Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 June 27 June >

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 all. Jayjg (talk) 05:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of XMPP library software[edit]

List of XMPP library software (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 A useless article. Just a long list of external links (which I've removed) which goes against the "not a list of indiscriminate links" part of WP:NOT. And a bunch of red links (which I just removed) pointing to articles that no-one has any interest in creating. The only articles that exist are one liners. And its been marked as needing expert assistance for a year and a half. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because NOTABILITY <= ZERO (and they have both been one liners for more than a year now):

QXmpp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Smack (library) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am also nominating the following related page because we gain nothing here that isn't done better by using categories (which already exist), because of WP:NOT and because articles like this just invite spammers trying to advertise their products/projects (please note I've deleted the spam content, but everyone knows it will inevitably come back).

List of XMPP server software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlistairMcMillan (talk • contribs)

  • Delete all aforementioned articles; lists not useful and prone to spam, QXmpp and Smack not apparently notable. -- intgr [talk] 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Spammy, with mostly non-notable content. —mono 00:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List of XMPP server software: It has eight programs & is organized in a way categories cannot be (by both language and license) and is a good stub that can be expanded in both notable products and other points of comparison. I furthermore think the deletion discussion should be split, at least treating the server software separately from the libraries. I'd weakly !vote to delete the library list due to the few number of members that it has, but would not be opposed to re-creation assuming there were more notable libraries out there. --Karnesky (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's just an invitation for spam. The article is clean now only because AlistairMcMillan cleaned it up before proposing for deletion. This is what it looked like prior to the AfD. Nobody bothers to maintain these list articles, so they always become spammy, unverifiable and useless. -- intgr [talk] 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please tell me where our policies state that "spam targets" should be deleted. Actual spam, yes. But if something can be cleaned up, it should be. --Karnesky (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You tell me where our policies give explicit approval to inclusion of list articles? In response to your request, I'll point out WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Also the spirit of WP:N is "delete stuff that nobody cares about". Given that nobody maintains this article, I think it's fair to say that nobody cares about it, making it subject to deletion. It's only when these articles are put up for deletion, that someone notices them. -- intgr [talk] 17:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply here: the article is not a directory! It is a software comparison stub that provides organizational and navigational aids to articles within WP, per point 2 in WP:NOTLINK. If you are concerned about the content of the article, add it to your watchlist & clean it up: the edit history shows that external links are added very slowly to it. You have offered no policy arguments for deletion. --Karnesky (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have offered no policy arguments for keeping. And why should *I* put it on my watchlist and spend my time scrubbing it? I don't want to care about it — and nor does anyone else — so why keep it around? Mind you, this isn't the only unloved list article. If I monitored all of them, I'd have no time left to eat, sleep or live. Reducing their number is the solution. -- intgr [talk] 17:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • WP:NOTLINK carves a specific exclusion in WP:NOT that this article fits into. Asking for a specific policy that mandates inclusion of this list is like asking for one for mandatory inclusion of any article. We do not have a policy that says we need to have an article on whales, for instance. But, in the absence of any valid reason to delete articles, we keep them. To argue for deletion based on the worst that an un-cleaned article can be is not assuming good faith! --Karnesky (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify. You are arguing keep because the article can be maintained in a non-spammy state. Even though you have no intention of touching the article yourself, and when there is clear evidence that no-one else has any interest in maintaining the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I wasn't nominating based on the worst that an "un-cleaned article can be", I was nominating based on the worst that the article actually was until I cleaned it and the worst the article will inevitably be again if it is kept. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list of server software is now on my watchlist. Note that all my replies, above, were to intgr & not to you. However, I assume that neither of you has objections to keep the list of server software, now that someone will keep it clean? --Karnesky (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I still maintain my delete vote. Are you planning to maintain all the articles you vote keep on? You do tend to vote keep almost every single time on AFD.
And it doesn't change the fact that content like this is much better served as a category, that Wikipedia was not intended to be a collection of indiscriminate lists, that no-one really has any interest in maintaining these types of articles (your singular self excluded assuming good faith), and that this remains a spam magnetic. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how my !voting record has any relevance here, but I can certainly defend it:
  1. WP:NOTAVOTE
  2. Reiterating previously made points or not giving a reason is therefore pointless
  3. Our deletion guidelines discourage participation when you agree with the consensus or when you don't know anything
  4. When an AfD nom (unlike the way you skillfully handled these articles) and commenters have not done the minimal homework of checking for sources that could establish notability or cleaned up problems, it is easy to add to discussion by pointing this out
  5. I have !voted for deletion and made AfD nominations on occasion.
  6. Yes, many articles that have been kept after a cleanup are on my watchlist.
But, back to the article: This is not a spam magnet. There were only five external links to non-notable for-profit products. I will keep it clean & nobody has indicated how it violates any policy or guideline. I reiterate my suggstion that the server list have a separate discussion so that consensus on this will be clearer. --Karnesky (talk) 02:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only five external links to non-notable for-profit products. No dispute. However there were numerous external links to open source projects so notable that they never reached a stable version and were abandoned years ago. For instance JabberCom last updated 2002. Or goodwarejabber, a single release in 2007, never updated. Or jabber-net, a single release in July 2008, never updated. Spam spam spam. Whether it is commercial spam or open source spam, doesn't really matter. It is all non-notable.
And it does violate policy. Because all it is is an indiscriminate list. By all means list a few notable examples of XMPP libraries in the XMPP article, with links to reliable third-parties justifying the claim that they are notable. But just having a list of "these are all XMPP libraries" goes against the WP:NOT rule.
And is your only argument for keeping it really "I'll watch it like a hawk to make sure it doesn't fill up with spam? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:43, 4 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. There are some extremely unpleasant aspects to this AFD. The canvassing and battleground attitude to delete votes by Kaasalan were wholly unnecessary and tainted the whole discussion. On the one hand the delete side rightly say that this is an indiscriminate list and the significance of the information is unclear - even some keep vote acknowledge that it is not clear what the list is about. There are also claims that this is a POV fork and a coatrack. On the other hand, the keep side cite sources that discuss the banned items - the list is even hosted on the BBC website. The issue is clearly that we have an article masquerading as a list and the scope and purpose of that article hasn't been agreed. I'm going to close this as no-consensus but with a clear requirement that the list is moved/merged into an article and properly expanded to put the list into context. If this doesn't happen in a reasonable timescale then I can see another AFD on the horizon and that will be harder for the keep side if this doesn't get better in the meantime. Spartaz Humbug! 04:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza[edit]

List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial errata that serves no encyclopedic purpose at all. Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Note that the ban itself is noted in 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. There is no encyclopedic value in a table detailing the entire list itself. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic material. Clearly does not need an article. Alio The Fool 22:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is definitely encyclopedic material. It sure can be impoved, because it may not be clear what this list is about. The fact is that the only goods which have been allowed for import into Gaza are those on this list. Any and all other goods were banned for no comprehensible reason. There is a lot of talk about the blocade of Gaza, but it is quite difficult to understand how severe the blocade actually is. This list goes a long way to explaining what this particular blocade means. GastelEtzwane (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aliothefool. Who can vouch that this is an updated list? If a list can be provided, it would not be encyclopedic, but who will monitor the article to make sure that it is always updated? --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in expanded form Change from "List of commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza" to just "Commercial goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza" and have the List itself, be a (major) section of that (slightly re-named) rticle, giving the most up to date version possible. Other sections will include history, when the list/banned item started (linking to other Wikipedia articles for details) and include history like a few items being allowed (or crossed off the list) after the assault on the Gaza flotilla. Gisha.org a reputable (and Israeli by the way) group keeps a list that is the most accurate widely publicly available. The section of the article covering "list" could state "as of [date]" what that list is (and of course include links to Gisha.org et al. Other statements may include recent statements by politicians from all sides, and human rights, concerning efforts to resolve the issue in the future, etc. Harel (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good suggestion I should not have used the word List when I started the article, it seemed appropriate at the time. But the article should be expanded to include other information as you suggest. GastelEtzwane (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I fail to see how this list merits an article of its own. Enigmamsg 18:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong arguments again Very specific verifiable information Nothing related with WP:INDISCRIMINATE at all. Information is very specific, detailed, factual, verifiable official. The list is needed in most Gaza blockade related articles like Gaza flotilla raid. It clearly shows what Israel bans or allows. Kasaalan (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No list has ever been published or recognized by the Government of the state of Israel. As such, No list published on Wikipedia can ever be properly sourced. some lists are available online, these are written by different NGO and other organization and all vary greatly in content. Keeping this list will be a sure source of online debates, and completely useless. nothing more. I suggest writing a new page as soon as the Israeli government publishes a list. Then it will merit a page as it can be used as a journalistic source. Raisescale (talk) 07:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong arguments The offical list is relesead after Gisha take the case to the court. Read article. Kasaalan (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not because it's not an encyclopaedic topic, but because there is no confirmed list of what is and is not allowed. All that is left is speculation, which fails WP:V. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • You are wrong list is officially confirmed by Israeli court by Israeli Human rights group Gisha. Kasaalan (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply, the list from Gisha explicitly says "It is not possible to verify this list with the Israeli authorities because they refuse to disclose information regarding the restrictions on transferring goods into Gaza". This is from June 2010. In other words, its based on hearsay and observations (which change from time to time), and therefore is not verifiable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep I agree with editors such as Harel. The material is encyclopaedic in my opinion. It is very relevant to the subject of the Gaza blockade. And it is non-trivial. I also think that the article should be developed beyond a list. I thought that this article was worth a read: The Economist - Trade Off, What goods does Israel bar from the Gaza Strip, 1 June 2010.     ←   ZScarpia   17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic material.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Official response by Israeli courts against the file suit by Israeli Human rights organisation Gisha

The list was unconfirmed until the Gisha filed a court case and the list is official by Israeli courts. Kasaalan (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no encyclopedic relevance or importance to what is in the list, regardless of who officially recognizes it or not. Mention that there is a list of banned goods in a relevant article, that's fine. List this gisha place in an "External Links" sub-section, that's fine too. But we're not here to serve as a repository for what is little more than an excel spreadsheet of data. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a blockade in Gaza if you are aware. Read 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip So the blockade is rationalized by weapon smuggling of Hamas. True. But why there is a ban against chocolate. Or what is even banned. It was uncertain until Gisha made a court case and clarified what is banned or not in 2009-2010. Now the list is official by Israeli courts. Certainly encyclopedic, very specific list, verifiable, factual, official. Kasaalan (talk) 13:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who gives a fuck why chocolate is banned? Encyclopedias are not the venue in which to speculate. You confuse notability of the blockade and the ban on goods themselves with notability of the individual items. As I said, place a link in 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip to somewhere off-site that has the list, that is fine. The list itself has no place in this project. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you swear or who cares your opinion. But for the people interested in international politics, human rights, wars, Israel-Palestine conflict it is important what is banned or not. As you can tell Israeli HR group made a court case about it, Israeli court accepted it and made a decision to the exact list to be revelaed, RS news/media sources published it. BBC So your opinion doesn't matter at all. You just try to delete the article. Kasaalan (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the very fact that even chocolate is banned clearly shows the ban even includes basic food supply items. Read collective punishment Kasaalan (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of banned item/people articles in wikipedia

There are even more. Kasaalan (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogies miss the mark by a wide margin, the proverbial apples and oranges. A better comparison would be to note that we have an article on the Cuban embargo, but not a List of American goods restricted by the Cuban embargo. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a failed argument. You may create the page with multiple RS if you put effort, there is no such page or example AFD for it. You are just mading up a red link that never existed.
For specific embargoes like Arms embargo you don't need lists because all arms are banned. Yet a non-clearly defined embargo like 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip you need specific items over what is banned or not. If anything is banned or the list is too short you don't need an article, if the item list is long and there are too many mixed items/details you need an article per WP:TOOLONG and WP:SPLIT. Since the ban covers basic human needs and even includes food items like chocolate, there needs to be a clearence. Israel claims they ban arms against armed attacks, yet they ban chocolate. Can Israel explain why they ban chocolate, no, so they had to lift off that ban after court. Israel even held ban list as a secret, and rejected to reveal its list. After court decision they had to release the list by official court ruling. Kasaalan (talk) 15:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specific items are not notable, and you have yet to demonstrate a single shred of evidence to the contrary. Again, stop conflating the embargo itself with the items embargoed. The link I put above is a deliberate redlink because it was a demonstration of an absurd, ridiculous idea for an article that will never exist in the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you fail to read the article. Details of Gaza blockade revealed in court case by Tim Franks, BBC News, Jerusalem Full list (pdf) of commercial items allowed by BBC Source: Confidential information from international groups, compiled by the BBC. (The list refers to goods brought in by commercial importers. Kasaalan (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple RS news coverage on Banned items and Gisha

I prefer listing multiple RS media sources about the case instead personal arguments. There are even more in related articles, including UN reports. Kasaalan (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Just because the Israeli government has not published an official list, that is no reason to delete this article. The list was compiled and confirmed by numerous NGOs, UN officials, and other international organisations. It was published by numerous high-profile news sources all around the world. It has also been confirmed by Israeli courts. It provides vital information in understanding the Gaza Blockade and the arguments behind the reactions to it. I cannot think of a single reason for it to be deleted. --386-DX (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable article subject, covered by many, many international media outlets. --Soman (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Verifiable, Notable, Factual, Specific and Detailed List based article. By the way the AFD nominator didn't show any effort in notifying the page creator and recent contributor (me) about AFD. I notified by the article creator after 3 days. Another good example case for WP:GOODFAITH in AFDs. Kasaalan (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the Gaza Blockade article. It might be a good list to put at the very end of the article so that it doesn't interfere with readability. But I don't think it makes sense as an article on its own. And it definitely isn't encyclopedic content. This is a list that is constantly updating and may have some major changes in the near term future. But the content itself IS the kind of thing that people might look for and having it as a part of the Gaza Blockade article just seems to make sense. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator There was canvassing related to this AfD here. Enigmamsg 23:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Which is a page on the watchlist of quite a few of the pro-Israeli editors at Wikipedia. As for canvassing, posting a notice there goes both ways. --Soman (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's canvassing also because it was not posted neutrally. Notifying a Wikiproject can be acceptable if it's just posted there without an opinion. That was not the case here, and it was a clear violation. He got what he wanted, as shortly after, you and others showed up to vote keep. Enigmamsg 01:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The user could have been more courteous for sure, but I don't think it's a grave violation. The editors supporting the deletion also showed up after seeing the same message. The message was written openly, the notified editors were not cherry-picked, and there wasn't a mass posting. --386-DX (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It looks like more showed up to vote keep. Look at the time stamps. Naturally, most of the people actively participating in Wikiproject Palestine want it kept, so a pro-Palestinian editor went and posted it there, indicating they should go and vote keep. I think it's problematic to only notify the Wikiproject that represents your POV, let alone to write what he did. Enigmamsg 14:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "admin" claiming canvas has a personal grudge against me, since I proved he become admin without any major content creation effort in wikipedia. He is refusing he has pro-Israel state bias. Yet he always voted "delete" for many Israeli-peace activist or related AFDs that I contributed, though he claims he isn't interested in Israel Palestine related topics. When I stress that fact, he claims there is personal attack against him, and deletes whole of my comments. He didn't even show the courtesy to notify me about AFD before, that is why we harshly argued in my talk page just recently. He fails to even get I posted same notice in Wikipedia_talk:Notice_board_for_Israel-related_topics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force or Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#AFD_for_List_of_commercial_goods_allowed.2Fbanned_for_import_into_Gaza where both Palestinian, Isareli and 3rd party users like me are present. [Try not to delete messages this time or I fully revert] Kasaalan (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Also an AFD without any related WikiProject users is a failed and underhanded AFD. If the AFD nominator didn't showed the courtesy, then I notify the related project users. Kasaalan (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • As the AfD initiator, I am under no obligation to notify any wikiproject. I am a member of none of them, and will not seek out such groups to leave notifications. If other users such as yourself wish to, that is fine, but where you erred is that you left non-neutral and biased notices. WP:CANVAS is a behavioral guideline, broadly accepted by the Wikipedia community. You flaunted that, and continue to do so as you disparage other editors who point our your wrongdoing. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You came out of blue, do not seek any consensus, first PROD then AFD, do not show the courtesy to notify only 2 page contributors, then start talking about bias and wiki etiquette. People are even claiming they are not obligatory to notify article creators, contributors or related wiki project users about AFD nowadays. What if I was not even around in wikipedia. Why should the article contributor put all the efforts while some random non-contributor starts an AFD while you are not around in wikipedia. You waste my time without putting any effort in Wikipedia:Afd#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion. Seriously you should before any AFD. Kasaalan (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • No one needs consensus to initiate a PROD or an AfD; if they see an article they feel violates Wikipedia policy, then they act as they see fit. I have nothing more to say on this tangent. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • It should be noted that user Kasaalan has personally attacked me on multiple occasions, including in this AfD, and constantly makes unfounded accusations against me if I dare to comment on an issue that involves him, and even attacks me here in several places. He, without question, was canvassing, and left biased notices at places where he knew he would get support, thus swaying the community participating in this AfD. Enigmamsg 00:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I left notice in all related channels including Israel, Palestine and Israel/Palestine boards along with Gaza Flotilla talk page exact same notice one after another. All 3 boards has mixed contributors Israeli/Jew, Palestinian/Arab and other 3rd party. So you either know that fact and hiding it, or don't even make any research before accusing me. You try to AFD without notifying related project users, you don't show courtesy to notify contributors, then trying to accuse me. Didn't you recently AFD another page I contribute [a Jewish peace camp list] without notifying me or other page contributors in May/June with 5-6 users. So why do you insint on AFDs without related users? Then trying to blame me when I notice my frustration over unnecessary/extremely fast PROD-AFDs without any proper pre-AFD steps like debate/consensus/research. If Noticeboard for Palestine-related topics is canvas, why do I bother doing it openly and along with Noticeboard for Israel-related topics and Middle Eastern military history task force or Gaza flotilla raid where opposing views watch, participate and debate. You just try to waste my time with POV arguments, while do not bothering any effort in improving the related article at all. Kasaalan (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm not interested in improving the article because it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You clearly canvassed by leaving biased and POV messages instead of leaving a proper and neutral notice, and this has been noted by others. "You try to AFD without notifying related project users, you don't show courtesy to notify contributors, then trying to accuse me." I don't even know what this means. I didn't start this AfD. I merely commented on it. Enigmamsg 23:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • So are you interested improving other articles? Can you provide a good long list of articles you created/majorly contributed so we can witness your vast editing skills and be amazed against your content creation efforts for wikipedia. No? You started an AFD for another list article we had a conflict without noticing me in May, you clearly remember it. So why did you mention Palestine notification board notice but not mention exact same notice in Israel notification board or Middle East notification board or Gaza flotilla talk while blaming me for Canvassing.
                      • There are multiple issues with the AFD process as usual. Some user created article in 14.06.2010 and added it on a related main article. [It was a necessary article being discussed but personally I didn't have enough effort to create it myself] AFD nominator put PROD in 25.06.2010 with a trivial reason so I removed PROD and updated table on 26.06.2010. AFD nominator started an AFD a couple hours later I finished my edits, he didn't notify me or article creator or any main article user about AFD. I was away from wikipedia, not watching or contributing pages so I wasn't aware of AFD. Article creator notified me in 01.07.2010 and added multiple RS [5 days were already gone with some random and not-so-random user opinions]. I debated in AFD and only found time to improve the article second time on 04.07.2010 atfer other users spent time adding Gisha's information on 03-04.07.2010. And if I even would have notified some users who might care improving the article, since there is an AFD going on it would be count as "Canvassing". Yet why should we have a rushed PROD-AFD with random/non-random AFD list watchers, while the article is being developed without any CONSENSUS/DEBATE/NOTIFICATION process with Fork page/Main page contributors then? Kasaalan (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article already exists on the topic: 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip The list's lead is imbalanced enough that it looks like a WP:POVFORK with a touch of WP:COATRACKiness for its prominent mentions of criticism without discussing Israel's reason. The list isn't really needed but it would work fine in the article or as an external link to the source.
And in the future, write requests for other editor's thoughts in a neutral tone if you don't want to be accused of canvassing.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. AFD without any debate in talk is already POV in my view. There was a demand in Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid in the past, so I also helped improving article after someone created it. 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip is already WP:TOOLONG. Kasaalan (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't seem to understand TOOLONG correctly. It is readable prose not total size that applies. 6551 words at less than 43KB is fine. And the table (if it is really needed at all) isn't readable prose anyways is it? An external link to that BBC article would certainly not be. Cptnono (talk) 06:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no encyclopedic value in a table detailing the entire list. Marokwitz (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some users are arguing that the article should be deleted because the lead looks bad. If any part of the article could be made better, the action to take is to make it better, not delete the whole page. The list is not hearsay or speculation; the items were confirmed by numerous international organisations. The list of banned items was published by numerous reliable sources around the world. The list is crucial for discussions related to the legality of the blockade, as well as for understanding the international reactions. It does have encyclopedic value, and it is certainly notable. --386-DX (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If it needs work then work on it. This is notable and has value.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - This is about due for a close today, and I;d like to urge the closer to look at whether or not reliable sources confer notability on the specific list of goods or is the notability conferred on the general fact that there is an import/export ban. Many of the keep calls see no difference between the two. I feel it is the later, and note the analogy to the US' Cuban embargo above; the embargo is notable, and examples of what is banned are cited by RS in support of that notability, but to put an exhausting list of what is banned is clear-cut WP:INDISCRIMINATE IMO. We are not a repository for spreadsheets, and the full laundry list of info could either be accessible via an external link or perhaps if it is published by an NGO, it can go to wikisource. Tarc (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that what is notable is what is banned. Most embargoes seem less arbitary then the Gaza blockade, and knowing what Israle considers millitary items will help put that embargo into context.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most of the article, including the list, is of goods which are allowed to Gaza, and not banned. Marokwitz (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have RS for banned goods too, if you like to update table. Also allowed goods are banned at least since 2007, and are allowed in 2009/2010 after Gisha took the case to the Israeli court. Kasaalan (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All entries are confirmed by NGO's and as stated above an article needing work is not a reason to delete. Mo ainm~Talk 15:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe anyone has argued to delete because it needs work, have they? I see delete opinions that cite established editing policy and guidelines above, that believe the subject matter of the article is unencyclopedic for several reasons. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because:
  1. The lists themselves are notable.
  2. The article discusses the lists, it is not merely a copy of the list. (Currently it does not even include all the list.)
  3. the list information does not seem overly long, in the event that it ran to thousands of items there would be a case for summarising and moving to Wikisource (which is not to say that mere length is a reason to repudiate lists - simply that it would be in this case).
Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note this addresses the point above "specific items are not notable" - notability is not the criteria to be included in the article, significance is. Rich Farmbrough, 20:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete It's not even a list of banned items, it's a list of permissible items, which sheds rather little light on the status of Gaza as a result. I would be interested in this if it showed information that could be interpreted in a useful way. I see little value to Wikipedia from this list. - OldManNeptune (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said an article needing work is not a reason for deletion. As a side question to those who edit the page why does it not list banned items dispite its title?Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a list of items that Gisha have alledged are banned.Slatersteven (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Not that I edit the article particularly.) It might benefit from another rename later, as Harel said above. The article is to some extent about the lists, and how hard they are/were to obtain, rather than about the goods and the effect the blockade or otherwise of them has. It also covers lists put together by third parties, and , of course there is massive RS about the putative governmental lists, commentary by parties to the dispute, NGOs, international organizations, journalists etc.. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
So the "list" has now turned into an article? My reasoning for delete up above is now even more valid.Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that would make a rename more valid.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It being a list made some sense according to the "keep" arguments even though I still believe it was unnecessary. Now it really is just a second article on the same subject. Cptnono (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me but this not an artciel about the blockade but about what items Israle has (and has not) allowed in. Now if it has expanded from just a list (and I am not sure it has that much) then we can re-work it. None of this measn it should be deleted. What inseatd is needed is a duscusioin about what this page should be, and how to achive it. For example,we now have a list of banned items this was not in the articel but now is (so now any votes for delete based on lack of list are now invlaid). yes th8is needs work, but so do a lot of articles.Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is an article about the blockade. That is why it is a POVFORK.Cptnono (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if this page is deleted then this material would have to be put ijnto the Gaza blockade articel, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick ctrl+f on both articles shows that most of the prose already is.Cptnono (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But not the lists, so do you think that the material (prose asside) should be merged with the Gaza blockade articel?Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed above, the table might OK placed in the article. The BBC article could also be used as a reference or an external link instead.Cptnono (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the list of banned items, should that be in the Gaza Blockade articel?Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is modified to meet MoS it also might work. Some editors believe it is INDISCRIMINATE and not necessary at all so it again could instead also be used as a reference or an external link.. Does the full list need to be provided on Wikipedia? Do editors in favor of it actually want the list or is their main goal to make a point with the prose?
The problem is that this list/article looks to only be created to make a point. Cherry picked unbalanced quotes push a POV in what could have been a lead and a list. Here are two snippets from WP:LIST that were ignored:
  • "However short or schematic a list description, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies..."
  • "Lists should not be used to create content forks between a topic that has a separate wikipedia article..."
But since this is now an article, it is clearly duplicated information that is not neutral. This makes it a POVFORK that needs to be deleted. If editors attempt to create an actual list, then the arguments of if it is indiscriminate or not need to be concluded. I doubt there would have been so much opposition to the list if it had initially adhered to Wikipedia's standards. So a discussion if the list is recreated might yield less knee-jerk bickering.Cptnono (talk) 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not contain duplicate information, the information provided in the two lists does not appear in the other articel. Whilst the prose may duplicate that is justg antoehr example of this page needing work, not deletion. Also how is the information not neutral? I again say that if this needs work thyen we work at it, we do not delete it. Perhaos you could also give some examles of were the text matches the text of the otehr articel.Slatersteven (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A POV list would be something like "List of Israeli crimes against humanity" or "List of innocent people killed by Israel". There is nothing POV about this one. It provides material information which has been reported by numerous high-profile RS, and it is certainly notable enough to have its own article. --386-DX (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you only addressed one issue. There are three issues:
  • Was a POV list that does not follow MoS and needs to be gutted to even be considered viable.
  • Indiscriminate. A simple lead with the lists might work but enough editors have expressed that it looks like a collection of unecyclopedic information that that should not be ignored.
  • It is currently not a list. Therefore it is a second article on the same topic. It was a list at first but is now not.Cptnono (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created a table for banned items [contains items permitted in 2010] by Gisha's list. After we merge the tables, it will reflect complete information. The items in the permitted list were also banned before 2009/2010 so all items are already banned at least for a period. Kasaalan (talk) 22:38, 4 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. There is a majority (though only just) in favour of deletion. Several arguments on both sides were rather week or provided no real rationale- variations of WP:JNN and the exact opposite. At the end of the day, the evaluation of the sources provided by Atmoz appeared to be the strongest argument in favour of deletion and nobody provided a strong counter-argument to that evaluation HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hide the Decline[edit]

Hide the Decline (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)

More of a procedural nomination. I declined to delete this as a G10 as the article is about a subject, a youtube video, that spoofs a secondary subject. As such it is not clearly an article that disparages its subject. Rather it is an article about a topic that itself disparages a subject. To provide an example of that distinction, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is antisemitic drivel, whose sole purpose is to attack a group, but that does not mean writing an article about that topic is an attack on the group. However, the tagger, who can well speak for him/herself, believes this is part of an Astroturfing campaign. In any event, I suppose the questions most relevant to be determined here are whether this should this be deleted because of BLP concerns, and whether the subject is notable in its own right. In that regard, though there are some sources in the article, WP:NTEMP / WP:EVENT might be of significance here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plenty of MSM sources and is a parody of a phrase from the climategate scandel mark nutley (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - NN William M. Connolley (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Week sourcing, wrong subject. the article could be about the follow up and use of Manns "hide the decline" mail in various media and public discussions, the MFGW video could be mentioned among others. So far the actual entry is not much more than mudslingering without much relevant content. Polentario (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's notable, and I don't see any clear BLP violations, so it looks fine to me. Macai (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the notability of an article relies on being 6th on a weekly list of viral videos, one wonders why 1-5 don't have articles. Further, the frequent inclusion of blog-sourced nonsense to the article makes the cost-benefit analysis clear. Hipocrite (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where is the significant depth of coverage required by WP:N? Is it in one source that treats the subject in depth or is it a large number of brief mentions that together show depth of coverage, or something in between? For an article subject that attacks someone (who falls well above marginal notability himself, but isn't famous), the sourcing should be airtight. Wikipedia has a number of articles that have very negative information on people who are notable but not very famous. It might be a good idea to change BLP policy to disallow articles like this, about subjects that may be marginally notable attacks (in this case suggesting, with a laugh, that a notable scientist is a liar). We should expect a lot more of these in the future. For now, I'm undecided on keep/delete. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well john wp:n says, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material, which fox news does, even describing what is in the video [2] as does Rush Limbaugh[3] so i think wp:n is covered here. mark nutley (talk) 13:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Another terrible article from the usual suspect(s). Clearly not notable in any way. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is currently sourced to major, mainstream news organizations including CBS News, FOX News, Nature, New York Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Wall Street Journal, nor do I see any BLP violations. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the editor who raised the BLP concerns three times what specific article content is a BLP violation.[4][5][6] Unfortunately, that editor has not provided any specific problems. So, right now, I'm not aware of any BLP issues. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYTimes Blog: mentioned in passing. everything that is in this piece is quoted in the article. (Hard to make a fair use argument for that.)
  • Guardian: simply a list of their top-10 viral videos. The series shows that it offers no notability.
  • NYTimes: the video is only mentioned in passing. article quotes entire paragraph, of which only one phrase of the first sentence is applicable to this article
  • Nature News Blog: reports that Fox reported on the video. That's secondhand don't give a crap.
  • CBC News: Says there's a YouTube video spoofing the phrase. Entire bit on the video is quoted in the article.(Hard to make a fair use argument for that.)
  • Some press release: Press releases are not reliable source, no matter who regurgitates them.
  • WSJ op-ed: mentioned in 2 sentences, the entirety is quoted in the article.(Hard to make a fair use argument for that.)
  • Fox: not a reliable source. They've admitted they're an entertainment source, not a news source.
  • More Fox: but this time an opinion. Even less reliable, if that's possible.
  • Rushlimbaugh.com: uh huh. Whoever thinks that is a reliable source that an encyclopedia should cite should be put out of their misery.
  • Therefore, delete as failing WP:WEB -Atmoz (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Added at 15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)] Video appears to not be online anymore. Transcript added from here -Atmoz (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the video is still being hosted online by nocapandtrade.com. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transcript of video
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Makin' up data the old hard way
Fudgin the numbers day by day
Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)

Michael Mann thinks he so smart
totally inventing the hockey stick chart
Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)

Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate
I hope you do a lot of time, cuz what you did was such a crime
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)

The tree ring data was very thin
you shoulda chopped more trees instead of hugging them.
Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
Hide the decline (hide the decline)

Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate
Well you know its a crime and hope you do a lot of time
Hide the decline (hide the decline)
Hide the decline (hide the decline)

FOX News is routinely found to be a reliable source at the Reliable sources noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"An increasing number of viewers are relying on Fox News for both news and opinion," Fox News Senior VP Michael Clemente said in the statement, "and the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents."
Seems rather clear doesn't it? -Atmoz (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually you just confused me. I'm not sure what your last comment is trying to say. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
our programming refers to commentators. The fact that newspapers have editorial pages and publish columnists is the equivalent of having commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity with their own programs on Fox. Not a good argument, Atmoz. Fox News has a news department separate from the commentary programming. Your WP:WEB argument looks interesting, but the way that guideline is written makes it look like commentary is an acceptable source for notability. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC) revised[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that this article may be the victim of off-Wiki campaigning.[8] How are we supposed to handle this situation? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC
    Done. -Atmoz (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - has the video actually been deleted from YouTube, as William says here?[9] Guettarda (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What difference would that make even if it is true? The topic is still notable and this would be just another fact establishing that notability. If it is true, then this point should be mentioned in the article as well assuming reliable sources discussing that point can be found. --Rush's Algore (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, the video is still being hosted online by nocapandtrade.com. JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it was taken down by the people who uploaded it, that's a useful data point. If it is still mirrored by some unknown website, that's not terribly useful information. It is the internet, after all. But the actions of the original uploaders - that's interesting, if not conclusive. Guettarda (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted by YouTube for violating its terms of use.[10] -- ChrisO (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am convinced by those above, especially Atmoz, that the sourcing for this does not meet our notability standards as, of those sources which can be said to be reliable, this does not meet "significant treatment." There are also BLP concerns here, and I believe when such are present, and notability is marginal, deletion is the right choice. As I also mentioned in the nomination, this appears to be a brief flurry of news coverage, not translating to lasting significance.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Margin notability at best, mostly blog-sourced video which is apparently no longer available on YouTube. It makes very seriously negative accusations against a living person (claims which have been shown to be false). Combining the marginal notability, BLP problems and poor sourcing, I don't see how this topic is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. So - delete. Guettarda (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is obviously political satire similar to that of The Gore Effect which was recently closed as keep. The sources seem more that adequate to establish notability of the topic. If there is evidence that this is part of an astroturf campaign the appropriate reliable sources should be gathered and a section discussing that added to the article. This only adds to the notability of the topic, IMHO, and we would be doing our readers a disservice by not making that connection known to anyone who comes here to learn more about the video in question. I believe that the nominator of this AfD makes a good and proper argument that this article is about the video (as opposed to the subject of the video) and as such it is not an attack page. --Rush's Algore (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thank your for agreeing with me, but there has been analysis provided above that there are only a few sources that are reliable, and of those, they do not "address the subject directly in detail." You state that the sourcing seems "more than adequate" to you. Does this mean you think they address the subject directly in detail (the objective standard), or just that you feel this way? By the way, I cannot help but note that your username gives a strong impression that you are here based on ideology.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fox news ref certainly does go into detail, btw in the afd stats you appear to have voted delete twice? mark nutley (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It likely counts the act of nomination as a delete "vote," but if you read my nomination you will see I did not fall either way.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your nomination was more than fair, sorry if you think i meant otherwise that was not my intent mark nutley (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuhghettaboutit : I believe that my argument was a policy based one and not an ideological one. As regards objective vs. subjective criteria, the sources objectively make a direct mention of the video by name. It is my subjective opinion that the sources discuss the subject in sufficient detail to justify the uses to which they have been put: i.e. noting the opinions of specific individuals as regards the video in question. --Rush's Algore (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are differences between this subject (HTD) and The Gore Effect (TGE): (1) TGE did not allege wrongdoing on the part of Gore; HTD alleges serious wrongdoing by Mann; (2) Gore is very famous and TGE puts no significant dent in his reputation; Mann is notable but not famous and stands to be considerably hurt by the subject; (3) and hurt because Wikipedia takes the passing notoriety of the video and encases it in a museum-quality display case on our website, actually creating more harm (TGE, in contrast, has endured for years); (4) I know of no one credible who puts any credence in the allegations brought up by the video. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly true, however I am skeptical of the notion that this piece of political satire could have any meaningful impact on Mann himself. It is the fact that these types of political pieces are gaining substantial notoriety which makes them notable enough to have their own articles. Certainly we shouldn't create an article for every Michel Mann joke out there (and I've heard quite a few) but once they have risen to the level of gaining mention in multiple mainstream sources then I believe the notability threshold has been reached. Such is the case with both this video and TGE. --Rush's Algore (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Why are these numbers wrong?[11] It says that there are only 2 keep votes, but I count four so far (me, MN, Macai, Rush's Algore). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bots are stupid. There are missing delete !votes too. For a more detailed answer, you'll need to ask User:Betacommand. -Atmoz (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - Several comments have made note that, in order to be considered RS for content, sources must address the subject "in detail". Can someone suggest an objective standard(s?) that might be applied to making a determination that the Wikipedia "in detail" requirement has been satisfied? JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Is this an encyclopedia or a mirror of YouTube? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently some people think it's a mirror of Conservapedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are specific POV issues with the article, then you should tell us what they are, so we can fix them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a POV thing. No significant coverage. We have to draw the line somewhere and exclude total trivia. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - I do not believe that the sourcing thus far provided rises to satisfy the following WP:NTEMP guideline related to demonstrating "significant coverage"...
Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.
I would be interested in comments on the question of whether the threshold for WP:NTEMP "significant coverage" has been met. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —JonathanDP81 (Talk | contribs) 17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The more accurate content on Wikipedia the better. I have not checked the sourcing myself, but anything mentioned in so many reliable sources merits at article, assuming that an editor is willing to create it. David.Kane (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it meets the general notability guideline. I came here expecting to !vote to delete, but there is real notability here. Of course the video itself is an exercise in gleeful ignorance, but correctness or worth has never been a criteria for notability. More importantly, the reaction of its targets (Mann threatening to sue etc) was interesting and important enough to warrant significant press coverage, as the article already demonstrates. I understand why many will want this deleted, but I believe that based on policy, it deserves to live on. Thparkth (talk) 20:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:ONEEVENT and per WP:RECENTISM. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONEEVENT is not relevant here because it is a guideline specifically addressing the notability of people; this is not an article about a person. WP:RECENTISM carries little weight since it is merely an essay; nevertheless it offers no guidance as to when an article should be deleted. Thparkth (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but see WP:NTEMP / WP:EVENT from my nom, which are in the same vein, not limited to people, and not essays.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that these are the key guidelines - WP:EVENT in particular. I'd argue that it's too soon to judge whether this video will have any lasting historical significance. I suspect that it won't, and in a year's time it might be an obvious candidate for deletion on those grounds - but not yet IMHO. Thparkth (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well here's where I think the rub is. Normally we default to keep when there is no consensus, with good arguments on both sides of an issue. But when there's BLP concerns involved, we should default to deletion in such cases. Both of these sections are a bit frustrating in that they describe the issue, but give little guidance on how to apply it. You take the path of "since we don't know, and can't know now, we should wait until we know." I'm not sure how I'd feel about this in another situation, but here, with BLP involved, since we don't know, we should delete now and recreate later.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What specific BLP violations do you believe are in the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None. There are no BLP violations that I see in the article. That is why I declined the G10 and have continued to disagree with the tagger on whether it's an "attack page." I said BLP issues are involved. Here, it's that the parody is of a living person, and our hosting of the article on that parody, could affect that living person. That is a BLP issue. Of course, the position of climate deniers (or whatever they're called) is so asinine and bankrupt that I have a hard time imaging Mann not laughing this off, caring much, or it really affecting him.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being a temporary event - the video got a "cease and desist" letter, and got pulled from YouTube. It did do a short upturn in media - and then it died down (viral video stats). There are a couple of "clones"/derivatives but none have significant mentions. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cites are weak, as per Atmoz, although I wouldn't discount Fox simply on the basis it is Fox. Notability established mostly in the "Reception" section of article, which itself seems an overstatement. Half the sources mention the video in passing only, they are not appraising the video itself in the manner of a film or music critic. Otherwise, the fact it used to have 500,000 views on Youtube isn't reason enough for it having an article here. Particularly when it is no longer available and has left no notable legacy behind. The article content also has a flavour of WP:COATRACK to it. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable per substantial coverage in reliable sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sufficiently notable. Reaching number six in a weekly viral video chart and cracking 500,000 hits is a pretty low standard, considering the fact that the top viral videos get over 100 million hits. StuartH (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And especially considering that the video itself was deleted by YouTube for violating its terms of use. Literally a one-week wonder. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's still available. I was watching it just last week. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks multiple, independent, significant coverage hence fails WP:NOTE. Verbal chat 22:04, 1 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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood tax[edit]

Robin Hood tax (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)

G11, A10 Cosmic Cube (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No clear rationale for deletion given. Whilst the article may have issues these can be cleared up by editing. Certainly I dont see that an article with a section on unintended consequences, can qualify as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". I assume the duplication of an existing topic refers to Tobin Tax. Given that the article discusses the difference between the two, I don't see this being a valid reason for deletion either. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly not unambiguously promotional: in fact the article discusses possible disadvantages at some length. Previously Cosmic Cube tagged the article for speedy deletion, citing similarity to Tobin Tax as one reason, but the two, although related, are by no means the same. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My apologies for any confusion. I am unfamiliar with how this process is supposed to work. Please read my detailed comments on the Discussion page (not the project page) for the reasoning. Cosmic Cube (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but first investigate. I believe the article is advertising for a political cause, tied in with a high budget publicity campaign involving a big-budget video. I also believe the article was written by a staff member of Oxfam, which is behind the publicity campaign. For a chronology, see my talk page, which cites specific users involved, including the original author who admits to interning at Oxfam and learning to use Wikipedia to promote their causes. Also, I believe the articles Tobin tax, Currency transaction tax, and Financial transaction tax are related parts of the same campaign. Note: not all editors of these articles are necessarily part of the "cause".Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if you spend millions of £, you can create a "social phenomenon", as Oxfam has done. That does NOT make it notable. The secondary sources on the RHT article are tainted: one (McQuaig article) appeared in the Toronto online paper BEFORE the news being covered happened. That makes the source unreliable as to this item, even though the overall newspaper may remain reliable. Most of the other secondary sources use wording taken directly from the RHT website and press releases. That's hardly reliable either, just data laundering. Note that my vote is strongly DELETE (in spite of what the statistics are saying).Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (from Boyd Reimer) - Below I address the two rationale provided for this request for deletion:

1. Addressing the rationale of "G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion":

This Wikipedia policy states that "In general, notability is measured by whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic.[1]

"Robin Hood tax" (RHT) has received, and is receiving, significant amounts of that type of coverage. Therefore it is a phenomenon of society. Therefore it qualifies to be in an encyclopedia which records societal phenomenon.

If there is bias, then I suggest marking it with tags (specific to the section in which the bias occurs). But the existence of bias is no reason to delete an entire article which is receiving the necessary coverage from reliable secondary sources.

2. Addressing the rationale of "A10 - Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic":

On Feb 11, 2010, in this discussion in the Tobin Tax page, there was a suggestion that there be a new section of the Tobin tax article which would deal with the "Robin Hood tax."

As you can see in that discussion, for reasons of clarity, and for reasons of article length, I objected to an unclear eponym being introduced into the already long article of the Tobin tax.

However when Robin Hood tax (RHT) appeared as a separate article, I did not object because this satisfied my desire to keep the Tobin tax article under the maximum size required by Wikipedia policy.

My desire for clarity in the Tobin tax article was still satisfied because the RHT article was independent and outside the Tobin tax article.

As long as it was not me who was facing the task of explaining another eponym to readers, I was satisfied. (Notice how I did not do much work on the RHT article.)

In the last four and a half months RHT has received a lot of press coverage, and therefore deserves to be a encyclopedia article.

But if it is deleted as an independent article, then what frightens me now is the prospect of being obligated to somehow incorporate it into the Tobin tax article which is already too long. That "obligation" would come from the fact that it has received enough press to qualify to be in Wikipedia somewhere. But if that "somewhere" ends up being the Tobin tax article then I will strongly object on the grounds that the Tobin tax article is already too long.

I have had extensive discussion with the editors of Tobin tax on how subdivide it to reduce its size. But these discussions ended without a clear consensus (so far). See those discussions here.

That lack of consensus is even more reason for me to want to keep as much material as possible separate from the Tobin tax article. That way I don't have to face another huge discussion on how to subdivide the Tobin tax article.... (...nor a discussion on how to subdivide the Financial transactions tax article, which, incidentally may soon grow to be just as large as the Tobin tax article.)

3. Robin Hood tax as an unclear but nevertheless legitimate societal phenomenon (as a proposal)

The Robin Hood tax is, in my eyes, an unclear societal phenomenon: It relates partly to the Tobin tax, partly to a currency transaction tax, and partly to a financial transaction tax. Nevertheless it is a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia. Just because it is unclear, doesn't mean that society doesn't treat it as a phenomenon. The fact that it is a societal phenomenon means that it deserves a place in an encyclopedia which records societal phenomenon. Here are other examples of unclear phenomena which are unclear, but which deserve an entry in an encyclopedia: Quantum mechanics, religion, etc. Notice how religion relates partly to an individual quest for spirituality, partly to traditional culture, etc. Yet the topic of "religion" is not merely a subsection of the encyclopedia entries for spirituality, nor culture. Each has its own article. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Cube (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Robin Hood tax" is just a marketing name for a call for a financial transactions tax by various organizations (such as Oxfam, the group responsible for writing the original version of the Robin Hood tax article). As such, there is no need for it to have an independent article. Any material that is non-promotional fits into the scope of the Financial transactions tax article.

2. In the interim, I have thought about the issue of dividing the Tobin tax article and I think we could split it into two sections: economic and political. Cosmic Cube (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

For ease of reference I am posting my comments from the Discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Hood_tax). Please also see Oldtaxguy's user page for further material on this.

Original Comments[edit]
Thanks to Oldtaxguy for his extensive work on this. I would like to summarize his lengthy findings and add a few points:
This page attempts to use Wikipedia for the purpose of advertising, a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. It was created by 389melanie who is (or was) an intern for Oxfam. Please note that I am not violating any policies regarding outing as she is the one who willing revealed her own identity by publishing a link to her own blog on her user page (http://melaniesblog.usual.ca). In a post on her blog (Ox Tales, dated October 28, 2009), she indicates that part of her job is to “write articles and edit the Oxfam related pages” on Wikipedia. I am archiving that post here for posterity:

I’ve now been interning for Oxfam for 3 weeks (or 3 sets of 3 days if you’re being pernickety) and it’s fast becoming a lot of fun. I’m doing 3 projects for them, all of which are cool in their own way.

I’m doing the communications with some activists which Oxfam trained at a program called ‘Change’ and the evaluation for the event itself. As well as being really good training for me jobwise, doing this is amazingly encouraging. I’m in prime position to hear about all the awesome things these guys are doing and all the great societies that are campaigning for really worthwhile causes. It’s been proving to me that all the little things do matter – that signing petitions or making small changes in your lifestyle really can make a difference. Love it.

The other completely awesome thing I’m doing is learning to use Wikipedia, so that I can write articles and edit the Oxfam related pages. This pretty much feeds all the ‘things Melanie loves to do channels’ – reading, writing, researching, learning new things, being on the internet etc, so it’s been amazing fun. Now all I need to do is work out how to get paid for doing this and my life will be complete! I’m also doing some venue research for Oxfam Live, which has turned out to be more rewarding than I initially expected it to be. As with anything of this nature it’s a lot of phone calls and checking details. However, during my research I did talk to some really cool people. It made me happy to have conversations with people who were just nice, helpful, friendly and pleased that Oxfam was showing an interest in their venue. Made the whole thing feel more personal and pleasant.

I’m also starting to really enjoy getting to know all the people I’m working with. Today I had lunch with one of the members of my department who I didn’t know very well, but she saw me sitting by myself and asked me to join her and her companions. I had a really pleasant lunch and learned a bit more about her work. There are loads of other people who I chat too in passing. Actually, there’s no one I’ve met so far who I wouldn’t be very happy to chat to or have lunch with. Everyone’s talented, interesting and ethically minded. It’s a great place to work.

389melanie created the article on Wikipedia on March 18, 2010. This was followed by 9 edits on March 22, 2010 by an IP address (193.133.69.201) that belongs to Oxfam UK. Examining the original article clearly indicates that it took all of its source material verbatim from the site for the Robin Hood campaign. Seeing as how Oxfam is one of the organizations behind this campaign, this is clearly a case of a group creating a Wikipedia article for its own promotional reasons and is a violation of policy (for example, “Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so” under WP:NOTADVERTISING).
There is not much point in attempting to rewrite this article. The material will fall into one of two categories:
1. Discussion of merits: There is nothing here that has not been or cannot be covered in one of articles Tobin tax, Financial transaction tax, or Currency transaction tax.
2. Promotional material: This is a violation of Wikipedia policy and all such material should be expunged.
Since all of the category #1 material is covered in other articles, the only remaining material is from category #2, which is inappropriate for an article. Moreover, Wikipedia editors are not unpaid lackeys for Oxfam. It is not our job to rewrite their articles for them. Therefore, this article is best deleted.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep The nomination and subsequent discussion are incoherent and we have better things to do than make sense of this gibberish. In so far as there seems to be a problem, it can be addressed by normal editing and so, per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article... since we cannot delete this left wing lunacy in RL. East of Borschov 10:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. This article was created by Oxfam as a means of promotion.

Although this may come under WP:COI, I don't see this as a reason to delete the article.

:2. Check the earliest version of the article when the editors were Oxfam personnel (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Hood_tax&oldid=351390397). You can see here that the material is unambiguously promotional. The material was directly copied from the Robin Hood tax website. Even the "Arguments against the tax" material comes directly from their FAQ.

What a page looked like in the past can't be an argument to delete. If we deleted articles on what their first edit looked like, 90% of the articles on Wikipedia would disappear overnight.

:3. All the material covered here that is not promotional is covered in other articles: Tobin tax, Financial transaction tax, or Currency transaction tax. In particular, the material on unintended consequences is in Tobin tax. Moreover, the Robin Hood tax is just a marketing name for a Financial transaction tax. Therefore, the substantive material is covered elsewhere, leaving only promotional material remaining.

Whilst there may be duplication with other articles, it does seem that there is a good degree of publicity in the media of the organisation/movement. Whether or not these are recycled press releases (very common for the press these days) is probably irrelevant as a number of high profile titles have decided that this organisation is notable and of enough interest to run the story. It doesn't even particularly appear that titles running the stories are isolated to those you would expect to be sympathetic to the cause (such as the Left of Centre Guardian). The Daily Telegraph for example, is firmly in the right of centre camp (often nicknamed the Torygraph). In fact, the article contains references from all of Britain's national broadsheets, which is much better than the typical pile of populist rantings from the tabloids like The Mirror, Wail, Sun, etc.

:4. You state that these issues can be cleaned up by editing. However, I feel it is inappropriate for Oxfam to put up a promotional article on Wikipedia and then expect the editors here to serve as unpaid labor for their marketing campaign by "cleaning it up".

If the article was irredeemably marketing material, and there was no prospect of writing an article without it, then deletion would be appropriate. However, as previously noted, the article is no longer unambiguous marketing material. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep Long comment for the benefit of Cosmic Cube and OldTaxGuy, both fairly new editors who seem to have misunderstood how our guidelines apply to this sort of article, allbeit they have good motivations in wanting to protect the encylopedia. On A10 concern: while there is some overlap with other articles, this is in the same way that say our article on the Proton overlaps with Subatomic particle. There are tens of thousands of sources for RHT, many complete articles in top newspapers entirely dedicated to this tax, 81 hits for "Robin Hood Tax" in the Financial Times alone. On G11 concern: Having read scores of whole sources on this if anything our article is biased against the tax. We'd arguably being doing the campaign a favour if we deleted the article, as we have far more criticism than the vast majority of soruces, most of which are very favourable. True the article was started by someone with a connection to Oxfam, but that isnt a COI issue unless the creator tried to take ownership of the article, especially if they also also tried to hide their COI. Neither is the case, almost no trace of the creators original work remains and in fact she welcomed others to editor the article, and hasnt objected to any of the changes. If it werent for the fact that CC and OTG are new editors the suggestions of collusion and untoward editing from obviously very honest, collaborative and talented contributors such as Melanie and Boyd would be highly objectionable. If possible please can the closing admin confirm that the arguments of Pit-Yacker and Boyd are policy based and that there is no credible case for the tags added to the article? FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Now that I have read through it, the original article does just seem like inexperienced article creation – so I will take my COI tag back off. A point that no one appears to have made yet, is that deleting this up-dated article as it now stands by wiki- lawyering would increase Wikipedia:Systemic bias by which North American marketing campaigns alone appear to be immune from AfD's on WP. At least I can't remember one that's been deleted. IMHO this should never have been AfD'ed.--Aspro (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as disambiguation page only. Most of the material on Oxfam's "Robin Hood tax" should be removed as advertising, and the rest merged into financial transaction tax. However, the multiple taxes called a "Robin Hood tax" should have some uses. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no doubt whatever that the original version of the article was written with the intention of being promotional. However, we are not here to assess either the original version of the article or the motives of its authors. We are here to assess firstly the present version of the article, and secondly whether any faults it has can reasonably be rectified. The present version is somewhat promotional in tone, but nowhere near enough to justify a G11 speedy deletion, as the nomination suggests. The concept has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, so it warrants an article. If the article it warrants is not the present article then the constructive approach is to rewrite it to give a more balanced coverage, rather than to delete it. It was I that declined the speedy deletion request, and nothing I have read above gives me any reason to change my mind. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totaly agree. I'd hope most who can spare a few hours reading the sources would agree that if anything the article is unbalanced in having too much criticism. The global context for this tax is a world where G20 goverments have just agreed on ambitous medium term targets for deficit reduction, and if they cant increase tax revenues this means cutting public spending that hundreds of millions of low income families rely on. Together with the current popular mood against banks, its hardly suprising that most of the quality sources have adopted a positive tone when covering this campaign. Some of us may feel its undesireable for the wealthy to have to forfeit wealth to help the poor, but as editors our job is not to push our own POVs but to neautrally reflect whats being said in the sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would like to begin by thanking all editors for their opinions (with one exception). I will address everyone who responded in order.
  • @Colonel Warden: Your response is just rude. My contributions here are in good faith. I see no reason for you to insult me or anyone else in this discussion. If you can't abide by Wikipedia's standards of civility, then don't participate in the discussion. See WP:CIVIL for further reading.
  • @East of Borschov: I am not entirely sure what this comment means. If you are referring to the fact that this issue is a social phenomenon of some note, then this has some merit. I will say more about that below.
  • @Pit-yacker: Let me clear up a misunderstanding. My purpose in showing what the article looked like originally was only to demonstrate that this piece was unambiguously created as promotional material by Oxfam. I don’t think that is in dispute now by anyone here.
What this means is that the present version of the article should not exist at all. It should not have been allowed to come this far and should have been deleted immediately upon creation. I feel it is an abuse of Wikipedia to allow any group (Oxfam or otherwise) to create a promotional article and then expect the rest of us to work as unpaid labor on their article by bringing it up to encyclopedic standards, particularly when the substantive material is already covered by other articles. That merely relegates us to the role of doing their promotional work for them.
Of course, this is only clear in hindsight since all of this only came to light recently due to Oldtaxguy's efforts. However, that shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing now and acting to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. An example should be set to demonstrate to any group on any side of any issue that Wikipedia should not be considered as part of their marketing campaigns.
  • @FeydHuxtable: Your analogy does not apply here. The proton is a special kind of subatomic particle so it deserves to have its own article. The same is true for the photon, muon, electron, etc. What should not be present, however, is a second article about general subatomic particles.
Let's consider a facetious thought experiment. Imagine I run a group aimed at promoting physics education in high schools. I start a new campaign called "Really Small Things" with the aim of establishing programs to teach subatomic physics to high school students. I then create a Wikipedia article called “Really Small Things” where I proceed to discuss exactly the same material covered in the article on subatomic particles.
That is what is happening here. The Robin Hood tax is just a marketing synonym for a financial transaction tax. Oxfam should not be allowed to create a separate article for that and, in fact, is not allowed to according to Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTADVERTISING: "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.").
Now, it may so happen that there is sufficient press coverage to warrant some mention somewhere on Wikipedia. However, the proper place for this is in a subsection of the financial transactions tax article. The analogous situation in my silly thought experiment would be making note of my Really Small Things campaign in a subsection of an article on groups involved in science education.
One last point of clarification that requires mention: I never suggested that Boyd Reimer was in collusion with 389melanie. It is inappropriate for you to claim that I did so. What I did was to highlight (on Oldtaxguy's user page a message that you placed on 389melanie's page demonstrating your political support for her efforts. That is a form of activism on Wikipedia and support for Oxfam. I don't think there is anything objectionable about pointing out your published statements:

Hi, just wanted to apologise in case youre still watching the Robin Hood Tax article you created and feel Ive gone overboard in compromising with the objectors. Your original article was very well written and informative, but it didnt meet all our guidelines, mainly as it was sourced largely to the robin hood site itself rather than secondary sources like independent news papers. The campaign has lost much of its high level support for now, and it looks like opinion among decision makers has generally swung in a deflationary direction. But this cannot possibly last for more than 3 – 4 years considering the massive levels of public debt and the increasing ineffectiveness of anti progressive propaganda. When events swing back in a pleasing direction they'll move with some force. Keep the faith! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  • @Aspro: The article may have been written by an inexperienced editor but the fact remains that she did this as part of her duties for Oxfam. That is definitely a form of conflict of interest.
This non sequitur has already been addressed -why parrot on mindlessly? Why do you think mere repetition adds weight.--Aspro (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JamesBWatson: The speedy deletion comment is not relevant any longer. As I stated on your talk page, I believe that I might have used the incorrect process for deletion. I am not familiar with how it is supposed to work so I simply went with the instructions that were easiest to understand which just happened to be the speedy deletion process (since it only involves inserting a single tag, versus the various hoops required for the process here).

Thanks again to those editors who offered constructive responses. Cosmic Cube (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CosmicCube, as per quality sources in the article, RHT has been supported by around 350 economists including several from the first rank like Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffery Sachs. Leading politicians supporting the tax include Angela Merkel , Nicolas Sarkozy and Katsuya Okada, Japan's foreign minister. From the financial sector, support has been forthcoming by prominent figures including George Soros, Warren Buffett and Lord Turner. There are many more equally impressive A listers that could be mentioned.
By analogy to your "Really Small Things" campaign , if RST had received backing from top physicists, eductors and Industrialists from sectors which apply sub atomic physics then yes wed likely have an article on it. Beacause like RHT the campaign would have massive coverage in quality sources.
The RHT tax is very much a special type of transaction tax. Many other types of transaction tax, both theorectical and those that have actually been implemented have been designed to reduce volatility or throughput of transactions and not primarily to raise revenue like RHT. Another difference is most of the other taxes have been decided on behind close doors and not campaigned for by a vast coalition of civil society actors. A 3rd is most transaction taxes have never been intended for global application.
I didnt say you specifically accused Boyd and Melanie of colluding, sorry if it came across like that. I didnt even think the specific allegation of collusion against myself needed refuting. My post on Melanies page was just in case shed feel discouraged by the criticism of her original work, which I had partly agreed with. As a wiki otter I dont like to see new editors being discouraged, and for a similar reason I posted my advice on oldtaxGuys page in a respectful and hopefully encouraging tone. My personal opinion about this tax is that a lot of the criticism is valid. Im the editor who has added most of the strongest sources against the tax! So while I support taxing the wealthy in general its not really correct to say I support this particular tax, though I am interested in it and want us to have a good, reliable and encyclopedic article.
While this has been a high quality debate, it would be good to see some sources to support the anti RHT position. If for example the campaign has somehow coerced almost every single British quality newspaper to write an advertisement in the guise of regular journalism, surely some investigative journalist will have picked up on it? FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aspro: An intern for an advocacy group starts up a promotional article as part of her duties. That is a pretty clear case of conflict of interest. I don't know what else I can say to make that clearer.
Furthermore, why do you feel the need to label my efforts mindless? I began by writing up some comments with my concerns (under Original Comments above). I then took the time to write summary versions of these comments to place on the talk pages of some of the original responders, one of whom posted that summary here. I then proceeded to reply to the comments of each person who gave me feedback. In short, I have treated everyone here with respect. I would expect the same courtesy from you.
If you have nothing further to contribute to this discussion other than insults, then please refrain from any further participation. See WP:CIVIL [in particular, Section d of Direct Rudeness: belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")]. The same applies to Colonel Warden.
OK I'll rephrase it. It should only take a little thoughtfulness to remember that it is an error of reasoning to judge the virtue of something by its source (which I think belongs to the class of General Fallacies). As has been repeated here and in past years -many useful/informative/etc articles were started off by knowledgeable insiders . In this case, there now appears nothing to lead me to believe that there was any attempt to mislead. So, now that we know, there is no longer any need for the COI tag. Also, now that we know, interested editors can bring the article towards WP standards. WP articles are always considered to be “work in progress” even when locked, so it would also be wrong to judge it as it is now.
As for the efforts to use rhetorical shifting to class it as blatant adversing.
We have an article on Hamburgers and an article on McDonaldland; an article on sweet corn and one two on that big green fellow Jolly Green Giant; Green Giant.I'm sure people will be able to think of other examples. Nothing here so far appears to gives any well reasoned argument as to why we should have one article on the financial transaction tax but no article about one of the social phenomenons to arise from it. Rather it is just the same old rhetoric repeated over and over in different ways. (If anyone wants to look for articles that are really worth taking to AfD one needs to look no further than the north American eating places. E.g., Roscoe Diner, Tom's Restaurant and so on and so on).--Aspro (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FeydHuxtable: Thanks for your comment regarding the collusion. I accept your statement as an apology. Sorry if I was a bit prickly. I don’t like being accused of things I haven’t done.
I appreciate your feedback and will follow up on your other comments shortly. Cosmic Cube (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whoever started the article, and for what reason, really doesn't matter now. This topic is clearly notable on its own merits, is deserving of an article, has masses of coverage from reliable sources. The COI issues have been addressed by simple editing, which is how they should be fixed - COI isn't a reason for deletion on its own, it merely warns us that a)the subject might not be notable and b)to be alert to any bias in the article. Neither of these apply in this case. Definite keep for me. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FeydHuxtable: This is not a question of support vs. opposition for a Robin Hood Tax. It is a question of whether or not Wikipedia should be allowed to be used as part of a marketing campaign (the original article had links to the campaign website, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and Youtube!). I believe strongly that Wikipedia should be a neutral place for the compilation of human knowledge and I don’t like to see it used in the fashion that Oxfam has done.
There is nothing new about calls for a Robin Hood tax besides the marketing name and glossy campaigning. There have been proposals going back over 10 years for such taxes (such as by ATTAC, for example). Actually, even the name isn’t new as it dates back to a report prepared by War on Want in 2001. What might be new now is the level of press coverage. However, the sources of support that you cite are actually already covered in the Tobin tax article.
As for implementation, there has been a mixture of motivations. Some governments have implemented it for the purpose of generating revenue; others for the purpose of managing the volatility of their currency. What could be seen as different about a Robin Hood type tax is the explicit requirement that revenues obtained be used to fund various social justice projects (as opposed to being used as a form of general revenue). To my knowledge, no government has explicitly implemented a transaction tax for this purpose. However, as I mentioned above, calls for this aren’t new. Moreover, there is nothing stopping any government with such a tax already in place from using the revenue for funding social causes (or from implementing any sort of tax, financial transaction or otherwise, explicitly for the purpose of funding social causes).
I thus believe the best approach here, particularly when it comes to maintaining Wikipedia integrity, is to fold the material from this article into the financial transaction tax article. However, having said all this, if everyone is hell-bent on keeping this article, then I can offer a compromise proposal:

If a Robin Hood tax (i.e. a FTT explicitly meant to fund social programs) is to be considered as a proper subset of financial transaction taxes, then this article must be rewritten at a greater level of generality and cannot focus on the efforts of any one particular campaign or group. That means getting rid of any remaining promotional material. It also means including material on previous such campaigns (by ATTAC and others), replacing references to “the campaign” with “a campaign”, etc. This will put the article on the same status level as other special kinds of financial transaction taxes such as the Tobin tax (anti-speculation/volatility reduction tax) and Spahn tax (protection against currency attack).

This is not my preferred approach as I don’t like being forced to clean up Oxfam’s mess and it sets a bad example for Wikipedia. In particular, there is nothing to stop any other group from creating an article for whatever political reason, knowing that as long as they can keep the article alive long enough, the Wikipedia community will step in as unpaid labor for them and clean up their articles. However, if everyone else is determined to keep the article, I think this is a compromise that addresses the concerns expressed by the others.
  • @Aspro: A simple apology would have sufficed. Rewording "mindless" as "a little thoughtfulness" is just rhetorically shifting outright insults into sarcasm. I don't want to drag this out any longer with you so I am dropping the matter. I will conclude simply by pointing out that it doesn't hurt to apologize when you have caused someone else offense and even to err on the side of caution if in doubt, particularly in a medium such as this where all the usual cues of social interaction, such as tone and body language, are missing.
At any rate, I don't know why most other editors don't seem to be bothered by issues of Wikipedia integrity. Whatever the reason, I have suggested a compromise above in the response to FeydHuxtable which should meet the objections raised. Cosmic Cube (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The solution you propose is one that can be introduced by simple editing. As to the idea of other groups being able to start a campaign om wikipedia, this would only bear fruit if that topic had a notability. The Robin Hood Tax has clearly generated enough coverage on its ow merit to warrant an article. Its notable, it should stay, regardless of other concerns that can be fixed by anyone very easily. Repetition of your side of the debate ad infinitum doesn't make it more correct. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylanfromthenorth: I felt it was polite to write individual comments to anyone who responded directly to me. I apologize if it came across as needless repetition. Cosmic Cube (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The lengthy discussion aside, it's not G11 and it's also not A10. It meets WP:N, and while the article could use a bit of further polishing, it's not so irredeemably bad that only deletion will solve the issue. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:16, 1 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 speedily deleted (G3, hoax) by Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Island nationalism[edit]

North Island nationalism (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 doesn't appear to be any such thing as North Island nationalism. The article is about South Island nationalism, and Maori nationalism (which is based by iwi, not island), and the only mention which may be relevant is the Christian version, which is completely unknown in New Zealand and sourced only to their own website. gadfium 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears non-notable. Content appears tangential to title. Probably self-promotional by minority interest group. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 21:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A synthesis as an attempt to gain credence or notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only relevant source is from a free web hosting service. Google searches for the name of this purported group lead only to Wikipedia and said free web hosting service. So-called movement appears to be satirical, not real. Daveosaurus (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The site looked like a real organisation to me but I did have niggling doubts. It could also be a hoax. If it is a hoax or satire it would be eligible for speedy deletion. Unfortunately the burden of proof is left with the regular editors rather than those who "edit and run". Too make WP more authoritative the burden of proof should lie with the original editor. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:40, 27 June 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. JForget 01:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azzam Al Dakhil[edit]

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

Seems to be a not particularly notable businessman. Bazonka (talk) 20:06, 26 June 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. JForget 01:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshukai International[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yoshukai International (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 non-notable martial art. It is an offshoot of an art that was removed for not being notable. The article has no independent sources and I can't find any independent sources that show notability. Subject fails WP:MANOTE. The previous AfD was a declared "no consensus" with only 1 keep vote. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 26 June 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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dump.fm[edit]

Dump.fm (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 website. References to blog posts and web directory listings do not establish notability per WP:WEB. The metronews reference might be non-trivial third party coverage, but a Google search did not turn up similar material. VQuakr (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a little more information? I am not sure I understand your reason. VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda like ping.fm is notable. T3h 1337 b0y 20:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because similar stuff exists doesn't mean a product is notable. Notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources. —mono 20:22, 26 June 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. It appears to me that, aside from awards for distinguished service, no strong rationale was provided to counter the consensus of the previous AfDs or the original PROD nomination, therefore my decision is to delete both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

54th Military Police Company (United States)[edit]

54th Military Police Company (United States) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
63rd Chemical Company (United States) (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)

Contested PROD. Original PROD nomination was, "In accodance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States), which established that non-combat separate companies are not notable, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/609th Air Communications Squadron, which established that non-combat air force ground support squadrons are not notable, these type of units, are not individually notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)". SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating 63rd Chemical Company (United States) on same basis. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original nominator of the proposed deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: lack of notability, especially per set precedence on unit sizes. Lack of references for both lead me to second the original prods. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both: as per the precedent cited and the fact that although some passing mentions were found for these units when I looked for sources I couldn't find significant coverage. I have no dramas with these units being discussed on their parent unit pages, though, but feel that if this is to be done it needs to be more than just a list of dates of activation/de-activation, some description of service in prose form would be the best way to deal with it IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both of these units qualify as notable because they are distinct and unique units in the military. Unlike other units which have unnofficial nicknames or just have number designations, these units have received Special designations, which require a certain caliber of historical importance, as a name, before they will be recognized. Would unit pages such as [12] add enough additional material to be sufficient to reach notability? Sadads (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I figure that having an officially-sanctioned nickname does not equate to notability. If they actually have historical significance, the articles don't establish it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for both units. Looking at their articles, both received campaign credits for WWII. Additionally, the second article has received additional campaign credits for Southwest Asia and the War on Terrorism. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would justify the inclusion of every company sized unit in the history of humanity which saw war service. They are not all notable!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply inre notability as the nomination concerned non-combat units. Units are not awarded campaign ribbons because they stayed CONUS. Furthermore, non-combat support forces can and do operate on the front line. Military police during war can perform peacekeeping operations during all phases of armed conflict to include pre- and post-war. Chemical units during the Gulf War were highly desired because of chemical Scud missiles. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:28, 4 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. The sources found by altering the search terms swung this in the direction of a keep, though only just. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Country Turtle Records[edit]

Country Turtle Records (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 record label has no significant coverage I can find, and when I tried to speedy it, it was declined on the basis that it was founded by a notable person, however this argument isn't valid in that notability isn't inherited. So therefore I am bringing this up before a community discussion on this label. I only came up with 9 Ghits after weeding out all the Wikipedia hits.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 18:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP - agree no mater what the company does or who starts it, it needs significant coverage of it own and this does not exist in this case. Codf1977 (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (what else ;-) Reasons (as I stated in the discussion page to that article): ... and I always thought Wikipedia being an encyclopedia where information is provided even for things not available elsewhere on the internet and thus helping people who search for information about little known facts - but that may have been my false belief (counting "GHits" instead of arguing seems to be the thing to do ;-) ----- My motivation for building a "Country Turtle Records" article (stub) has been simply because the sister record label "Mamlish Records" dealing with Don Kent's blues output should be supplemented by its sister label founded to release country music ... Both existing articles (Don Kent, Mamlish Records - which I built in 2006) have never since been doubted for their notability !!! (I apologize for my English - this is not my mother tongue) ------- Meanwhile I have added a Country Turtle Records discography to my American Music site [13] - so in case those wise here folk decide against Wikipedia "notability", people wondering about information about CTR may find what they're searching for via google ... Just wait until the google robots did their job ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)*Comment Wikipedia isn't about keeping "little known facts". I recommend that you read WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS to understand why this music label is not notable enough for inclusion into Wikipedia. In the case of the link you mentioned on your site, unfortunately that cannot be used as it is not considered a reliable source. The Don Kent and Mamlish Records articles have been tagged with the appropriate issues as they do not appear to have established notability either.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 20:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have lookd at thoes links but cant find any coverage of Country Turtle Records so I do not see how they help - please read WP:INHERITED. Codf1977 (talk) 13:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just search the resp. files for "country turtle" and you'll find what's individually written there about that label; The first reference quotes Pat Conte's liner notes to CT-6000, the second lists all tracks of CT-6001 and the third lists both CT-6000 and CT-6002 as part of The Dixon Brother's discography --- not too difficult a task, ain't it ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how what you listed above qualifies as reliable sources containing significant coverage. I don't consider disographies to be "significant coverage". Perhaps you could enlighten me? Because I just don't see it.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pleased to "enlighten" you with some facts you obviously never heard of: 1. Country Turtle was the first label reissuing the Dixon Brothers (notability not to be doubted - please read their article) pre-war recordings on vinyl, 2. Record labels of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s naturally cannot bring forth "GHits" the way labels of the computer age do; and, btw: Meanwhile I added references with "reliable sources containing significant coverage" to the Don Kent and Mamlish Records articles, so claiming those as non notable is yesterday's newspaper ;-) --- Sorry if I may have failed to reference this correctly, but I'm not a Wikipedia expert (and never will, even if you permanently advise me to read this and that of those here guidelines - I do this and up to now have always found them to be interpretable in one or another way - they just don't have anything about "Country Turtle Records" ;-), but one of American Music ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue her is one of "is Country Turtle Records notable ?" and to decide that WP has long standing poilices, guidelines and conventions. In the case of companies (see WP:CORP) which says "[a company] is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. ". None of the links you have provided show that level of coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 10:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Codf1977, so you meanwhile found 'em (in your previous message: "cant find any coverage of Country Turtle Records"), but can't accept 'em - that's quite another story ;-) Let's see what this here "discussion" brings forth from other participants than the usual crowd ... StefanWirz (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please do not confuse "mentions" with "coverage". Codf1977 (talk) 11:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you search for "Country Turtle" LP -wikipedia (not "Country Turtle Records") you'll find 10 Google Books hits and over 50 general Google hits (ignoring blogs and articles about turtles!). I believe there is sufficient coverage of this record label in secondary sources to establish notability. For example here, here and here. —Bruce1eetalk 12:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I checked the links you posted and all of them only mention the name, nothing else. This is not significant coverage, just trivial mentions. Yoenit (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as per Bruce1ee. The Dixon Brothers' material is fascinating and notable. The history of country music and blues is a history of small record labels. Mick gold (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as the article is accurate, it appears that this label has published some interesting artists, so the article may provide some information that is not easily found on the web. This information may be useful to a future researcher. DougHill (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no way to verify whether it is accurate as it has no reliable sources and "being useful" is a typical Argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Yoenit (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is the problem with the sources (especially the books) cited on the page? DougHill (talk) 17:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is nothing wrong with the books, but they don't cover any of the information given in the lead. How do I know they were set up by Don Kent? or that it was the first label to release the Dixon Brothers' prewar material on vinyl? You need sources for that. Yoenit (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This simply fails wikipedia notability and verifiability criteria. Yoenit (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I advocate that this article be kept as it is about a notable historical resource -- iff those statements can be verified. DS (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain why you see Country Turtle as a "notable historical resource"? Yoenit (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is preserving early recorded music which was originally recorded in a much more perishable format. DS (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please take into account that I meanwhile added to the article two (hopefully reliable ;-) secondary sources as references: 1. allmusic.com [17], which has a review of the first CT album of The Dixon Brothers ; 2. A review in the John Edwards Memorial Foundation Quarterly of the second CT album "Gambler's Lament" [18]; you may also have a look at the "Discographical data" included in The Dixon Brothers' article to verify the fact, that CT was the first label to re-release their prewar recordings (referenced by Patrick Huber: Linthead stomp: the creation of country music in the Piedmont South) [19] StefanWirz (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not gonna dispute the reliability of these sources, but if they even mention Country turtle records themselfs it is a trivial mention. For example, the Linthead stomp book says: "Albums and CD reissues of the Dixons brothers music include Beyond black smoke (Country turtle 6000);Rambling and Gambling(Country turtle 6002),[further summation of other albums]."
I am not familiar with classification systems for music, but (Country turtle 6000) & (Country turtle 6002) seem to be the classification names of the two albums, not a mention of Country Turtle Records itself.
If we look at the Allmusic, very nice the album is reviewed there, but Country turtle is not mentioned in the review, so I don't see why it is relevant. Keep in mind notability is not inherited. The same goes for the JEMF review, it may have some effect on the notability of the album, but unless Country Turtle itself is also discussed it is irrelevant for this AFD.
With regards to "Linthead stomp" being a source for CT being the first label re-release their prewar recordings, I find this borderline original research. Linthead does not say explicitely say they were the first to do so, just that they did. It also doesn't say it was prewar material. The statement " Country turtle released two albums from the Dixon brothers" seems to be all you can get from that source. Yoenit (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still I have an ambivalent feeling thinking about what nice discographies I'd be able to create if'n I wasted (?) my time in this here nitpickin' process - but I admit it's also challenging - so let's go on: What about that JEMF Quarterly review I added as reference ? You forgot (?) to comment on that ... StefanWirz (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added it later, but here it is again: "The same goes for the JEMF review, it may have some effect on the notability of the album, but unless Country Turtle itself is also discussed it is irrelevant for this AFD." Yoenit (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just found out that user:StefanWirz posted notifications on the talkpages of 9 editors about this AFD, 3 of which voted keep in result. The messages themselves were neutral, but as AFD's are frequently archived with less than 4 four votes this smells like votestacking to me. Yoenit (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You surely have noticed, that I not only asked in a "neutral" way, but even encouraged those I asked to contradict ("could you please be so kind as to have a look at this and tell me if I'm completely wrong in my opinion about that label's notability !?!"), since my motivation is to find out if my views (as a relative non-insider of all those Wikipedia rules) are perhaps completely wrong --- and one of those I asked just did that: Contradict[[20]] my opinion !!! StefanWirz (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added {{notavote}} to the top; I agree it has the fragrance of canvasing to me; posting anything (other than a WP AfD template) which has a link to a AfD and ask someone to look at it is IMO. Codf1977 (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I didn't know that there is such a thing as an "WP AfD template" and I fear I don't have the time to ever learn about all those Wikipedia specifica. StefanWirz (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I already state I did not have a problem with the tone of the message, but it does nothing that you contacted 8 people (friends?) who did not seem in any way involved with the article in question. (a case could be made for contacting Bruce1ee, as he created the related Dorsey Dixon article). Yes one of them disagreed with you and another posted on your talkpage [21], but they wisely stayed away from the discussion here. Doughill and Mick Gold on the other hand showed up here and voted keep based on "its interesting" and "may be useful" Yoenit (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
StefanWirz and I have communicated in the past on Talk pages of Wikipedia on questions relating to discographies of country and blues records. I contributed my vote because I believe that the Dixon Brothers are significant figures in the history of country music. Anyone seeking to understand the discographical history of the Dixon Brothers would benefit from the presence of Country Turtle article in Wikipedia. You may find this argument unconvincing, but I would ask you not to breach WP:AGF. Mick gold (talk) 08:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is here that notability is not inherited. If they are so important to the understanding of the Dixon brothers, feel free to include a bit about them in the Dixon brothers article. Yoenit (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I selected those I sent my question for advice to those people who - on my talk page [22] - have expressed their appreciation of my activities here at Wikipedia and elsewhere and thus gave me a sign that they care about the same issues I occupy myself with --- if you like to call those "friends" you may do so (even though I have nothing else to do with them - but in times of Facebook the term "friends" obviously doesn't mean much anymore ;-) Since I know very few Wikipedia users whose primary field of activity is "AFD", "notability", etc., those were not on my list --- But you surely will not hold against me that I posted my question about discographies as "reliable sources" at [23], or would you ? I'm striving for (new) wisdom, not to impose the little I got on others ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Meanwhile I have added one or two references to the article, and - since I don't know if I referenced the statement "CT was the first label to release The Dixon Brothers' prewar recordings" in a proper way - the following explanations for those "not familiar with classification systems for music": 1. All prewar Dixon Brothers tracks are listed in [24]; 2. The track lists of CT-6000 and CT-6002 are given at [25]; 3. By comparing all the tracks listed in the first source with the CT track lists of the second source you may easily find out, that CT re-released some of the prewar (not postwar) recordings; 4. The information about all the vinyl and CD re-releases of the Dixon Brothers' prewar material can be found at [26]; 5. Knowing the release dates of all the re-releases (CT 6001 in 1973, all others later) it becomes clear that Country Turtle was the first label to re-release The Dixon Brothers' prewar recordings - n'est-ce pas? This may sound like "original research" --- For me it's just putting three and three together ! StefanWirz (talk) 13:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem simple to you, but it is an obvious case of synthesis of published material that advances a position, which indeed a form of original research. Also, in this case source number 2 (your own website) is not a reliable source. Yoenit (talk) 14:54, 3 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. JForget 01:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aquaglider[edit]

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

Contested prod -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prod rationale was "No references, no indication of notability; could be just another random invention that never went anywhere". Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I could not find reliable sources to indicate notability. —mono 17:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Concur that there seems to be no evidence of notability; only reliable source so far is to a 3 line mention in a long description of 2009 summer toys. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 29 June 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masonic Temple[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Masonic Temple (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 closed the previous AFD as delete based on strong assertions by the original author and other editors that the sources provided were tangential and did not discuss the subject of masonic temples in detail. Following discussion on my talk page, I have decided to relist this as it is not entirely clear that this assessment of the sources is correct. As this is essentially a procedural relisting I am offering no opinion on whether this article should stand. Spartaz Humbug! 16:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close - The relisting of this AfD is entirely inappropriate. Spartaz attempted to cast a supervote on the original AfD, and when called out on it, decided to relist the AfD despite having already been notified tha a deletion review had already been started. The fate of this article and the quality of the sources presented have already been discussed at great length in the original AfD which closed a day or two ago. I have requested a speedy close of this AfD on WP:ANI. SnottyWong confer 16:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC) (DRV was closed as moot.)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per the lengthy discussions and crystal clear consensus achieved 2 days ago in the previous AfD. SnottyWong spout 23:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close due to pending deletion review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close already at DRV. Verbal chat 17:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close Per the three guys above me mark nutley (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold this AfD: How to proceed is being discussed at WP:ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (2nd nomination). Fences&Windows 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of the brouhaha about process, the term shows up plenty of times e.g. in Google News. I see no justification for deleting the entire article, but nor would I have an objection to intelligently merging the content into a discussion of Masonic buildings by whatever term. Jclemens (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Merge and/or Rename to/with List of Masonic Temples. That's pretty much what the article is already, and there doesn't seem to be enough independent information on the subject to justify anything more. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete those sources identified in the previous AfD are pretty superficial and require some original research to make assumptions of the meaning. There is a significant difficulty given the absence of a clear definition, there are a number of potential meanings but no agreement as to which applies. ALR (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge with List of Masonic buildings. Heiro 21:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the comment was made, and per consensus as i understand it, I deleted the list of masonic buildings from the Masonic Temple page, deferring to more complete, older list at List of Masonic buildings. --doncram (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per the previous result, which the closing admin blatantly ignored - it wasn't even close to a consensus to delete, and it really shouldn't need another 7 days of repeating the same arguments all over again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The previous vote seemed to run about 3-1 in favor of keeping, with many multiple sources sited (although their relatedness to the topic was disputed by some). The decision to delete was clearly inappropriate.Minnowtaur (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the previous AFD's discussion. I first voted "Delete" there, but mainly objected to the article holding a list of buildings duplicative to the List of Masonic buildings article. I revised my view to close with keep, with the removal of that list. The list has been removed by consensus i believe, so i don't object to keeping this. And it seems fair given the presentation of sources about Masonic Temples. --doncram (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources are sufficient, and the subject is notable given the thousands of Masonic Temples world wide. PeRshGo (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ignoring the previous AFD and any silliness regarding it, the topic appears to be clearly worthwhile of an article. If the content of the article, or the history of its presense at Wikipedia, has created problems, neither is a valid reason for deletion. Content can be fixed via normal editing. The topic is valid, so there should be an article at Wikipedia regarding it. --Jayron32 02:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Masonic buildings. There's no sources to indicate that this type of architecture is unique or noteworthy. AniMate 03:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other than the fact there are books on the topic? Isn't that the very definition of notable on Wikipedia? Hobit (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I am troubled by the relisting without reopening the discussion, I'm also troubled that anyone would think this topic isn't notable. Yes, the article as it stands has only one source, but others have been provided in the discussion, including at least one book solely on the topic [27], a book on one of these [28], and a short book that appears to be a poem solely about masonic temples from the 1800s [29]. Hobit (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep There is clearly no consensus to delete this. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing and, per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable subject, reasonable start of an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This could be developed into a very lengthy article, and quite a few masonic temples are architecturally notable. NYCRuss ☎ 00:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per doncram.--Milowent (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't fathom a reason to delete this. --B (talk) 00:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am the original creator of this article and was the nominator of the original AfD. This is another case of a topic that everyone assumes must be notable, but in reality isn't. It does not pass our criteria for notability. Individual Masonic temples are notable (and we should have articles on those individual buildings) but the topic' of "Masonic Temples" isn't notable according to our rules. The key issue here is lack of sources. I have looked long and hard for sources and their are none that discuss the topic. There are sources that discuss specific Masonic Temples (such as the one in Detroit), but there are no sources that discuss the topic of "Masonic Temples" in general or in any great depth. There are a few sources that focus on the symbology of Freemasonry, and mention the term "Masonic Temples" (even using the term in their titles) because that is where such symbology is found... but again, the focus of these books is Masonic symbology, not the temples themselves. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary issue is that this article is overly duplicative of List of Masonic buildings, and Masonic Temple (disambiguation) and Category:Masonic buildings. At the previous AfD (and at a related one for List of Masonic buildings, it was clear that there was general agreement that there is no need for multiple articles that consist of essentially the exact same list of buildings, and that a merger might be an acceptable alternative. The problem is that we can not reach consensus as to which of these duplicative lists should be the target of the merger... which list should remain, and which should be cut. Everyone seems more interested in "protecting" the version that they have worked on, rather than resolving the issue of over-duplication. Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you were the original author is irrelevant, you don't own the article. Nominating articles for deletion because the merging discussions have hit a roadblock is equally disruptive to the "protective" behavior of other users that you describe. There is no doubt that there is far too much redundant information in the articles you mentioned, but nominating them all for deletion is not the solution. Hopefully after all of this nonsense blows over, the editors who were originally discussing the redundancy in these articles can resume those discussions and come to an amicable agreement. I, for one, am sick of arguing about these articles and frankly don't care enough about them to continue arguing. Good luck. SnottyWong chatter 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disbelieve my eyes to see that Blueboar is yet again asserting overlap between dabs, categories, and list-articles is justification to remove one. Policy, guidelines, consensus, such as embodied at wp:CLN, has many times been explained to Blueboar. I therefore also tend to wonder about Blueboar's dismissal of the relevance of sources he has consulted on the topic of Masonic temples. I imagine i would read them quite differently.
Further about the sources, Blueboar is not in a position to know what the sources on individual Masonic buildings say about the general topic of Masonic Temples, because he does not have access to them (see ongoing discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings). I expect the NRHP application documents and other sources that will be used eventually to develop the individual articles will often be good, relevant sources on the general topic, and/or point to other good sources. Architectural historians will tend to write about how a given building is unusual or typical for its type, and they have to describe the type to make such comparisons. Most articles about notable Masonic buildings have not yet been developed. There is literally tons of info out there about this topic. --doncram (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of the record - "Blueboar is not in a position to know what the sources on individual Masonic buildings say about the general topic of Masonic Temples, because he does not have access to them"... That is a blatant distortion of the truth... if you read the previous AfD and the discussions at these various pages you will see that I am the only editor who actually does have access to these books (the conversation Doncram refers to is about one specific website, which I do not have access to) and I am the only editor who has actually bothered to go to a library and look at what these sources say. Everyone else is assuming that these are reliable sources based on running key word searches on google, or the fact that some of these sources have the words "Masonic Temple" in their title. I agree that these assumptions are logical... but, to put it bluntly, the assumptions are wrong. The reality is that the sources do not support what is stated in the article, and they do not support the idea that the topic of "Masonic Temples" is a notable topic.
As for the NRHP, the fact that the NRHP lists a few dozen Masonic Temples (out of the thousands that exist in the US alone) does not support the idea that general topic of "Masonic Temples" is a notable ... it merely supports the idea that the specific individual buildings (that happen to be Masonic Temples) are notable... Indeed many of the buildings listed under the name "Masonic Temple" in the NRHP are notable for something other than their connection to Freemasonry. A good example is the Masonic Temple (Kent, Ohio)... before being purchased by the Masons, this building was the private home of the Kent family, who founded the town of Kent, Ohio. The building is historical for that reason and is notable because it is a good example of Victorian era Italianate architecture. That is why it is on the NRHP, not the fact that it currently happens to belong to a Masonic Lodge. It's listing on the NRHP does not support the notability of "Masonic Lodges" in general... as a topic. Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Professor Moore's book on the subject seems quite adequate for our purpose. This is not some Dan Brown potboiler but an award-winning work from a reputable historian. Your objection to it seems to be that it focusses upon the interiors of Masonic buildings rather than their exteriors. This seems a feeble objection as it may well be that the external configuration of a building is not an essential feature. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand my comments... isn't a queston of internal vs external configuration. The issue is whether the source discusses the topic of the article... ie the buildings we are calling "Masonic Temples". I know Will Moore and his book well (I even assisted him in some of his early research, back when he was currator of the Livingston Library in NYC). The focus of the book is on Masonic symbology... as it appears in the decoration of (some) lodge meeting rooms and in Masonic regalia and jewelry. Yes, it is a very reliable source on such things... The problem is that the Masonic Temple article is not about the symbology that is contained in (some) lodge rooms and jewels (the article does not mention Masonic symbology at all)... the Masonic Temple article is about the buildings themselves (hense the focus on buildings that are in the National Regestry of Historical Places). Sources need to be reliable within the context of the article's topic. Moore's book would be very reliable in the context of an article on Masonic symbology, decoration and regalia... but that isn't the topic of the article in question.
Also, I think people may be confused as to what a "Masonic Temple" actually is. There is no "essential feature" to a Masonic Temple. The term simply means "a building where masons meet". The only thing that all "Masonic Temples" have in common is that somewhere in the building there will be a room with chairs placed along the walls, open space in the middle, and a small table or altar in the center (on which is placed a set of compasses, a square, and a Volume of Sacred Law). That's it. Everything else is superfuluous. Thus, you can turn the local community center into a "Masonic Temple", or you can turn the back room of a local restaraunt into a "Masonic Temple", or you can even turn your house or apartment into a "Masonic Temple"... simply by moving the furnature around. Indeed, In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries this is how all lodges met... and there are lodges that still meet this way today. They rent a private space and set up a lodge room. Not every lodge owns its own purpose built "Temple" (yet, where ever a lodge meets, they do so in a "Temple"). Yes, over the centuries most lodges either purchased or built their own buildings in which to meet (easier, because don't have to keep moving the furnature around every time the lodge gathers, you can leave the room set up between meetings)... But whether they meet in a purpose built building or a rented/borrowed space, no two "Masonic Temples" are ever the same in either decoration or configuration. Those lodges that can afford to build own buildings often decorate their meeting room walls with symbolic emblems, murals of allegorical figures, paintings or photographs of their founders, etc. ... or not. What gets put on the walls is unique to each lodge... indeed some leave their walls bare of all decoration so they can rent the room to other organizations on "off nights". The point is, there is nothing that is common between one "Masonic Temple" and another... except for the fact that there is a meeting room. Thus, while we can note facts about one "Masonic Temple" ("XYZ Temple is a prime example of art deco archicture" or "The Masonic Temple in Anytown, Iowa contains murals painted by a notable artist"... etc.) those facts will not be true of any other "Masonic Temple". These facts can make an individual "Masonic Temple" notable... but they do not make "Masonic Temples" notable as a general topic. Blueboar (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no "essential feature" to a Masonic Temple."
Perhaps not. However this topic isn't "The essential features necessary by lore for a Masonic Temple", it's "Those attributes of a Masonic Temple that Masons have chosen to add". This is obviously far broader and richer than their bare minimum. Nor is our article constrained to describe only those features shown by all Temples, but rather the union of features demonstrated by Temples. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) What Andy Dingley said. And, Masonic Temple can clearly indicate either the building or the interior meetingplace, as it is used both ways in common usage. To Blueboar, I interpret your discussion differently: all that you say, if properly sourced, could be part of a proper article on the topic of Masonic temples/halls (that no two are the same, that many use common symbolic decoration inside while some are plain, etc., etc.). The article would describe that and give examples of notable ones that exemplify the various types. It would cover the oldest one in the U.S., in Virginia, and the biggest, in Detroit, and show a few pics of some very plain and simple ones to make the point that not all Masonic temples/halls are grand or notable, which is very well understood by all parties in this discussion. It would be too much to cover all the notable ones in this article, because there are approximately 180 individually NRHP-listed ones, therefore it is useful to have already split out the List of Masonic buildings article which can be linked. Some of the NRHP-listed ones and others having extensive documentation about them (which Blueboar has not seen or consulted, per discussion at Talk:List of Masonic buildings), will provide additional material for this article on what constitutes Masonic decoration for exterior and interior. For example, this NRHP nomination document for one in Virginia covers how it includes a doorway with symbolic pillars and mentions that the Masonic meeting rooms had to point to the east, among other details describing how architecture can be adapted for the purpose of a Masonic temple/hall.
Bottom-line: We will have to agree to disagree. I believe the clear consensus here is that there are adequate, extensive sources available to cover this topic. I probably won't comment further. --doncram (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key point here is properly sourced. Now the standard of evidence that you expect is somewhat different from the standard of evidence that I expect, however since the decision criteria is number of votes rather than quality of sourcing it's pretty clear what the outcome here is going to be.
As a result there will be a need to try to make a credible article on a subject that is currently undefined, of disputed meaning exacerbated by the lack of any adequate source defining it and reliant on a number of sources that are only tangentially related to it.
ALR (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic seems very clearly defined: masonic temples are "the buildings where Freemasons hold their meetings". Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a USian usage, it's uncommon elsewhere where it's generally used to describe the space within which a lodge is formed. A building is mundane bricks and mortar, a temple isn't.
ALR (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should we delete automobile too, because Masons in the UK drive cars instead?
The fact that it's accepted as being a somewhat regional use doesn't make it any less notable. No doubt UK Masons would appreciate articles that explain the sacred mysteries of the stick shift and tailfin no less than an explanation of Temples and that business with the G. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you're going to be facetious about it. Automobile=car, building =/= temple.
In any case, as observed the issue is sourcing. If you're voting for an address book as establishing notability then that's entirely up to you, I have a higher standard of evidence.
ALR (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why start a new one instead of just opening up the old one? Some people from before found their way here, but most didn't. Anyway, I'll copy and paste my bit here. Dream Focus 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe temples are notable parts of a notable organization. The discussion to merge and/or redirect is happening elsewhere. No reason to delete though. Dream Focus 18:11, 22 June 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. JForget 00:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Calasan[edit]

Milan Calasan (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 sport agent whose claim to fame is the fact that he is being investigated by the French police. Fails WP:BIO and WP:PERP Movementarian (Talk) 15:55, 26 June 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. JForget 00:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sailendra Dwivedi[edit]

Sailendra Dwivedi (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 think that this article of an writer follows Wikipedia Conflict of interest and Notability policy. Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 15:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Per above. By the way, Google usually gets alt spellings. —mono 17:39, 26 June 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. Until there are sources this clearly cannot survive in mainspace. If someone wants to host this in their userspace until then, fine. But who should I userfy it too? Answers on my talkpage please.... Spartaz Humbug! 05:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Batman film (2012)[edit]

Batman film (2012) (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)
  • Right, well, I don't mind starting the incubation. As for this title here ("Batman 3 (2012)"), we could either redirect it to Batman in film#Third film (2012) or delete it. I don't know if it would make much of a difference either way; I don't know if it's the most likely search term. Cliff smith talk 16:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or, if there's somewhere else that it might be redirected to that would work also, then that would be okay. Batman 3 is a disambiguation, BTW, for those who didn't already know. Should the incubation, then, start as "Batman 3 (2012)"? Cliff smith talk 16:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It goes to the section at Batman in film about the upcoming third film (it was just targeting a former title of that section; I corrected it). And I don't know how likely a search term that is either, but anyway I was just wondering what the incubation title should be. I'm just going to go with "Batman 3 (2012)". It can be changed, after all, once the actual title is confirmed. Cliff smith talk 19:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:00, 26 June 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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GCU Roughriders[edit]

GCU Roughriders (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 British University Sports team. British University sports teams aren't usually notable on their own campus, never mind in the outside world. This team does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions. A search on google returns only sites directly related to the team and its rivals. Article is unreferenced and given the lack of independent and/or reliable sources on the subject, there is little prospect of being able to reference or expand the article. Pit-yacker (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Only a few British university sports teams meet WP:GNG, and this does not appear not one of them. Pfainuk talk 14:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references given, policy is clear.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No references given and a Google search reveals nothing that is independent of them or rivals means that, like most of them, this is a non-notable British Uni sports team. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- does not meet the notability guidelines, as there are no references given and there seems to be no coverage in any sources independent to the team.

Tjc6 14:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is, presumably, a search for GCU Roughriders without quotes. That's the only way I can get 10,900 results. Obviously, that includes Wikipedia and its mirrors.
But Glasgow Caledonian University are not the only "GCU" in the world, and this team are not the only "Roughriders". Given that that search finds Women's Volleyball matches in Arizona, for example, I believe it's fair to suggest that that number is inflated.
But whether it's a reasonable number or not, a raw count of Google hits is insufficient. It does not demonstrate the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. This is what you need to demonstrate if you want to demonstrate notability. Pfainuk talk 17:34, 30 June 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. JForget 00:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Narayan Tirtha[edit]

Swami Narayan Tirtha (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)

Tagged as relying on primary sources only since September 2007. Not notable and no sufficient coverage from a third party reliable sources intellectually independent from the subject. Wikidas© 12:13, 26 June 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, with no objection to a redirect to Animal ethics or Animal welfare. Jayjg (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal protection[edit]

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

Contested PROD: This seems to be a single-purpose advocacy/opinion article, and is pretty much just a copy of [31]. There's no way to objectively validate its list of "nations and their components of animal protection (listed in descending order of relevance, the left most component is the most relevent)" - it just seems to be a single author's opinions from a piece of original research. Actually, to delete the current new version of the article, it should presumably be reverted to the 2008 redirect version. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted. The issue addressed in the article is reported by two peer reviewed work with multiple authors. Both original work can be accessed online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-reviewed work is still a primary source and thus represents original research and a specific point of view. Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources (see WP:RS) to determine notability and to enable an article to be written from a neutral point of view. You can't just state the conclusions of original research as if they were fact, and you can't use original research to redefine a commonly-used term. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're twisting the meaning of Wikipedia:No original research. It is certainly bad practice to base articles entirely on primary research studies, and doing so does nothing to show the notability of the topic, but it is not "original research" to do so in Wikipedia parlance. And primary research articles are often reliable sources. The real reason to not have this article is that it is a content fork of Animal rights and Animal welfare. We should redirect to one or the other of those articles. Fences&Windows 13:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Primary and secondary are relative terms, and some sources may be classified as primary or secondary, depending on how it is used.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sources and reference 1, 2, 3 of the article are secondary source of reference 4, reference 5 are secondary source of reference 1,3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

animal protection does not equal to animal welfare or animal rights, please see references 1 to 4 of the article. Therefore it should not be redirected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible Keep The expression seems to be notable enough from the sources. The article should be rewritten so that it is explained. The list of countries should go. You would not have a list of people ranked by intelligence in the article on Intelligence, for instance. Borock (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 822,000 Google hits on the phrase "animal protection", and no apparent universal acceptance of any particular definition. I really don't see how an article here promoting one particular definition can be seen as anything but POV-pushing. There may be a notable movement in favour of some form of definition, but unless there is widely accepted definition (in the wider word, not just amongst "animal protection" people), then I don't think this particular POV should be allowed to usurp a common term here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good information provided 1) 'There are 822,000 Google hits on the phrase "animal protection"', yes, therefore its an important term and should has a page on Wikipedia, therefore should not be deleted. 2)'no apparent universal acceptance of any particular definition', agree. Therefore redirect it to animal welfare or animal rights are also not universally accepted. As references shows, there are people disagree with it. Therefore the proposed redirection should also not be a solution for Wikipedia. The information provided in the argument shows, people should edit and improve the article instead of delete it or redirect it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


If the information about the nations should go, then where to put them? In a separate article? It might be too short, wikipedia have articles about people's IQ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information about the nations shouldn't be anywhere, because it is primary-sourced original research and personal opinion. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the study methods, it was based on statistic analysis of opinions of over 4000 people in euroasia. If this is 'personal' opinion, then can someone provide more reliable source (not 'personal') to support the redirection (animal protection equals to animal rights)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, source can support the redirection should also be provided to show its not a 'personal opnion' and 'primary research'.

  • Delete and redirect to Animal welfare. Animal protection, per the sources, is distinct from Animal rights, but it really is just an alternative wording for animal welfare, another, less standard, way of saying the same thing. The arguments to keep on the basis of numbers of Google hits fail to reflect that reality. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting to Animal ethics, a DAB page, would also be fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable source to support that animal protection 'is just an alternative wording for animal welfare'. It has to be reliable source and not personal opinions and primary research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Animal Protection can mean animal welfare, animal rights, wildlife conservation, respect animals or other things in different context and different parts of the world. Most notably, in many nations, wildlife protection is a major part of animal protection. In Spain keeping animal in the zoo is against the idea of animal protection (protección de los animales).In fact animal protection is a collection of all these positive attitudes. Sources for the statement in this paragraph was in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • number of pages of different terms in googleanimal protection-7,510,000; animal welfare-7,390,000;animal rights-'81,600,000'. If animal protection should be deleted, why animal welfare should keep? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.6.177 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe there is a good case for an article called "Animal protection". But the article you have now isn't even close to being suitable - all it is is a publication of some of the conclusions of one specific study, by Dr Jenia Meng - it is not a treatment of the general usage of the term "animal protection" at all.
Also, will you please STOP spamming links to your new article all over the place while this discussion is ongoing. if the article survives, in whatever form, then you can link it elsewhere as appropriate - but you should only add "See also" links that are directly relevant to the topic (and not to any article that happens to have an animal in it, or is about a country that happens to have animal laws, etc). And Wikilinking terms should only be done when they specifically refer to the target of the link. The multiple usages of the phrase "animal protection" that you have linked so far are most definitely not references to your report on the conclusions of Dr Meng. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'You may edit the article during the discussion. You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period.'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion this is wikipedia policy, editing is encouraged, also those editing of adding internal links were constructive and was aiming to helping people when reading. Only page have the term of animal protection or similar meaning was linked, those were not spam. There are plenty of wikipedia page are lot shorter and this one. Why this is not suitable? If you know how to make it suitable, improve it, be constructive! Don't stop others good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 19:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can edit the article - that's a core part of the AfD process. But that doesn't mean you can spam links to it all over the place (I've removed dozens so far, from all sorts of inappropriate places). And the uses of the term "animal protection" that you recently linked were NOT referring to the conclusions of Dr Meng, which is all your article is currently about. Links need to be correct in context, and "See also" sections should be used only for links to other major articles of direct importance to the subject - not for any article that just happens to use the same words. An important thing here is that if this article does not survive the deletion discussion, your links will create a lot of work for whoever has to remove them all - if you were left to link things however you see fit, there'd be hundreds by the end of the week. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why those nations were linked. If one have read the article carefully, one can find the article has giving defitions of animal protection in 12 nations. Thats why those articles of the 12 nations were linked. It has the definition of animal protection in the nation. Those were not spam!! --Youdontownwiki (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC) To CITES, its a international animal protection agreement, why this article can not be linked?--Youdontownwiki (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can turn this into an article of encylopedic quality, then the CITES article might be a good one to link from - but as it currently stands, this is just not a good-enough article to be used as a major "See also" article - and you really should hold off adding links until we know whether this article is going to survive. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1)you initiated the debate, if it is deleted then you have significant responsibility. 2) if animal protection is deleted, it will be one of the biggest joke in wikipedia. 3) There are review process after deletion, deleted article can be restored. Its a place to serve for the humanity, to share up to dated knowledge, not a place for some kids to exercise their control desire and ignorance. thanks--Youdontownwiki (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as possible copyright violation of [32] and as attempt to describe a topic with no consistent definition, but whose alternative definitions are already covered in other articles. (As a second choice, redirect to Animal ethics instead.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That webpage you just cited does not has copy right declaration, it can be used. no single exsiting articles address the diversity of this definitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All intellectual creations are protected by copyright unless it is specifically waived - it is not necessary to actually state that a work is copyright for it to be so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'positive attitudes towards animals' is the consistent definition.--Youdontownwiki (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC) To those who say the article does not represent the general usage of the term "animal protection". Do you know anything about public opinion survey? The sources were based on public opinion survey. Or do you mean your personal opinion represents general usage? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 20:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as it was previously. WuhWuzDat 20:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been redirected to animal welfare and animal rights in the past. So which article to redirect to? Also people in this page have apparently disagreement with redirection, one say direct to animal welfare, one say direct to animal rights. This is getitng really interesting.--Youdontownwiki (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Animal ethics -- Since the term "animal protection" apparently has no agreed-upon definition, I think that this disambiguation page would be an appropriate target. --Chris (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal has a definition in dictionary, protection has a definition in dictionary, animal protection together definitely have a general agreed meaning at certain level. As I put previously, it is 'positive attitudes towards animals' the protection of animals. Animal ethics focus on ethics, the study of what is morally right and what is not. Animal protection is about the act of protecting or state of being protected (pls see Cambridge dictionary online). There are difference of both. Also if its going to only have a disambiguation page, where the information about the differences of the definition in different nations should go?--60.242.6.177 (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Animal welfare. This article is based essentially on one author's definition of the term, but the term is widely used synonymously with "animal welfare".[33] First Light (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also searched animal rights and animal protection in google book, it returns many results too[[34]] however this method is not scientific because people in many parts of the world use other languages for their literature for example they would use proteccion de los animales which above methods can not covered. --Youdontownwiki (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • reference four is from an independent author's study published before other sources, which gives similar definition for animal protection —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 23:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main author used to support this article, Dr. Jenia Meng, does not meet WP:Reliable Sources. The books all appear to be self-published, and I could find no sources in third-party peer-reviewed academic journals by this author. First Light (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • just added one more reference, animal protection law includes conservation law —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I did not find anything in the reliable source page you provided suggests supporting certain opinion would undermine the source reliability, please point out specific line and paragraph that is relevant. Many wrote articles for wiki before, supporting some authors opinions. There were many types of reliable source, university publication, dissertations, conference publication and journals. The article cited all type of references. There are many other people consider animal protection is a collection of different attitudes, please read reference carefully, in particular those added later. Please focus on the latest version of the article as I am improving it. The article may not be perfect but it does not mean it should be destroyed. Thanks

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Animal ethics or Animal welfare. I'm not convinced that there is any significant difference in terminology within English-speaking countries and this is the English language Wiki. All the references asserting that there is a difference appears to circle back to one researcher. If the point needs to be made that some believe "animal welfare" and "animal protection" are entirely different concepts, then it can be made with a cited reference in Animal welfare provided that it does not violate WP:UNDUE. Location (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reference 4 and 6 were published before the other references, they are not related!you removed the top notice, but did you read carefully? Which means we need the notice. Even in English world, there is disagreement of which term it should redirect to, animal welfare or animal rights. before my editing the article has been redirected to animal rights for a long time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 00:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added one more independent reference, number 7, this one is from a US organization HSUS, the previous one, reference 6 was from a UK based international organization. They both use animal protection for more than just animal welfare or animal rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Youdontownwiki (talk • contribs) 01:51, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to closing admin: 60.242.6.177, Youdontownwiki, and Thisisaniceusername are all the same editor (used serially, with one blocked, so I'm not suggesting SP - just want to make sure they're not seen as three !votes) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The article has been changed a lot, the debate should be relisted because many vote were based on earlier versions.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unethical debate I also ask attentions for Boing! said Zebede's attempt of defaming me in the debate by misleading other voters that my constructive editing are spamming. It would have misleaded the opinions of other voters. Detail can be found in my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 11:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect It's a difficult area to avoid PoV in, but as this seems to be based on one person's definition it must be promotional of that one viewpoint. This may or may not be the desire of the article's creator, but as it stands it would (to my mind) require a complete rewrite to avoid this problem. I would ask the creator of the article to calm down a bit and accept that the experienced editors here do know at least something about how Wikipedia works and what the rules, guidelines and procedures are. Peridon (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • its not one person's position, I have to say this again, many times, see references, why people dont read and assume they know about things?experiencing in editing does not equal to expert in the area of the particular article. professional editors would know to respect the academic expertee of the author and aware they are not familiar with technique details on the particular issue. All people voted against keeping the article so far fail to provide 'reliable secondary sources' to support the decision: which reliable source suggest animal protection is only the same thing of animal welfare? or something else? All they said is their own personal opinion. This is totally against Wikipedia principle. NO RELIABLE SOURCE PROVIDED.

Also I just did Google translation search, 'animal protection' 'animal rights' together return much more results than 'animal protection' 'animal welfare'. Which perhaps suggests if look at the whole world, animal protection is more associated with animal rights than animal welfare. Please verify this by yourself.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=1&rlz=1C1DVCJ_enAU378AU378&tbs=clir:1&q='animal+protection'+'animal+rights'&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 2,250,000 hits for 'animal protection' 'animal rights'

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&tbo=1&rlz=1C1DVCJ_enAU378AU378&tbs=clir:1&q='animal+protection'+'animal+welfare'&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= 1,580,000 hits for 'animal protection' 'animal welfare'

Redirect this page to any of the page would be biased, overall information in this page show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments 1. if this article/title does get redirected, there can be a section at the target page which explains the extent to which "Animal protection" differentiates from "Animal welfare" (to use one potential target page as an example), using Reliable Sources, of course. 2. The person(s) editing the article should read WP:Conflict of Interest, just in case it applies to them. First Light (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another issue is the copy-and-paste of the table of nations from http://jmeng.goodeasy.info/DefinitionAnimalProtectionVegetarianism/index.php which appears to be in breach of Wikipedia's rules on copyright material. This is rather more than just a brief quote. So far as I can see, there is only one of the accessible references that doesn't mention J., Jia or Jenia Meng. The one is the World Animal Net site, which does refer to 'animal protection' but not Meng as far as I went into it. Otherwise, the article seems overwhelmingly J. Meng based - and one particular book into the bargain. I'm not suggesting spam, but I don't feel that WP:NPOV and WP:COI are being followed here. Has no-one else made use of the term 'animal protection'? If they have, where are they? Peridon (talk) 14:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've removed the list of countries as a clear copyright violation. First Light (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Begging pardon - missed out the Humane Society which also mentions 'animal protection' but seemingly not Meng. This still leaves a great amount of emphasis on the one publication. Peridon (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You missed another one Bostock, Stephen S.T.C. (2007). Looking at 'protectionism'. Society & Animals, 15(2), 203, so 3 other sources at least, how many Wikipedia article has less than 3 reliable, independent sources like this? Are they all going to be removed or merged? Otherwise its unfair editing.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would then make it a reasonable short subsection at the target article, explaining the minor distinction between usages. First Light (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of copy right violation, there is text on the page say 'Information on this webpage is in the public domain' and no copy rights were declared.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a self-published source (see WP:SELFPUBLISH) and therefore not acceptable to be used on Wikipedia. Do please read all of the relevant Wikipedia policies that apply to this article. I think you would find it helpful for understanding why this article will probably be redirected. They would include: WP:VERIFY, WP:RS, WP:SELFPUB, WP:Your first article, WP:COI, WP:GNG, and more. First Light (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its based on reliable source No, the information in the section you removede is not from a self published source, it was original from the dissertation 'origins of attitudes towards animals', published by university of Queensland, page numbers were provided and everything in the section can be verified. University dissertation are considered as reliable source of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you proved citations from other academics that would show this particular dissertation, and its definition of "Animal protection", is notable in the field, and more than just the views of that one author? Do you have a conflict of interest with the author (i.e., are you the author or have a "close personal involvement with the subject" per WP:COI)? First Light (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not a conflict of interest that is defined by wikipedia in WP:COI. for the citation please see reference 5.

And now can you please provide your reliable reference for any decision of redirection? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 17:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion or redirection discussion is about the best application of Wikipedia policy to a particular article. There is no such thing as a 'reliable source for redirection'. Please see WP:AfD. My own opinion on redirection of this article hasn't changed. Because this discussion has at least another 5-6 days to go before there is a decision, I'll let other editors chime in, and I'll check back in a few days. Best of luck. First Light (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and input :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • the decision of redirect has to be based on object reliable sources other than personal opinions. This is for the interest of wikipedia being a neutral source of information.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It it actually up to the creator of the article to provide sources for the article that show it is up to Wikipedia's standards. Believe me, we do know what we're talking about. We do this often. We're happy for the article to survive - so long as it meets the requirements. Opinion at the moment seems to be that it doesn't. Instead of repeating the same things all the time, how about you finding some more stuff that will make it fit. As I said, it's really up to you. Sometimes you might find a regular who will help. I do, quite often, when I think there is a case for survival and the creator is willing to listen. Peridon (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am always listening, I have already add editors comments in the article, I have been improve the article up to the time of your post, I didn't miss 3 references when I read other peoples article . All these can be verified in the editing history. Now pls provide wikipedia official document show statement above is not your personal opinion. Please provide document support following opinions implied by your above post
1)'articles does not meet quality standard need to be deleted'. why I see so many article with a notice of improve without being deleted?
2)'its the creators solo responsibility not the whole wikipedia community's responsiblity to improve the article to required standard'. what I read in wikipedia policy was disagreement in content can usually be amended by editing without resort to delete.
3)also please specify which wikipedia quality standard the current article does not meet. (other than those personal opinons of editors I added)? please quote original wikipedia policy when you do this. I am very happy to make any change according to wikipedia's policy.--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article as OR, and redirect the title to the Animal ethics disambiguation page. "Animal protection" is an umbrella term used by animal rights and animal welfare advocates. It has no additional meaning that I'm aware of. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please read and comment reference 5,6,7. yes you are right, animal protection is a umbrella term, but it does not only used by animal rights and animal welfare people, other people also used it such as conservation people and people concern about genetic modification of animals. btw, the author of reference 5 is the chief editor of encyclopedia of animal welfare and animal rights--Thisisaniceusername (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC) He also wrote review for Rain Without Thunder of Gary L Francione, see here http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/rain-without-thunder-the-ideology-of-the-animal-rights-movement/ I look forward to your response.[reply]
  • Some wikipedia policies related For the interest of wikipedia, please review related wikipedia policy.

This article animal protection was a redirect page before editing, so this applys 'Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.' please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion'

Global perspective is part of quality standard of wikipedia. 'Global view Except in content with a local focus or where specific localized grammar or spelling is appropriate, or when an established precedent has been established and no clear reason has been accepted by a consensus to overturn it, content should be presented from a global view without bias towards any particular culture or group.' please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style

'Wikipedia places importance on both the neutrality of articles and the ability of editors to edit pseudonymously. Do not out an editor's real life identity in order to prove a conflict of interest. Wikipedia's policy against harassment prohibits this. COI situations are usually revealed when the editor themself discloses a relationship to the subject that they are editing.' please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihounding#Wikihounding

'Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for Oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_blanking 'Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. ' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisaniceusername (talk • contribs) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has published any of your personal information, and the "requested a change in username" clause is not applicable, as you did not request a change in username - you had a username blocked for being unsuitable. Also note that "change of username" policy can not be used as a reason for hiding the fact that a single editor has taken part in one discussion using three different IDs. Nobody is suggesting you did anything improper in that, but it is an important fact that is pertinent to the closing admin counting up how many people have commented on whatever side. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some consider the information in the current article is not balanced, so this applys 'Neutrality requires that an article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources,' see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight. If one consider its not balanced then reliable source need to be provided for the opposite opinions. Because of the comments of some editors here (I am always willing to listen different opinions), I have added the opposite opinions of some editors. but honestly I can not find reliable source to support those opinions at this moment. Restrictively speaking those opinions (such as animal protection equals to animal welfare) should be removed. Please find reliable source and prove current article is not neutral. --Thisisaniceusername (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • My ending comments this debate as a AFD debate is already conclusive. majority does not agree delete. please note redirect mean 'keep' but change content, there is no such a thing delete and redirect in wikipedia's definition. What should apply to this article is a RFD, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redirects_for_discussion

When you consider a redirect is needed, please dont only say 'redirect', please also say which page as target of the redirect and why choose this(using reliable source). you need to convince others the page should not be redirect to the page they choose. otherwise the debate don't do anything, we still dont know where the page is going to. Currently, there is roughly equal amount vote to animal welfare, animal rights and animal ethics. no really much consensus so far.

So I consider keep the article still be the best choice for wikipedia under this situation (why the afd statistic put me into redirect group?). 'Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.' This is the most related wikipedia policy on this issue. ( please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion' )

  • Comment. I see the original author has added some new sections taken from other Wikipedia articles, under the "Different Types of Animal Protection" section. However, I don't think that changes the fact that the basis of the article is little more than one specific piece of original research that concluded little more than that the common generic phrase "Animal protection" appears to be understood slightly differently by different people in different places - there are few generic phrases that would be understood exactly the same way by everyone, especially when there is no single formal definition. I also think that none of the recent additions is enough to justify the apparent claim that the phrase "Animal protection" is a widely-accepted umbrella term for the specific other phrases discussed in the article, nor that the other phrases represent "Different Types of Animal Protection" - if anything, they're all just generic phrases with different degrees of overlap, with none of them representing a "parent" concept to which the others belong. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentNo attribution in the edit summary, is the 'main article' template enough to avoid copyvio? Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After a great deal of (mostly one-sided) discussion, I still haven't seen anything to convince me that this article should not be deleted. The proper target for a redirect seems to be the only issue left. I would still prefer to see it redirected to another article, such as Animal welfare, Animal rights, etc., but any of the targets mentioned by the redirect !voters would suffice, including the Animal ethics disambiguation page. First Light (talk) 15:37, 3 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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack (command-line utility)[edit]

Ack (command-line utility) (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 - previously deleted via proposed deletion with the reason of "Unreferenced since creation in 2007, fails to assert importance". (Previous version here.) Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Why did you restore the article history? Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs work, but ack deserves coverage. Narrow-minded wiki-proceduralism will undoubtedly delete it anyway, but it's a little-known tool that's actually of great value and deserves to be more widely known. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it deserve coverage? Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 26 June 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. JForget 00:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Pérez[edit]

Gil Pérez (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)

Dodgy tale about some guy who is reckoned to have teleported from Manila to Mexico. No significant coverage in the reliable sources that we require - only coverage is on paranormal websites specialising in shaggy dog stories. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:49, 26 June 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. and per nomination withdrawl - though no longer a speedy since it is 7 days now JForget 00:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott L. Schwartz[edit]

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

Unsourced actor BLP, no evidence of substantial coverage on Google, zero Google news hits; probably fails WP:BIO.  Sandstein  10:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)  Sandstein  10:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retracted after expansion showing notability, thanks! Though the spammy "... have made him the perfect choice as the definitive thug and villain" in the lead still needs cleanup.  Sandstein  21:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy enough. It has been corrected. diff Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Un-notable Stub.--Curtis23's Usalions 03:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TEAM Energy Auditing Agency Ltd[edit]

TEAM Energy Auditing Agency Ltd (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 per WP:COMPANY, article does not assert notability; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; references given only prove the company's appearance on some gov't lists. Prod contested by creator. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:08, 26 June 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) 01:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Barnes[edit]

Stephen Barnes (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 possible hoax. Very questionable edit history, including creation which was a probable copy paste from a ryan seacrest article, that was CSD'd, then that was removed by an IP, whose only contributions were within the last few hours, and early contributions were COI warnings to others, but yet chastised reverters for not considering the "newbies". Then a few bizarre additions to other articles by a geographical range of IPs.

Possible hoax, possible copy paste. Want some more eyes to make sure this isn't some shenanigans. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - For those who look at the history, edit by edit, it's pretty clear that a new editor copied the Ryan Seacrest article and then proceeded to change it section by section. That is, until Shadowjams started reverting their edits and leaving warning after warning on their talk page, probably scaring them away. Talk about biting the newbies! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Hqb tagged it for speedy (because it was a virtual copy), and then the above IP removed that speedy... after that the creator continued to mess with it, at some point flagging huggle (mostly because it removed 3 paragraphs of sourced info), which I undid. I did that two more times until investigating further, leading us to where we are.
I never actually touched the article until after the 69 ip removed the CSD tag from another editor, and XLinkBot was triggered by the editor's removal. Just for context on the above IP's comments. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you understand now that you reverted without understanding what your reverts were undoing? If that's the case, I think you should rescind the warnings you issued to the article creator. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that this article is essentially a badly formatted copy of this user page at Commons, I don't know what to think. If he's real and did win that pile of awards as an Atlanta disc jockey then there should be coverage to satisfy both notability and verifiability. Further investigation is warranted. - Dravecky (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The above concerns over the hoax issue appear to be resolved. Issue currently is the notability of the subject. Shadowjams (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru 07:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. His acting credentials don't pass WP:ENT. As a radio personality, he has won some awards; however none of them are what I would call well know or significant. in that respect, I feel that he fails WP:BIO Movementarian (Talk) 12:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient reliable coverage. Questionable edit history also needs to be gotten rid of; this is essentially an unreferenced and recently-created BLP. Nyttend (talk) 12:37, 26 June 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. —Soap— 15:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOAP Lite[edit]

SOAP Lite (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 is not a how to.See Wikipedia:NOTHOW Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 07:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a manual. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this seems to be a fork of this page anyway, and therefore a copyright violation; however, even if the author of this page is also the author of that one and agrees to release the text for free distribution it's still unencyclopedic and not really helpful to readers. —Soap— 12:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, written as a how-to article, and not an encyclopedia article. As pointed above, also seems to be a copyright violation ([36]). Tjc6 15:03, 26 June 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. JForget 00:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bowdoin Cable Network[edit]

The Bowdoin Cable Network (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)

Closed circuit TV station on a college campus. No evidence that it is notable outside that campus. Sgroupace (talk) 06:58, 26 June 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 Bad (album). NW (Talk) 12:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Away (Michael Jackson song)[edit]

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

Non notable non single michael jackson song. Currently discussed on WP:ANI. Wish for redirect to Bad (album) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 06:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Fails WP:NSONGS; was never released as a single and never charted. It is a random bonus track from a reissue of an album. Not even all of the original tracks from the album have articles. There is not enough information either for a standalone article; none on the writing, recording, composition, lyrics, critical reception, etc. Existance does not equal notability. Pyrrhus16 11:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC). [reply]
I added a review OttomanJackson 22:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
A passing comment from somebody at Amazon.com does not establish why this song is notable. There is no indepth or significant coverage of the song. Pyrrhus16 23:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this edit confused me.[37] Who is Rickey Wright and what makes his opinion notable? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think he works for amazon.com Anyway, Pyrrhus16 complained about no critical reception, and I fixed itOttomanJackson 18:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanJackson (talk • contribs)
  • Redirect to Bad (album), as per usual practice for non-notable album tracks. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because this song wasn't released a single doesn't necessarily mean there aren't reliable sources about this song. Seems to me that this is just a sourcing issue. I'd find sources myself, but I'm not sure what a meaningful Google search would be given "Fly away" is a common English phrase. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Essentially you are arguing that WP:NSONGS, a generally accepted notability guideline created for this specific circumstance of a non-single song, should be set aside. Can you make a case for why an exception should be made for this article? What is the exceptional circumstance? Tarc (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per WP:NSONGS there is nothing particularly special here that resonates the creation of seperate article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the album. The song seems to fail WP:NSONG and I can't find sources that satisfy WP:GNG. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 02:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per reasons given above. There is no material there to justify a separate article, & no likelihood that there ever will be. I'd also like to note that the person who created this article is the subject of a thread at WP:AN/I for repeatedly & disruptively creating articles on unimportant Michael Jackson songs.-- llywrch (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Chelo61 (talk) 03:31, 1 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 Condoleezza Rice. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angelena Rice[edit]

Angelena Rice (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)

Mother of Condoleezza Rice; in addition to that, seemingly hasn't done anything to meet notability requirements. Seems to be a clear-cut case of WP:NOTINHERITED. SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:24, 26 June 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. NW (Talk) 12:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Wikre[edit]

Trevor Wikre (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 is a case of WP:BLP1E. He was a college football player at a Division II school (ie, smaller crowds than most high school games) who made a human interest story when he had his pinkie amputated so he could keep playing football. Beyond that one event, there is nothing notable about him. B (talk) 05:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Known for one insignificant event does not make a person notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 06:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly failts WP:ATHLETE. What high school games have you been watching? Division III games that I've seen had large crowds, and I'd expect Division II games to have more. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the 2009 season, the median average attendance for Division II games was 2900. At Mesa St, the average attendance was 1946 per game. In DIII, median attendance was 1634/game. Stats are available from [38]. In parts of the country where high school football is big (most of the south, some of the midwest), 5000 at a game is pretty frequent. My HS stadium seats around 4500 and it's been a long time since I've been to a game, but the last time I went (almost 10 years ago) it was overflow/standing room only. (My parenthetical was obviously intended to be hyperbole, though.) --B (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Didn't realise the hyperbole, and wherever you are, there's tons more attendance than here in western Ohio. High school football is definitely a leading sport, but we don't have anywhere near that kind of attendance. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep okay, so it's one event... but it's one event covered pretty well in multiple sources. I'm personally okay with this as a stub.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:05, 1 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. JForget 00:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Yetasook[edit]

Amy Yetasook (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. Not seeing the notability here, won a local beauty pageant, but not much else. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:29, 26 June 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. JForget 00:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Alice (demo)[edit]

Sweet Alice (demo) (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)

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to this article's deletion. I knew it was a longshot. Shaneymike (talk) 22:32, 26 June 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. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Jayjg (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Drebitt[edit]

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

Non notable actor. No evidence of the coverage by independent reliable sources required to meet WP:GNG Nuttah (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as TOO SOON (if ever). This actor's nearly non-existant career[39] fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. Sorry Robbie. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I changed "actor" on his page to webseries actor, comparing Robbie to a hollywood celebrity like ..John Travolta is comparing apples to oranges. Adding up the amount of views he's received in both the webseries S.E.X. (Star Explorer Xenolith) and Spellfury equals 884,042. That's quite impressive (and notable) for a new medium like the webseries. Even looking at MichealQShmidt's mention of WP:ENT, in there it says "Has a large fan base" which I believe Robbie does from the numbers.

Showzampa (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Claiming that he has a fanbase is not enough, you need to provide reliable sources to prove it. Likewise with establishing notability, here and on other article up for deletion, you have to show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, e.g. a newspaper (preferably at least one national) articles about Robbie Drebitt, Spellfury and so on. Nuttah (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Old school Newspaper? (that are all going out of business by the way) They don't even know what a webseries is, they wouldn't even cover the most notable of weberies'. If you look through "the Guild's" early wiki history, they were declared notable with an IMDB link and a website. We are talking about a "webseries" actor and Spellfury is a "webseries", not a traditional tv show. Showzampa (talk) 13:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nuttah are you saying wired.com, Ain't It Cool News and tubefilter aren't reliable sources? I would say a webseries actor that has 884,042 (Spellfury views plus S.E.X. views) views of shows he's been in, one he was the lead actor in, the second a huge supporting character (lead villian) has a large fan base, their youtube channel has 15,000 friends and over 6,000 subscribers, are you not counting them? Important Youtube has given Spellfury it's own special showpage at[[40]], these can't be created by the public, "the guild" has also been given this honor, but notable webseries like "legend of neil" and "riese the series" don't have them. It allows The guild and Spellfury to come up in the listings of traditional television shows, Youtube has deemed Spellfury notable because of the strong viewership of the series and fanbase. Remember we're discussing whether or not Spellfury is a notable "webseries", not a tv show.

Comment Added an article that was in the EMC Perth Newspaper about Spellfury and Robbie Drebitt. For additional notablility as a webseries actor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.158.101 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Showzampa (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To satisfy wiki editors that want old school newspaper references added better link to full page newspaper article about Spellfury and Rob to show notability. [2] Showzampa (talk) 16:02, 24 June 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) 03:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came very, very close to deleting this, but in the interest of reaching the right result, the new sources ought to be evaluated by someone. Courcelles (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the webseries Spellfury is notable and the newspaper article says "Gordon met some of the key people involved in the production of Spellfury today. Those key individuals include the star of the show, actress Julie O'Halloran, who plays the role of "half-elf" Druinia, and Robbie Drebitt, who plays evil sorcerer Kruskull." + the wired article Toronto23 (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)— Toronto23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comments Kudos to User:Courcelles for relisting and allowing my bit of rsesearch into some of the sources offered by Showzampa.
Wired.com's (Wired News) is a branch of Wired (magazine)... owned by Condé Nast Publications, with international editons Wired UK and Wired Italia. It appears to have both the editorial oversight and the reputation for accuracy that should allow it to be seen as a reliable source for technology subjects.
Ain't It Cool News, appears to be respected within their industry as having reliable articles and reviews, interspersed within gossip and annonymous reports. If a specific review or article in question has a byline, it can be presumed that it went through editorial oversight. If such do not have a byline or editorial acknowledement, then one can presume that particular article as unreliable. Each proffered item must be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Tubefilter is one of those cases of a reliable "blog"... in actuality a site with staff, editorial oversight, and a reputation for accuracy within their industry... not actually being a blog in its strictest sense, but using that self-proclaimed user-friendly label when publishing their researched and authored articles as a means to encourage comments from readers as a kind of instant feedback. The newcomer to this pack, they appear to be already well respected within their industry. So... an authored Tubefilter article or review can be considered generaly reliable, but the reader's comments in response are not.
This said, and while any article needs to be looked at for specific suitability, being from one of these sites is not the deathknell. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as required by the general notability criteria. This is made obvious by the article itself which in the main is not even about the subject of the article but the series they are associated with. Notability is not inherited. Guest9999 (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. My research ito the sources being used might allow a few of them to be considered in some way... perhaps for articles on projects where this actor might then be mentioned as part of cast, but in agreement, there is no significant coverage of the subject himself, even though there may be some toward his projects. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:09, 27 June 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. The argument that it is not a directory, is overruled by the fact that sources were found for more than four of the artists. (and they are independently notable) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Magic: The Gathering artists[edit]

List of Magic: The Gathering artists (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. Non-notable list construed of mostly original research, and those who are listed are mostly non-notable as well. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What exactly makes a list notable? Anyway I strongly disagree with the original research accusation: "Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Where exactly does the article violate that one? There is actually not a single original thought in it. The stuff can be looked up in the Gatherer on the Wizards site, too.
Regarding the non-notability of the individuals. Just that right now most of the artists don't have Wikipedia pages doesn't make them non-notable per se. In the last couple of months many have gotten articles, that did not have any before. That actually suggests that there might be a couple of others that don't have articles, but are notable, too.
Eventually I might agree that this list should be deleted, but I find your arguments not convincing, mostly because there is just not much argumentation in them right now. OdinFK (talk) 08:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apologies, I haven't played since the Urza's Saga, so I'm not current on the community surrounding M:TG. So, is the Gatherer a reliable source? If it is, and I'll presume so for the moment, then we have an article with that as its sole source. It might be better to simply provide that sole source as a link on artist articles, and on the article for Magic (or for the art of Magic, if we have one). We then add all of the artist articles to a suitable category. Their involvement in M:TG is highlighted, and we prevent the appearance of Original Research. The fact that so many artists are redlinked indicates that overall notability might not be present - but some of the blue-linked artists make up for that. It's a tricky question. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Gatherer is not a reliable source as it is a primary source and not independent, thus it cannot be used to establish notability. See WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:N.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gatherer is certainly a reliable source, as it is made by Wizards of the Coast. You are correct that it is not independent, so it doesn't establish notability, but that doesn't mean it isn't reliable. Being reliable and showing notability are two different things. Calathan (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources can be reliable to verify mundane information (e.g. in this case that particular artist does/did work for WOTC on Magic: The Gathering, just like you could use BP sources to verify who is working for them), but not so much for challengable claims (e.g. you could not use BP sources to verify any statement about wrongdoing or lack thereof from the company with regards the current oil spill).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is for the list, not the individual artists on the list. You should post your comments on the AfDs for the artists pages, not here. Whether or not this list gets deleted is completely separate from whether any individual artists pages get deleted. If you post comments here for other AfDs, then they may go unnoticed, as completely different admins may close the different AfDs. Calathan (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, somehow I ended up here instead of there when I followed links about this. Zannen. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Useful list, turns out a bunch of them are pretty notable. Artw (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The game is notable, as are most of the artists, and they are almost always credited publicly. Criteria for making the list are crystal clear, and the list is hardly random or irrelevant to either the game or the artists' careers. I don't see the problem. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is obviously not original research. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list has value, a number of the artists are themselves independently notable of their own accord, and the list could be successfully completed and referenced to reliable sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a perfectly sensible list organizing the artists who worked on an indisputably notable product, and I see a large proportion of blue links, indicating that these aren't just mere non-notable graphic designers. There may be some who will never get articles, or there may be some who have them but should not, but there is clearly no requirement that every element of a list should itself merit an article. This is akin to giving the credits for a motion picture, but obviously this credits list is too long to be incorporated elsewhere. The claim above that the company that published the Magic cards can not provide a reliable source for crediting the artists of those cards is complete nonsense, so this list is clearly not irredeemably OR. postdlf (talk) 06:46, 30 June 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) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behavioral Geovector[edit]

Behavioral Geovector (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)

Covert ad for something called Percipio Orange Mike | Talk 01:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We must distinguish 4 problems before trashing all of it...
  • The subjet of it (as Wikipedia would like it): It is said '...a process which involves defining the position of a person and capturing the direction of their eye movement' (and I would add 'and the applications of it.'); there is now enough examples (iPhone, etc.) to establish an interest for that field.
  • The title of it: Difficult question I must say, There are several options but none seems 'OK':
    • Spatial augmented reality (SAR)? Unfortunately the definition says otherwise...
    • Augmented reality? It is part of it but is too general.
    • Geovector? NO, it's the name of one of the companies in that field.
    • Pointing? Proposed term of that company, but seems to me too 'mousy'...
    • Directional geolocation?
    • Geoaugmented reality?
    • I don't know: it could be Behavioral geolocation...
  • The definition/content of the article: keep what's salvageable...
  • The commercial aspect: let's isolate it to a last section with appropriate external links.
  • Although I have no commercial interest in this, I must say I participated as a programmer on a prototype for the Canadien Army in the '90s, so I thing I know more than most on the subject... --AlainR345Techno-Wiki-Geek 20:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found nothing in gnews, gscholar and gbooks for this. LibStar (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:30, 26 June 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. JForget 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SafeConsole[edit]

SafeConsole (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 is a paid-editing piece developed through a conflict of interest via this request on freelancer.com which reads "We need help copywriting a text about our company, BlockMaster, and our products for wikipedia. BlockMaster provides a solution for protecting portable data – a secure USB flash drive and a management console. We need someone who can understand high-tech descriptions and who is very familiar with how wikipedia works. Deadline Fri, June 18th."

Wikipedia is not a medium for companies to promote themselves. This also appears to have sparse notability, as most of the references are to press releases and I am unable to find significant discussion of this product in multiple reliable sources. Two earlier articles were created by this user as part of the same project, and they were both recently deleted via AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SafeStick and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlockMaster ThemFromSpace 02:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The argument that as they are a member of BUAFL was not met with enthusiasm in this AfD, or the one where the discussion took place. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Napier Mavericks[edit]

Napier Mavericks (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. British University sports teams are rarely notable on their own campus never mind further afield. This doesn't appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions. Google returns nothing beyond sites related to the team and its rivals. Ignoring that almost five years have produced two sentences, an infobox, and a four row table that is two years out of date, the article is also unreferenced. Given the lack of material on the team, it looks unlikely that the article could either be referenced or expanded. Pit-yacker (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seems little basis to assume that BUAFL members are inherently notable even in the absence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please demonstrate that such coverage exists. Pfainuk talk 17:15, 30 June 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 Indiana Department of Correction. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Men and Women's Work Release Program[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Indianapolis Men and Women's Work Release Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was nominated before and debate ended with no consensus reached. Notability isn't clearly established, overall fails wp:N and wp:V. Maashatra11 (talk) 11:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure: I have notified all of the editors in the previous AfD about this one. Location (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. This is simply not independently notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The name of the article is entirely confined to Wikipedia and its mirrors. The real names of the facilities are "Indianapolis Men's Work Release Center" and "Indianapolis Women's Work Release Center". When there is no way that any user will type in a string, even a redirect is worthless. Abductive (reasoning) 06:39, 28 June 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) 01:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeena Schreck[edit]

Zeena Schreck (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)

Long unreferenced BLP, questionable notability, full of gossip Yworo (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The individual does have some coverage[41][42][43][44][45] and the article may be salvagable... but it does needs a MAJOR sandblasting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Among those five examples of "coverage", this is a fascinating article indeed -- but ZS has only a bit part within it. Hoary (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well... that article offers something more than a trivial mention, it addresses the subject directly and in detail... and WP:GNG specifically allows that the subject need not be the main topic of the source material. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's the direct and detailed (or not) address: Some of [her dad's] diabolic transmissions can be heard as well on the somewhat campy 1966 LP The Satanic Mass, which features various unholy rituals, most spectacularly the demonic baptism of his three-and-a-half-year-old daughter, Zeena. ¶ Zeena Schreck was most likely the world's first famous Satanic toddler. Besides practicing the black arts, Schreck too is a musician; also an actress, photographer, and writer. She reigned as High Priestess and public spokesperson of the Church of Satan from 1985 until her resignation in 1990. "World's most famous [anything]" is always promising, but unfortunately I can't think of any other satanic toddlers and suspect that there's little competition. -- Hoary (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: She's second author of a book that I (in the reality-based community) vaguely infer consists of twaddle and that Amazon says is "Bestsellers Rank: #1,347,382 in Books": rather dismal in its own genre, if you consider that this thing makes it to "#10,458 in Books". It's claimed that she's a photographer -- any noteworthy exhibitions or published photobooks? -- Hoary (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I LOL'd a little at the ranking# 1,347,382 in Books. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:06, 26 June 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National case management network[edit]

National case management network (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 organization, no non-trivial third party sources, no independent hits on google or gnews. 2 says you, says two 02:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale
2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
It is a national organization affiliated with the Case Management Society of America, and societies in the U. K. and Australia. Typically professional organizations like this receive very little coverage in news media.
TFD (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any independent, non-trivial sources though. Under WP:ORG, the requirement for non-trivial, secondary sources still stands for non-profits and NGO's, and it is only satisfied when sources are verified to exist and are referenced in the article. I definitely agree that the group's scope would qualify under WP:ORG, but notability can't be based on speculation regarding whether sources exist. 2 says you, says two 12:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best sources for information on professional organizations are textbooks on the profession. Since this organization is recent (2006) we would not expect to see them in Google books. Also professional organizations rarely make the news. Let's see if the author of the article can research this. I notice that there is also an article about a similar U. S. organization which is also poorly sourced. TFD (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 June 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 merge to Radio-frequency identification. For the record, you don't have to start an AfD in order to merge an article. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read-on-metal[edit]

Read-on-metal (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)

Expression does not seem to exist. Consider moving content to RFID. Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge any verifiable content to RFID. -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:22, 4 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 Dune terminology. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suk School[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional school - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Despite the fact that the article is well written, I feel it's essentially fancruft - pure and simple in-universe plot description. It's hence a violation of WP:PLOT. Claritas § 21:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided Interestingly enough Google Books for Suk school finds any number of references that predate Dune, e.g., this one, which appear to suggest Herbert took a previous term and adapted it, as he did with so many other parts of Dune. I'm intrigued, but not in a position to research it more at present. Are we agreed that if we can add the real world origin of the term that appeared in the notable fictional franchise, we have a keepable article? Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unless there is significant coverage of the fictional school in reliable independent sources, the article is not keepable. The etymology of the word is essentially irrelevant. Claritas § 07:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Suk School' also appears to be the name of a few institutions in the Middle East and Asia. Curious. --Gwern (contribs) 18:11 22 June 2010 (GMT)
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, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's little significant coverage in reliable English language sources, but they may well be. Claritas § 09:06, 3 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. no arguments for deletion MINUS the nom JForget 00:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sampson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cindy Sampson (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)

Its been 7 months since this was last discussed and there are still no reliable sources out there. Google is a bunch on unreliable sites, google news [46] has 3 hits none of which discuss her in any detail, and google books appears to be someone else. So we still have nothing verifiable about her. Her best part is a made for TV movie and I am not persuaded that we will ever be able to produce an article that is a proper BLP. Fails V, GNG, BIO and BLP Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Invalid GNews search, which covers only the last 30 days. Recurring roles in multiple TV series. No reason to delete in haste, even though nonprint sources may be difficult to turn up quickly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you find any sources yet or are we still assessing notability by assertion here? Spartaz Humbug! 05:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in agreement with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Actor's career seems to push nicely at WP:ENT. I further note that cleanup and improvement through regular editing are surmountable issues and no one having done so is a reason to do it... not delete it. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • its been over 6 months and still no sources and I see that neither of you are able to offer any either. This is a BLP and it needs to be sourced. Something will turn up is not an acceptable argument if there are no sources out there. Spartaz Humbug! 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While acknowledging the importance of a proper BLP, I do not think my suggestion toward regular editing is any less useful than yours of "delete per WP:NOEFFORT". It is not entirely unverifiable... as her career meeting WP:ENT can at least be verified through the programs and films themselves... nor is it completely unsourced or unsourcable, else it would have been gone. User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz did make a valid point that your proffered G-news search only covered the past 30 days... but yes, the Find sources gives many false positives because of her common name. Barring other coverage, failing GNG does not invalidate meeting ENT... specially if meeting ENT can at least be verified. I suppose I can spend some time sifting theough the 80 news hits[47] and 45,00 G-hits[48] to see which is she. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 June 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) 01:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyraka[edit]

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources AJRG (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find anything on it except for its own website. Clearly not notable. Richard Yetalk 01:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. This project hasn't even been released yet, so not a big surprise. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 28 June 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.
  1. ^ Kathryn Tabb. "Authority and Authorship in a 21st-Century Encyclopaedia and a 'Very Mysterious Foundation'" (PDF). eSharp (12: Technology and Humanity). University of Glasgow. ISSN 1742-4542.
  2. ^ http://www.emcperth.ca/20100624/Entertainment/Perth-based+online+show+casts+spell+on+viewers
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_June_26&oldid=1142640949"