fair share of negative reviews concerning his endeavours, the University of Toronto Quarterly Review and a reviewer for the Canadian Armed Forces[48]; amongst other sources, seemed to like his book on the Korean War[49]. That particular book was also picked up a Book of the Month Club selection. He is also cited and discussed in peer reviewed Canadian academic journals, such as the Canadian Military Journal,[50] and publications of The Canadian Forces College[51] and in European journals as well[52]. I'd also like to suggest that if serious consideration is in fact being given to deleting this article, that notification should be posted in appropriate places such as noticeboards for Canadian military history and Canadian culture so that those folks have a chance weigh in on it. Thank you for your time. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)"


Cunard (talk) 06:20, 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, Courcelles (talk) 05:23, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kinston baseball people[edit]

List of Kinston baseball people (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)

We have categories for players of teams. I don't see why we need a page. This page doesn't lay out any particular reason why people associated with minor league baseball teams from Kinston, North Carolina meets WP:GNG. Muboshgu (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although we do have categories for the players, this serves the purpose as an "All time roster". This just groups all of the player from the teams that have been in Kinston, North Carolina. I think that it does meet WP:GNG per sourcing and the fact that it is Kinston, North Carolina doesn't really matter. Be it Kinston or New York, we shouldn't have a bias. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mainly seems to be of local interest, but I don't know of any policy that says we shouldn't have a list on this topic. It is clearly defined. Borock (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any General notability guideline that it doesn't meet. Could you be more specific as to which particular guideline isn't being met? It is well sourced with multiple independent reliable sources including books from varied publishers. If the decision is ultimately to delete, I would ask that the lists be re-merged on the Kinston Indians page which is where they originally came from. They were removed from that page due to the large size of the article. Thanks. Kinston eagle (talk) 10:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's nothing wrong with having both lists and categories. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:08, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Towering Above the Rest (album)[edit]

Towering Above the Rest (album) (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)

Compilation put together by digital pirates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 New Britain earthquake[edit]

2010 New Britain 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 fatalities, no significant injuries, no major damage, no lasting impact. Not a notable occurrence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a very powerful earthquake of 7.3 magnitude, which struck near land. Although there were no injuries or fatalities as a result of this earthquake, news sources are now reporting some building damage. The total damage is still said to be not yet known. Justmeagain83 (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep it's a quake above magnitude 7.0 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - +7.0 is an earthquake I think we can keep, as also other earthquakes like this are kept. Kubek15 write/sign 10:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The earthquake in Washington DC days before this one was also an event with "no fatalities, no significant injuries, no major damage, no lasting impact" with a magnitude less than 4. Why has it not been nominated for deletion? Hope it's not because things are "naturally" more important and deserve more attention in some new "middle kingdom"! Qrfqr (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Powerful enough to be kept. Qrfqr (talk) 11:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This earthquake caused some damage, and is the strongest earthquake in both New Britain and all of Papua New Guinea so far this year. ~AH1(TCU) 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The line for earthquake notability should be 7.0. A 7.0 earthquake is newsworthy and worth documenting for history. That's a normative statement, but it would eliminate many of these earthquake articles and challenges if that was the line in the sand. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was only a 6.9 on the MMS scale. The 1995 Kobe earthquake was only 6.8 on the MMS scale. Both of these are notable, yes? Kate (talk) 21:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. No rule of thumb is perfect, but 7.0 gets close. Carrite (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, Big Quake nuff said... Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 7.0 earthquake clearly notable. I think damage is a poor criteria for assessing earthquake notability. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:03, 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. Scott Mac 15:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities with soil science curriculum[edit]

List of universities with soil science curriculum (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. WP is not a directory. Previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Universities with Soil Science Curriculum-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No vote (In the interest of fairness since there are far worse lists on WP. Still I wish that all were taken off. The purpose of this list, from the comments of its biggest fan, seem to be to help students interested in the subject to find a school and perhaps to encourage more schools to teach it. These are worthwhile goals. As an organic gardener I understand the importance of soil science. However this is not what WP is supposed to be about so I can't vote to keep.) Not a directory. It would also be better for the economy if we focus on writing prose articles and force the colleges and other institutions to hire people to set up their own web directories. (Jobs would be created.)Borock (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as a valued information source per WP:List. It is certainly valuable to me. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and "Jobs would be created" are not viable reasons for deletion. Beyond that, universities are in the business of promoting themselves, not their "competitors", certainly not a directory of their competitors. Collegiality has severe limits, meaning this list is not viable outside Wikipedia. As someone else stated in the previous deletion discussion, this list is a particularly "valuable information source" to those previously unaware that such a profession even exists and newly interested in investigating it as a career opportunity - a classic event in my experience. As a member of SSSA S-573 Accreditation of Soil Science Programs, I view this list is an utterly unique and precious information source, valuable in no small part due to the collaborative and collective Wikipedia community, without whom this list would become stale. The criteria at WP:NOTDIR does not compel deleting this list. --Paleorthid (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:List does not say that all valuable lists should be included in WP. More appropriately WP is not a collection of links. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Paleorthid. Please copy this article right away and post it on your own blog or website so that the information will remain available to interested persons. However this is not WP's job. Borock (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Modern society does not appreciate soil science" (here), and it is no surprise that Wikipedia reflects this low level of awareness. Here, as in the world at large, a list of beaches enjoys more credibility than a list defining our modern society's endangered soil science academic capacity. Low appreciation results in reductionist thinking and, reading between the lines, part of the objection to a List of Universities with Soil Science Curriculum is the reductionist assumption that this list is static. I assure you that this list is not a collection of static data, that can be posted once and forgotten. Soil teaching capacity (in pedology, in edaphology) at the limited number of universities that continue to provide it, is thin and getting thinner. Soil teaching capacity can evaporate with the transfer of a single faculty member. Because of the dynamic nature of this list, and its global reach, this is not something an individual soil science blogger can be realistically expected to maintain. Providing a place to maintain and share this dynamic and important list is a great fit for WP. I am willing to work with the Soil Wikiproject to improve this list to better fit WP intent, but absent a specific and supported statement of conflict with WP guidelines, I am at a loss on how to proceed with that effort. This list is categorized as a dynamic list, a type specified in WP:Lists. I understand that not all dynamic lists need qualify as notable and encyclopedic, but I contend that the List of Universities with Soil Science Curriculum is notable within my extensive peer professional network, and furthermore that this list is encyclopedic in that that Wikipedia will be incomplete if it is absent. --Paleorthid (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no argument about its usefulness - but how useful is it? Traffic stats sow about 400 hits per month. What we need to determine is whether it fits with WP article guidelines and WP:NOTLINK is a strong case for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page stats can help determine how popular any particular list page is. But in no way, shape, or form is it an indication of a list's appropriate inclusion under any guidelines. If a list is viewed little, it is not a reason to consider it for deletion. At the same time, being viewed a lot is not a reason to save a page from deletion.--Paleorthid (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably as irrelevant as page stats, but an indication of degree of usefullness is that the International Soil Reference and Information Centre has a link to the Wikipedia list prominently posted. ISRIC is located in the Netherlands and as far as I know, no one from ISRIC particpates in the en:Soil WikiProject. Thus it is highly significant in my view that this link is the only link to Wikipedia content they have on their website. As far as ISRIC is concerned, the en:WP list of universities with soil science curriculum is the single most useful article on Wikipedia.--Paleorthid (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely waving at WP:NOTLINK is insufficient to move this discussion forward. Can we get deeper into the "mere list of links" deletion criteria and discuss the term "mere"? Correct me if you disagree, but it seems that our differences hinge on our individual interpretation of this very specific term. I don't consider this list of universities nominated for deletion to be a "mere" list because attributes beyond the mere list combine to inform the reader about the status, diversity, dynamic, and condition of soil science education. These attributes include the size of the list, the history of list additions and removals, the geographic distribution of the programs, and the diverse names under which the programs are available (agronomy, crop, earth, environmental, ecosystems sciences, geography, geology, land, natural science, minerals, natural resources, plant science, renewable resources, water science(aka dilute soil)). To me if this was a mere list it would be simply the list of links to Wikipedia university name articles, absent mention of the college, department, or program, and absent ordering by state and country, absent the external links which serve as defacto reliable sources. Absent these attributes, I would support deletion of just such an article as a mere list. Obviously, my opinon as to the nature of meerness vs not-mereness is not shared by those supporting deletion. So I am left to wonder if expanding the individual listings further or changing the external links to a reference list format or providing a lead-in paragraph at the beginning of the list or some other improvement could turn this list from a mere list to a not-mere list in the view of those who support deletion? To me the list of beaches must appear a mere list to some, yet I recognize it is not. Do the proponents for deletion agree that lists like list of beaches are not mere lists, and if in agreement, can someone please explain it in a way that illuminates why list of universities with soil science curriculum is a mere list in comparison.--Paleorthid (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that one list has internal links and the other external links? That gives an indication of topic notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After careful consideration of the basis of the original nom, in the context of this last comment, I am persuaded that the list can be improved such that the external links which triggered the WP:NOTDIR concern can be refactored as sources in support of listing just the wikilinks to the specific notable universities which comprise the list. This is a simple alteration in style without the loss of any content. Am I right in understanding that this style change would eliminate the nominated basis for deletion? --Paleorthid (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. A change in style makes no change to its suitability as a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to convert the listed external links to web cites. I hope that when you seeing this, I hope that when the deletion leaning folks see this, they will change their minds and allow us to reach a true consensus in favor of keeping this list. --Paleorthid (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An encyclopaedia is a collection of knowledge that is collated about different topics. The list on the page is what I would call information, perhaps it could be called knowledge of a lower grade. Soil science generates knowledge about soil. A list of universities that teach soil science is not knowledge - it is information. WP does not need to have mere information. It needs knowledge. In order to be a respected encyclopaedia that is easily maintained indefinitely it is important that we limit the content to knowledge. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I understand you, but I cannot find that stated in any WP Policy. The phrasing at Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Adding_information_to_Wikipedia would seem to contradict your view. Perhaps what you call information isn't what this WP policy calls information. --Paleorthid (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing at Wikipedia:LIST#Information would also seem to contradict your view. --Paleorthid (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP Policy: Wikipedia is not a directory specifies 7 distinct situations that should be excluded from Wikipedia. Please indicate which of them you believe list of universities with soil science curriculum matches up to, so that I can respond specifically to your concern.--Paleorthid (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Adding_information_to_Wikipedia is an overall editing guide and it is disingenuous to bring it up in this context. Wikipedia:LIST#Information is the Manual of style and not useful for a deletion discussion. You are cherrypicking and wikilawyering to make a case for retaining the list. Please look at the spirit rather than the letter of WP policy and guidelines. Also, consensus and convention collectively should have a bearing on what is included in WP. WP:NOTLINK is a strong case for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies if my bumbling attempts to get to the heart of your concern comes across as wikilawyering. I am open to persuasion, I'll switch to supporting delete if I can find the basis for it, and I am doing a lot of soul searching here to see if you may indeed have a legitimate concern. I have spent hour upon hour upon hour reviewing AfD discussions, WP:Not talk archives, and Village Pump discussion in the last day+. I have yet to find the bright line separating a non-directory list from a directory. Perhaps someday this will be better demarcated, but currently it is not. Which places a particular burden on you and on me to draw out the relevant points in discussion. I could use your help here: Please indicate which of the 7 subcategories of WP:NOTDIR compel deleting list of universities with soil science curriculum so that I can respond specifically to your concern. You've made it clear that I am absolutely incapable of reading your mind.---Paleorthid (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that information :)--Paleorthid (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I know that saying other stuff doesn't exist is generally an argument to avoid but I suspect there are very few if any lists of this nature on other topics. This is an indication of notability and suitability of such lists on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Few indeed. I noticed only two other such list articles at Category:Education_by_subject. Normally, identifying universities with specific program emphasis is handled by categorization, and I have considered using list of universities with soil science curriculum as the main article for a Category. I'd prefer to keep the article list because soil science seldom shows at the college or even department level. In the absence of that prominence, the article's references support notability and allow verification in a way not achievable with a category listing.--Paleorthid (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The links portion of the entries ('not a collection of links') is really not the important part of this page--knowing which institutions have such programs is the important part. Soil science is not like biology, which every university has in one or more flavors as a college or department. It is actually a fairly rare item, and knowing where it exists is indeed knowledge. (For purposes of disclosure, I edit a number of non-soils Wikipedia articles and contributed one item to this list...but also on record as having deleted an institutional entry to this list that didn't belong.)PBarak (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listing which universities have a soils science department is not the function of an encyclopedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its grimmer than that - we often don't even have our own department, absorbed into other departments that often don't even include soils in the name. Yet listing soil science programs is notable enough for Natural Resources Conservation Service to maintain a list of US soil teaching institutions and for Professional Soil Scientists Association of California to maintain a list for California (which if it was a country, would have the eighth largest economy in the world). As stated before, ISRIC refers site visitors to Wikipedia's list for this information on a worldwide basis. As to your "not a function of an encyclopedia" comment, does my comment above in regards to Category:Education_by_subject lead you to reconsider this stand?--Paleorthid (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it also incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This list is the type of information that one would expect to find in a specialized gazetteer. Per WP:5, keep. -Atmoz (talk) 12:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive Comment

  • This one point is highly relevant and bears repeating: Per WP:5, Wikipedia incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This list is the type of information that one would expect to find in a specialized gazetteer.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to offer a comprehensive evaluation as to whether this article is a list, as I intended when I created it, or a directory, which would mean it should be deleted.

  • List. This list fits the general purpose of a list per WP:List. Like categories, lists can be used for keeping track of changes in the listed pages, using the Related Changes feature. Unlike a category, a list also allows detection of deletion of its entries, and, more generally, a history of its contents is available; lists also permit a large number of entries to appear on a single page. Normally, identifying universities with specific program emphasis is handled by categorization, and I have considered using list of universities with soil science curriculum as the main article for a Category. I'd prefer to keep the article list because soil science seldom shows at the college or even department level. In the absence of that prominence, the article's references support notability and allow verification in a way not achievable with a category listing. As stated in the guideline Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_series_boxes#Advantages_of_lists an advantage of a list over categorization is that "lists can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles". That advantage is certainly in play in list of universities with soil science curriculum. And it certainly fits the stated purpose of a list:
    • Information. This list fits the specific purpose of an informational list per Wikipedia:List#Information. It is a "valuable information source" both because of its structure, the notability of its content, and the notability of soil science program listings.
    • Navigation. This list fits the specific purpose of a navigational list per Wikipedia:List#Navigation. Lists contains internally linked terms and thus in aggregate serve as natural table of contents and index of Wikipedia information.
    • Development. This list is available for the purpose of identifying and developing articles for notable universities, as well as notable soil science programs, per Wikipedia:List#Development. As noted in the essay Wikipedia:Categories_vs_lists, "Categories can't include page names that don't exist yet. Lists can." Listed soil science programs are useful as gap indicators and as task reminders to create those articles once notability can be sourced.
  • Directory. The basis for nomination is WP Policy: Wikipedia is not a directory. Taken literally, this is a flawed policy - every list on Wikipedia is a defacto directory to Wikipedia content. To avoid the conundrum inherent in taking the policy literally, WP:NOTDIR wisely provides 7 distinct situations that should be excluded from Wikipedia. None compel deletion of the list in question, but subsections 3, 4, 6, and 7 seem the most likely to have been considered in this nomination.
    • 3 - Wikipedia articles are not the white or yellow pages. A listing that includes contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses is inappropriate. This list does not violate this principle.
    • 4 - Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. A listing whose primary purpose is to attract participants, tourists, contributors, clients, students, site traffic, and such, is inappropriate. In the case of this list, the primary purpose is to index notable universities that provide education in a notable field: soil science.
    • 6 - Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. However, this list is an encyclopedic cross characterization because both categories, universities, and soil science, are notable.
    • 7 - Wikipedia articles are not a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge. Verifiable and sourced statements are important. The list is largely based on information provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and PSSAC but each entry not sourced from NRCS or PSSAC generally has a link verifying the soil science curriculum. In one case WikiProject Soil participants removed a listing that we could not independently verify. This is consistent with an article intended to achieve a summary of accepted knowledge.
  • Notability. Lack of notability has been implied as important to the deletion nomination.[53] In the case of Not a Directory #3, the notability-related inference required to trigger deletion here is a list of soil science universities is not notable, therefore its primary purpose in the absence of notability must be self serving, that is, for conducting business. Notability is a guideline, thus less compelling than policy, but it clearly affects how WP:NOTDIR policy is applied. Guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability state: "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself." and policy at Wikipedia:BEFORE#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion is "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." In this case, links to sources that demonstrate notability were present in the article at the time it was nominated. In the case of the NRCS source, it was improperly placed under a further reading heading, but a good faith attempt should have revealed it and triggered the recognition that this article clearly fullfills the spirit of we want to retain within Wikipedia. -- Paleorthid (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Delving into the depths of useless lists. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, attempts to be a directory. Abductive (reasoning) 10:24, 28 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. per CSD G4- it's almost identical to the version that was deleted after the last AfD HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BootB[edit]

AfDs for this article:
BootB (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)
Shakermover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Subject is marketing company. Some discussion in the Guardian and other places but not enough to constitute "significant coverage". Article reads like advert. Fails WP:ORG. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and salt. This is also blatant advertising: an online marketplace that allows anyone anywhere on the planet with access to the Internet to pitch their ideas in response to companies’ specific creative needs". The concept, based on a crowdsourcing model, is also known as a “Pitching Engine”.... founded and launched .... with the idea of providing brands with more creative solutions through the use of crowdsourcing. "Crowdsourcing"? Give me a break.

    Note also that the current text, while not identical to the previously deleted version, does nothing to address the issues that led to this article being deleted twice before, the last after full AfD hearing. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 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 per WP:SNOWball chance that anyone is likely to comment keep with a reason based in policy Pedro :  Chat  12:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "refudiate"[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Definition of "refudiate" (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 WP:PROD. Malapropism / neologism coined by Sarah Palin that I don't think warrants a stand-alone article, despite a few mentions in the press. The target article of Refudiate already gives a definition.The article's title would not make a plausible redirect, and Refudiate already exists as a redirect. decltype (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Updated 08:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious Delete WP:Point is made, but WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:No original research still prevail. Mention as an example in Conversion (linguistics) is okay by me. Borock (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Akerans (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does merit mention with the attached definition. The previously ascribed definition page "Refudiate" is itself slated to be deleted. The mention of it elsewhere cites no definition. So far the only proposed article that incorporates all three key elements - use, meaning and references is this one. (Granted, its not perfect.) However, the idea of this entire project is to solicit the input of others and eventually field the most authoritative article on the subject. Obviously, this is meant as a beginning, a 1st step to achieving the projects stated ends.
    Many neologisms are examples of blends, but many blends have become part of the lexicon.[8] In Punch in 1896, the word brunch (breakfast + lunch) was introduced as a "portmanteau word."[10] The word "smog" was coined around 1893 or 1905 as a portmanteau of "smoke" and "fog". In 1964, the newly independent African republic of Tanganyika and Zanzibar chose the portmanteau word Tanzania as its name.
    "Wikipedia" is an example of a portmanteau word because it combines the word "wiki" with the word "encyclopedia." (Thanks to Ricky81682 for your assistance.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lic2thrill (talk • contribs) 04:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is most definitely not a word yet. any mention should appear in Palin's article, as it has some notability, but as an event not a new word.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. Anna Lincoln 11:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. We're not a dictionary. The end. Unless this word becomes so renowned as smog, as the original author gives for an example, it should not be here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Neither this or "wee wee'd up" is quite into misunderestimate (itself just a redirect) notability quite yet. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEP, WP:NOTDICTIONARY - just a silly word that happened to get a few press mentions. RN 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A malapropism by Palin that the WP article's author is redefining in a way other than what she (presumably) meant to be a protologism. Also an obvious WP:COATRACK for attacking Palin as a nitwit. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'WP:SNOW Deletion honestly we have urban dictionary on the interwebs for this reason. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perhaps we can ask Palin to comment on Malamanteau and possibly refudiate it as an appropriate article subject. That would be a reliable source, for sure, you betcha. uh oh, i hope xkcd doesnt comment on Palin's word, then this AFD will be doomed to eternally recursive debate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:COATRACK. 28bytes (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the reasons given above. Contibutors to this AfD may be interested to know that I have also nominated the redirect Refudiate for deletion, and it is being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 24#Refudiate. Robofish (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment shouldn't this be at wikiquote:Sarah Palin as a gloss on her quote where she uses it? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all obvious reasons. Man she's dumb. — Timneu22 · talk 12:40, 26 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Formism[edit]

Functional Formism (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 context / original research / no evidence of notability. Additionally no changes have been made since Jan 2010 when it was previously prodded. France3470 (talk) 01:48, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It (character)[edit]

It (character) (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 without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources discussing the character outside of the novel/mini-series. Prod disputed with as "Decline PROD, consider redirect or merge." (Is that a claim that the character IS notable?) SummerPhD (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Redirects are cheap (though it is an unlikely search term). Nothing worth merging: it's ALL from the book. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • if kept it should be renamed to pennywise... since "It (character)" is highly ambiguous, what with Cousin It, etc. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delete The article creator is a relatively inexperienced contributor operating in good faith, but at the same time copying and pasting text from other articles is not article writing, this is just a partial duplicate. Pennywise is notable, IMO, there are several book sources such as [56], [57], [58], but unless the article creator or someone else is willing to replace the copied material with the start of an article on the clown itself then I don't think it should be kept around. I'm very open to other solutions, however, hence the perverse !vote. Someoneanother 05:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and strip to a stub well, i really dont like most of the articles on fictional characters, as most of them dont show commentary outside the characters fan base if anything at all. It, however, is a major character in a major novel by a major writer, portrayed by a major actor in a poorly made but significantly creepy film. Tim curry brings things to life, and he made this character memorable. most of the content of this article is unsourced and original research. My preference in an article like this is to give a very brief character sketch, with no speculation on its nature beyond the words committed to print by the author. then, at least one mention of the character somewhere outside fandom, which i think we could find. I suspect my voice will go unheard among the fans (i am a "fan" in other areas, and i try to not let that dictate my editing work), but i thought i would say my piece.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as PROD decliner. I look at this, and didn't see a clear merge or redirect to the film or the book, hence my preference to keep this notable character separate. No objection to cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not going to bother looking for sources, because I'm done with King, but it's my educated guess as a long term pedian that sources exist for this major villain from at least two major media releases. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:26, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilma Cruz-Tapalla[edit]

Wilma Cruz-Tapalla (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 has a single reference, and that reference is not a reliable secondary source. Delete as not meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:41, 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. Let me know if anyone wants to work on it. Courcelles (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criss Blaziny[edit]

Criss Blaziny (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 sources indicate notability. Biruitorul Talk 21:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comes up in the linked GNews search above, but I'm not convinced it represents nontrivial coverage in a reliable source. I searched a library database (which, admittedly, would probably not have Romanian sources), but was not able to find any sources that would help support WP:N notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say probably not. First, the article merely tells us he launched a video clip, which isn't especially notable and could be for promotional/press release purposes. Second, apropo.ro seems at or even below the reliability threshold. It's not a serious news site, more of an entertainment news aggregator that has quite a bit of self-published material as well. - Biruitorul Talk 18:38, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 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) 00:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or incubate. I was going to close this "no consensus with leave to speedy renominate" but I don't feel comfortable doing that with an unsourced BLP. Recommend incubation or delete without prejudice to recreation with sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:33, 27 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) 08:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GeForce 8-series chipsets[edit]

GeForce 8-series chipsets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This whole article is a mistake. There is no such thing as GeForce 8-series chipsets. For starters, GeForce is the name NVIDIA gives to graphics cards, which immediately indicates it's a mistake to think there are GeForce motherboard chipsets. Whoever created this somehow thought GeForce 8 was the name of the nForce 7 motherboards that carry GeForce 8 mGPUs. Furthermore, half of the article is an incomplete, non encyclopedic listing of motherboard models carrying the aforementioned GPUs. uKER (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Rename deletion but support other actions. The proper name for the article is probably GeForce 8 series mGPUs as can be seen on this nVIDIA page. There have been four separate mGPU lines (6 through 9 series) so I don't know if creating one nVIDIA mGPU article is appropriate. I'd say to either rename to the specific series or rename and expand to encompass the entire line of chips. Also, what is this doing in MfD when it is really an AfD candidate? --StuffOfInterest (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - If you are trying to delete the article then MFD is not the place to do so, please see WP:AFD. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it adds nothing to GeForce 8 Series. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The article under discussion is for a motherboard chipset, not a graphics processor. The chipset has graphics capability but is far more than just that graphics capability. There is nothing in the article you cite which even discusses the motherboard application. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to GeForce 8 Series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.192.55 (talk) 05:21, 14 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, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in The Avengers: United They Stand[edit]

Characters in The Avengers: United They Stand (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)

As with previous like articles brought to AFD (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Fantastic Four film series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Hulk film series, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Superman film series - this list is a back-fill construction made from full sections of the character articles it points to. There is little or no attempt to summarize the information from those articles, it is just copied and pasted in place. The result here is an over long, inconsistent mish-mash of plot summary and character bios. It also serves the same purpose as The Avengers: United They Stand#Cast.

We have had a number of like content fork lists come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the cut-and-paste lists. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "lists" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's cut-and-past. Yes, it's an unneeded back-fill. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 06:37, 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) 00:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary duplicate, although I avoid 'per nom' in the case of these lists I basically agree with what J Greb has stated and have nothing to add. Someoneanother 05:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this guy has been making these for months and jamming AFD with these. Might be time for a WP:TROUT Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:37, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Fantastic Four (1994 TV series)[edit]

Characters in Fantastic Four (1994 TV series) (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)

As with previous like articles brought to AFD (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Fantastic Four film series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Hulk film series, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Superman film series - this list is a back-fill construction made from full sections of the character articles it points to. There is little or no attempt to summarize the information from those articles, it is just copied and pasted in place. The result here is an over long, inconsistent mish-mash of plot summary and character bios. It also serves the same purpose as Fantastic Four (1994 TV series)#Cast.

We have had a number of like content fork lists come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the cut-and-paste lists. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "lists" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's cut-and-past. Yes, it's an unneeded back-fill. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 06:37, 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) 00:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary duplicate, although I avoid 'per nom' in the case of these lists I basically agree with what J Greb has stated and have nothing to add. Someoneanother 06:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and all the others here as well) redundant in concept to individual character articles which would be across the entire range of appearances, and redundant in concept to the section in the movie article on characters. I dont see any reason to reformulate in this manner. any new material unique to this article really belong in the above mentioned articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this guy has been making these for months and jamming AFD with these. Might be time for a WP:TROUT Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:38, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in The Incredible Hulk (1996 TV series)[edit]

Characters in The Incredible Hulk (1996 TV series) (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)

As with previous like articles brought to AFD (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Fantastic Four film series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Hulk film series, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Superman film series - this list is a back-fill construction made from full sections of the character articles it points to. There is little or no attempt to summarize the information from those articles, it is just copied and pasted in place. The result here is an over long, inconsistent mish-mash of plot summary and character bios. It also serves the same purpose as The Incredible Hulk (1996 TV series)#Cast.

We have had a number of like content fork lists come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the cut-and-paste lists. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "lists" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's cut-and-past. Yes, it's an unneeded back-fill. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 06:37, 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) 00:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary duplicate, although I avoid 'per nom' in the case of these lists I basically agree with what J Greb has stated and have nothing to add. Someoneanother 06:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this guy has been making these for months and jamming AFD with these. Might be time for a WP:TROUT Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:38, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in Iron Man (1994 TV series)[edit]

Characters in Iron Man (1994 TV series) (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)

As with previous like articles brought to AFD (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Fantastic Four film series, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Hulk film series, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in the Superman film series - this list is a back-fill construction made from full sections of the character articles it points to. There is little or no attempt to summarize the information from those articles, it is just copied and pasted in place. The result here is an over long, inconsistent mish-mash of plot summary and character bios. It also serves the same purpose as Iron Man (TV series)#Cast.

We have had a number of like content fork lists come through AfD and PROD from this editor, the bulk of which have resulted in the removal of the cut-and-paste lists. This is becoming disruptive - the discovery of new or additional like "lists" after the last batch has been deleted and having to go through the same presentation that "Yes, it's cut-and-past. Yes, it's an unneeded back-fill. And yes it is a carbon copy of already existing material." J Greb (talk) 06:37, 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) 00:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary duplicate, although I avoid 'per nom' in the case of these lists I basically agree with what J Greb has stated and have nothing to add. Someoneanother 06:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this guy has been making these for months and jamming AFD with these. Might be time for a WP:TROUT Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:39, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media panic[edit]

Media panic (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)

Procedural nomination: I make no endorsement of this XfD. (contested PROD) Original PROD nominator comment: "Seems to consist solely of original research." —mono 03:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This concept is much used and quite well-established in media studies. I agree however that the article needs to be expanded with more sources, and have every intention of doing so. --Anderssl (talk) 11:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. This may be different enough from moral panic to support a stand alone article, although it might be merged with them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may well support a merge at a later point, if we don't come up with enough material to justify a separate article. --Anderssl (talk) 10:36, 15 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, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The expression may be well used, by WP:Assume good faith I am sure it is since a WP editor said so. However the article merely defines what "media panic" is, against WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The fact that new media have run into criticism and opposition should be explained in some article on Media or the History of media, and the expression introduced there. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep a distinct kind of moral panic, where the subject of the panic can uniquely 'talk back'; worthy of a chance to become a good article, and if it doesn't we can merge with moral panic as suggested above --Arkelweis (talk) 17:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge this seems way to close to moral panic, the Media is only one part of the moral panic seems like Content fork. Possibly WP:NEO as i see no usage in google scholar but connections to moral panic is clear Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:42, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clientitus[edit]

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

First of all, this is a dictionary entry. Second of all, it appears to be misspelled (don't most diseases end in "-itis", not "-itus")? Stonemason89 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's a neologism, but one that has found its way into the literature. It should be spelled clientitis. I'd like to see how John Bolton spelled it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:00, 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) 00:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep neologism, but seems to have some coverage already. I'm assuming it's clientitus, as clientitis is the often-contagious condition of "irritated customer", known to anyone in a service industry. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good information, and well-written, on an interesting and probably important topic. However WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article starts out: "Clientitus is a term..." The material should be merged somewhere to an article on psychology or one on problems in the State Department or somewhere else. WP should not have articles on "terms" or "neologisms" by our own policies. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything began as a neologism once. WP policies are to avoid using them in descriptions of others, and to avoid articles on them until they have garnered 3rd party coverage to achieve WP:N. It would appear that this one has reached that stage. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is that by "not a dictionary" WP should not have articles on words, new or old. Also the article is very well written and informative. The information should be merged to an article on a topic. I'm just not sure what topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much of WP is "articles about words", from a simple view of the title at least. The difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia isn't that one excludes "articles about words" on that basis, but rather that one is about words and the other is about the concept behind them. If clientitus has any notability such to even bear consideration here, then it's on the basis of its backstory, not merely it's simple definition today. It's quite possible that this could be justified for inclusion at WP on that basis, but not for Wikitionary. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't usually get argumentative over these things, but this is not a dictionary definition. 'Clientitus' is a made-up word. It is grammatically incorrect. It exists because, according to John Bolton, the US State Department started using the term and it has spread to mainstream literature. Compare Womyn or Vorpal sword. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All words are "made-up". And yes, this is a dictionary definition. The article explains what the word means and then offers examples to illustrate usage. That's what a dictionary does. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO, WP:DICTIONARY, and possibly WP:No original research. The article suggests that the term could be applied to examples such as those cited as references, but the second item uses it more or less in passing. (I am not able to access the first item cited.) Even assuming that OR doesn't apply, articles should describe topics rather than terms, as Kitfoxxe suggests. Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a point of interest, the relevant section of WP:NOTDIC is currently under dispute. Perhaps this should be put on hold until that is resolved? Sithman VIII !! 05:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have moved the article to clientitis, where it very obviously belongs. With the correct spelling this "neologism" has appeared in Mother Jones (magazine) in 1986, and in numerous books since 1990. The books define the term and describe the relevance of the phenomenon it describes. I am sure with some digging an entire article just about this problem can be found. Hans Adler 21:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Baker's "The Tortilla Curtain" (n.d.), which is currently cited as a reference, uses the spelling clientitus. Cnilep (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To quote that article: "George Baker [...] is directs Mexico Transnational Strategies". I don't think we need to follow the only source that misspells the word. Hans Adler 07:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep. The term has been in use for years and the phenomenon is something the State Department has attempted to combat as well as a common accusation leveled by critics. Possibly there isn't enough published content about clientitis to write a Wikipedia article, but no one should be voting against this on the basis that it's a neologism or original research.Prezbo (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that there may not be enough material for an entire article. But the material that does exist is legitimate, so the question is whether to merge, and where, not whether to delete. Hans Adler 07:05, 24 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Weale[edit]

Katie Weale (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)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can meet the GNG or any other specialized guideline; zero GNews hits, no relevant GBooks hits. No reliable sources for article. PROD removed without addressing notability issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:52, 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) 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pure fluff, so to speak. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie Harvey[edit]

Goldie Harvey (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)

Might turn out to be reasonably well-known but currently is not. Google returns very little info from reliable third-party sources (none from what I checked). The article claims she's signed to Kennis Music but she has yet to release a record with them. Pichpich (talk) 01:17, 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) 00:02, 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. Scott Mac 15:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Columb[edit]

Frank Columb (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:AUTHOR. Non-notable author, possibly self-promotional article. Not a hoax, the books apparently exist [59],[60], but neither the author nor his books have managed a hit in Google News [61] Gweb hits are largely wikimirrors of this and a couple of articles (written by the same author as this article) on Columb's novels. One of his book is cited in a biblography by another [62]. Marked unsourced since April 2008. j⚛e deckertalk 00:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I added the Read Ireland reference to the article and removed some of the POV statements, however there just doesn't appear to be enough coverage on this author to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR notability thresholds. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:12, 14 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) 00:01, 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and a refuted copyvio claim. I was almost tempted to close this "no consensus" considering that only one of the "keep" !votes is grounded in policy. (and yes I did notice that one editor !voted "keep" twice) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galloping Hogan[edit]

Galloping Hogan (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)

totally non notable person. Google search shows no sourceable links to verify notability or the facts necessary for an article on him. Cat-five - talk 00:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - copyrighted material from [63]. Speedy tag added. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can determine, this is not a copyright violation (at least not on our side)—the servinghistory site extracts material from Wikipedia ([64]), not vice versa. Kirill [talk] [prof] 05:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't see the text that this article is alleged to be plagiarised from. He'd be notable enough for an article. We could use this as a source. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even look at the link and the current article? The current article is someone who lived during 1690 and the article you linked is somebody who died in 2007. Please at least read what you're linking before posting it. Cat-five - talk 03:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right. My source does not apply to the one the present article is about. Both of the Galloping Hogans would be notable. The copyvio claim is mistaken. Still keep. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep. I own the book , The Quest for the Galloping Hogan

by Matthew J Culligan-Hogan, ISBN 13: 9781884723001, ISBN 10: 1884723004 Hampton, Ct, U.S.A.: Tyrone Press, 1994 Publisher: Tyrone Press, Published Date: 1994 Spidernick (talk) 09:50, 204 July 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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 no consensus. Scott Mac 15:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost: The Journey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lost: The Journey (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 about a clip show has been nominated for deletion four times previously, the last nomination having been over three years ago in 2007. The recap episode aired during Lost's first season. Now that the show has concluded, it should be obvious that this five-year old recap episode is not notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as nominator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NTEMP and the extensive coverage in reliable sources. Not to mention the WP:DEADHORSE aspect of a fifth (really?) deletion nomination. Jclemens (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: the first three deletion nominations were ALL in June 2006. The fourth was a few months later. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I see more than enough reliable sources to support an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the sources are from the period in which the show aired. Who, five years later and beyond, is going to write an article about this clip show as historically important or notable? -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does it matter when the sources are from, as long as they discuss the issue in depth? notability is not temporary. Just because it hasn't been in the news recently, doesn't mean the coverage at the time wasn't enough to estabilish notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or selective merge if someone is interested in a sourced sentence here or there. The majority of this article is so general that it easily fits in the main article in a broadcast section. Lost had so many clip shows; this one is only "special" because it was the first one. Nowhere special or notable from nowaday's perspective. – sgeureka t•c 08:14, 14 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, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lost. It's well-sourced, but the content itself doesn't seem to merit a standalone article as opposed to a mention in the main series article. 28bytes (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As user Umbralcorax said, notability is not temporary. This is article is well sourced and can stand on its own. Merging would require the details of this page to be shrunk into a small summary. Why do that when the current page is a detailed, resourced, synopsis?--LAAFan 01:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of the sourced details of this article are already in the Lost (TV series) article, so instead of "[shrinking] into a small summary" it is removing redundance. – sgeureka t•c 07:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but you are talking about deleting an article that satisfies WP:NRVE. Just because references used in the article are used elsewhere does not mean you should remove redundancy by eliminating a page. Also see WP:Television episodes, which states an episode page is notable if it has received coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --LAAFan 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Judging by the sources (all from 2005 or deadlinks), this clip show actually was a "flash in the pan" (i.e. violating NRVE by its own words). But even if it wasn't, I was referring to WP:MERGE and WP:SPINOUT, which give guidance how to deal with sub-notable and/or redundant articles like this one. – sgeureka t•c 16:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Merging this article back into Lost or any other article for that matter still shrinks the knowledge given. Unless you put the entire page into the other article, you are depriving readers of the full analysis of that episode.--LAAFan 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The episode itself is a show about a show. Nothing would be lost that isn't already present in other Lost-related Wikipedia articles. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • What would be lost is the info on the clip show (purpose of making, ratings, etc)--LAAFan 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no enduring notability, and we have more than enough Lost articles as-is. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 28 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. Scott Mac 15:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hevy Music Festival[edit]

Hevy Music Festival (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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hevy Music Festival. Does not qualify. Article is written as an advertising article. There is no significant general coverage for this music festival, in the UK media. Hayalperest (talk) 14:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the festival has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources in the UK media. For example: BBC Website and BBC Radio Kent - 7 references. Kerrang Magazine - 1 reference. Metalhammer Magazine - 2 references. Rocksound Magazine - 4 references. The Gig Guide magazine - 2 references. The article is not advertising, discussion of the 2010 event is necessarily forward-looking and will be updated to include relevant facts after the event e.g. attendance, summary of critical reviews from reliable sources. --ChrisDutton (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way the future event is written does not comply with wiki guidelines and includes subjective and opinion orientated information, which is not backed up with quotes. This will need to be addressed. Hayalperest (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I've rewritten the 2010 section to include some media quotes and remove subjective material. --ChrisDutton (talk) 08:19, 16 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, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. whatever. if someone wants to find out what the heavy music festival is, they can look it up in our encyclopaedia. notable and (now) non-advertisey enough for me --Arkelweis (talk) 17:47, 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) 10:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Peach[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Amber Peach (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)

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline; no relevant GNews or GBooks hits. Previously deleted via AFD, then recreated under the now-deprecated single-nomination standard. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 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) 00:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Y'know what pisses me off? Wikipedia's notability rules for music make decent encyclopedic coverage of underground scenes impossible, but a dingle "starring" in the fuck-flick Butt Pirates of the Caribbean gets a page and we have a debate about it. Oh, yeah, her name is "Amber Peach." Rrrrrrrrrright. Great biography. Bottom line, so to speak: Delete. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
even worse, every single album from every major label artist gets an article even when there is little commentary, esp. outside the band fanbase, while books get far fewer articles just cause the book industry is not as relentless in its self promotion. meanwhile, every cartoon character gets its own article, every episode of every commercial tv show gets an article, and porn gets lots too. it takes actual creative work to write a book, and creative work to produce good music outside a massively funded music production system, and it take real talent to be a stage performer outside the massively funded film or pron industries. however, she is cute... anyway, if we ever decide to use realistic standards for notability, i dont think she would make it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And while I'm ranting, why is it that porn articles typically have big, hi-res color professional headshots of their subjects while I find it difficult to get an 60 year old photo of a historical figure past the Wikipedia image gatekeepers? Dear little Amber's (pro?) headshot, now in Commons, is attributed to the "creator", according to the description page. If this is so, this "biography" of this "star" [sic.] is probably advertising, pure and simple — or else the permission filed is bogus and action should be taken on that front. The double standard at Wikipedia which gives special "notability" breaks to the corporate music industry and the pornographic film industry which are denied to underground music and independent film, is extremely annoying. Carrite (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
try to fix this by getting more images of underground music/independant film past the 'gatekeepers', NOT by trying to remove other pictures for fairness/consistancy's sake please. also, keep article because, and i feel a lot of wp editors miss this fact, the only way to find the article is to be searching for her name, so it's not as if it'll clutter up the place and obscure more 'notable' articles, creating a need to 'tidy' it up or anything --Arkelweis (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over 100 films and a TV show. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No TV show. "Prime Time Uncensored" was, at best, a thoroughly nonnotable webcast; this is the only wikipedia article which bothers to mention it, and its lifespan seems to have a few months. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:35, 26 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_20&oldid=1142641310"