Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 6

< 5 May	7 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was deletion of the snowball variety. Marasmusine (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Funari[edit]

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

non-notable, game nick Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 23:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable and unreferenced. Any reason why you decided to go AfD instead of a PROD? I don't think this will be controversial. Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PRODs may be contested by anyone. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 00:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A7 - Non notable person. The only google hits that matched this person were a Facebook account and a few useless profiles on sites (not any better than a forum profile). --Teancum (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A7. Very snowy. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:21, 7 May 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 deleted as a hoax by User:Anthony.bradbury. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Davis[edit]

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

Contested WP:BLPPROD. The sole source added thus far does not qualify as reliable. My own web search did not turn up anything any better. Apparently not a notable individual. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 23:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourcable, and perhaps hoax. I can find nothing in reliable sources to even verify that this individual was in the projects asserted in the article... and this after checking even cast databases for each. Nada. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At first I thought it was just puffery but I'm also starting to think this is a hoax since nobody can find anything about this guy that even comes close to a WP:RS. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My findings as well. Many of the asserted projects have readily available cast listings, and he is simply not among them. Perhaps the 11-year-old was trying to impress friends? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax per statement in article. GregJackP (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty telling (it wasn't there at the time of nomination) I've added speedy deletion tag as it now seems abundantly clear this is a hoax. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:58, 8 May 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, both per CSD 5 and the agreement here that there is still no case for anything but a redirect which is left at editorial discretion. Tikiwont (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age: Continental Drift[edit]

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

Most speculation right now, can't find any solid sourcing for this on Google. • ɔ ʃ → 21:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the article deletion, if you'd read the references I provided you see that nothing is speculation, but I'll remove "Queen Latifah as Ellie" anyway.--ShellyLover (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says none of the details are even out yet. Please read WP:CRYSTAL first. • ɔ ʃ → 22:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Redirect - Redirection to the mentioned section of a bigger article is a better option which I hadn't considered. Which Google are you looking at lol? http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=navclient&gfns=1&q=Ice+Age%3A+Continental+Drift gives 70,000 results, the first page are all established media websites and the inline citations in the article are adequate. --Pump me up 21:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC) --Pump me up 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try again. Quotes mean everything. • ɔ ʃ → 22:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for now... and set redirect to Ice Age (film series)#Ice Age:Continental Drift (2012). Just last March a premature Ice Age 4 was redirected.[1] Yes... sources have announced it is upcoming,[2] but that's all they're tellin us... the 3-D film has been "announced" and is "upcoming".[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]... and while in the studio's race for the almighty comsumer dollar, the film is more likley than not.... that's all they share... the announcememt... and not much else. Its simply too soon and there is as of yet not enough sourcable information to create a properly sourced independent article. . WIkipedia can wait until there is much more and then recreate or undelte this current version. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll support a redirect for now, per MQS's reasoning and the Ice Age 4 redirect. • ɔ ʃ → 22:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per MQS. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Created by multi-blocked and banned sockpuppetter User:Amryose16 -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect': Speedy delete the current article since it has been created by an editor whose editing privileges are revoked, and redirect to the film series page. This time the name is real. Mike Allen 03:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 1. per AnmaFinotera, 2. per WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one other than the banned user is advocating the article remain. If deleted as result of its author being banned, a redirect for a reasonable search term would still serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:19, 8 May 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) 02:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers' Market Companion[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable iPhone app with no reliable sources provided and nothing found beyond press releases and marketing blurbs. TN X Man 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable source to establish notability of app. Couldn't find any myself.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:08, 6 May 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 David Icke . DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Icke, the Lizards and the Jews[edit]

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

Surprisingly, given the involvement of the notable Jon Ronson, I found zero Google news hits for this film, and no WP:RS. Google did reveal plenty of hits on Torrent sites; Google, YouTube and plenty of other online video sites, discussion forums as well as irate mentions on some right wing hate sites. But I'm just not seeing the RS to indicate notability.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTFILM does allow for cases where the film in question "features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." The nominated film does satisfy the first part of that criteria, though not the second... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If others agree, I'd suggest a merge and redirect to either Jonson or Icke's bio article? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Using the actual title (above) gives a number of hits. Adding Ron's name to the mix narrows the results slightly.[10]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep – the Google news search using the actual title delivers enough material to establish notability – but move~~ Redirect to the actual ~~(short)~~ title The Secret Rulers of the World. --Lambiam ~~00:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)~~ 15:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh, what a mess: Secret Rulers of the World already exists and does seem to be notable. Soon as I can get this withdrawn, let's redirect the nominated page to the older more comprehensive article on the whole series. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, and redirect to David Icke or Secret Rulers of the World. There's no point retaining it if it doesn't have any content. If someone can find sources to fill it out, we can always recreate it at that time. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to existing Secret Rulers of the World, section Season 1, Episode 2: David Icke, The Lizards and The Jews. No reason for a seperate article when the information is far better covered in the series article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as properly researched above, to main article on the series. sheesh is right. what a waste of precious time for us lizard beings trying to overthrow the govt.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to David Icke or Secret Rulers of the World to avoid WP:CFORKs. IZAK (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as per IZAK above. --Pump me up 14:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily redirect this, per SNOW etc, and close the AfD. Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 10 May 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.

Keep or Merge with Secret Rulers of the World. The piece covers the significant work of both Icke and Ronson. Ronson achieved wider coverage on the back of the series. Icke fans and detractors were given a platform to discuss their views, allowing the viewer to make their own opinion. Anthony of the Desert (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Schmitt[edit]

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

Declined CSD and contested PROD. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Has not competed in any major championship and has no cited external references other than the college team she is part of or recitations of her statistics. NtheP (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the very permessive WP:ATH. I'm surprised there's articles for Olympic Trials. I'm not sure those are notable either.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. If she'd made the Olympic team, this would be a slam-dunk keep. Heck, if she'd won a major championship at the college level it would be enough to save the article. High COI as well--primary editor is Eschmitt89 (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 20:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no indication she is competing at the top level of competition in swimming. At this point, it appears she is competing on the US college circuit, and participating in national team qualifiers only. -- Whpq (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete accomplishments have not been achieved yet. Based on the skill level, we will likely bring this article back into mainspace should she qualify for the Olympics, but as of now the article is premautre. Anyone want it in their userspace for now?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:49, 10 May 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. Ok, I looked everywhere for WP:RS and WP:N, including newspaper db's - none to be found. GHITS is minor, but arguement is noted. Although I tend to lean on the "keep" side, I can't find one good source or reason on this one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

El Goonish Shive[edit]

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

No Gnews hits at all. Only secondary web source in the article is this which is not a RS. There appears to be a mention in a book on webcomics, but no telling how substantial it is. Simply being on Keenspot ≠ notability if no secondary sources exist. Last AFD was rent asunder by countless socks and required six section breaks. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being on Keenspot does not meet specific notability guidelines for web comics, and regardless, the lack of reliable sources runs afoul of WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, see the link to the notability guidelines in my !vote below. PaleAqua (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A relatively prominent webcomic that's been around for a long time, updated regularly and published in 2 books. Needs further citations, maybe. Deletion? No. --Alex n (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs further citations? And where are they going to come from? Didn't you read the part about "no Gnews hits at all"? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I didn't read anything you wrote, as all the arguments were already lined out in the previous discussion (which I did read) and I'm just casting my vote here. No ill will toward you. Good luck though (honest). --Alex n (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless anybody can come up with some reliable sources. Given the current state of the article, I'm not exactly holding my breath. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have added the AfD header to Characters of El Goonish Shive. If there is a consensus to delete the main article then I'd find it unlikely that there would be one to keep the spin out. Guest9999 (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, note that only one of the three is required. So per that policy just having been picked up by Keenspot is notable. Keenspot does not just publish any webcomic and has editorial oversite. Keenspot is a well-known and respected publisher. So I fully believe that Criteria #3 is meet and thus from the requirement "is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria", El Goonish Shive is notable. Any mentions in books, such as the bit in Campbell's The History of Webcomics, or in web news articles are only strengthen the notability. Having looked at the original nomination it looked more like it was a misplaced request for cleanup, and was closed as keep despite any presence of socks. PaleAqua (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether Keenspot is a "respected" medium or whether its members can be considered "independent" of it may be up for discussion however consensus has been found to delete current or former Keenspot hosted comics on several occasions (examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaming Guardians, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Pink Ponies, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashfield (webcomic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dungeons & Denizens, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yirmumah, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete is a Pogo Stick, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sporkman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sore Thumbs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburban Jungle (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd and Penguin, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vigilante, Ho!, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy in Love (comic), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God Mode). On criterion 3 Wikipedia:Notability (web) notes that, "Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion" - i.e. that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". This is clearly not the case for a large proportion of Keenspot comics. Guest9999 (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems to be a bit of a change since last I looked. I haven't heard of most of those comics except for the suburban jungle, but it has been a long time since I've visited the keenspot site. As to the independence claim, note that El Goonish Shive did not originate with Keenspot but was picked up and run by keenspot for a while. In fact El Goonish Shive ended the distribution with Keenspot and are now published by 910CMX. Seems to me that the guidelines fit in this case.PaleAqua (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those deletion discussions are from between 2006 and 2009. I don't know how many of the comics started on Keenspot but several including Tod and Penguin and Vigilante, Ho! did not. I can find very little information on 910CMX which to me suggests it would not meet the criteria. Personally I think that criterion 3 is extended to mean more than is accepted by general consensus - if you look at the guideline for books (which would include paper comic books) it mentions nothing about being published by a respected publisher establishing notability. If publishing EGS in paper wouldn't make it notable without coverage I don't see why - the lesser commitment of - publishing it online automatically does. Keenspot is an online publisher of webcomics, Penguin Books is a (far more notable) offline publisher of paper books but being published by Penguin Books doesn't make a book notable without any third party sources or specific exceptional achievements. Guest9999 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails Wikipedia:Notability, poorly sourced, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And per Guest9999's examples, clear consensus over many years of deletion discussions that these webcomics have not somehow auto-magically WP:INHERITED any kind of notability from this little-known publisher. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have something to share after this discussion is over, on the talk page of this discussion. ptmc2112 (talk | contributions) 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I originally was not going to have to vote delete when I first reviewed this AfD discussion because I was unable to find the Edutopia article, it had deadlinked, and based on my limited understading there was just little enough to make this article noteworthy. However, now that the dead link has been corrected, I feel that El Goonish Shive now falls on the other side of the line, and is once again keep worthy. I thank Guest9999 for finding that link. I am also voting keep because of its multi-year stint with Keenspot (which was the deciding factor in AfD I) as well as the books that it has had published (one of which I saw at a local Barnes and Noble), its 8+ years of updating fairly regularly and the fact that it has been referenced in many other comics as well as occasionally mentioned as inspiration for other comics getting started. Really, now that I start enumerating my reasons for voting keep, I think that even without the edutopia article this would have been a keep. Theturtlehermit (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional Commentary - I will admit that this comic produces zero Google News hits...but then again neither does Megatokyo or Garfield (comic strip) for that matter. And WP:GHITS does state that Google hits can not be used as exclusive reasoning to prove or disprove noteability. However a rather quick google search for " "El Goonish Shive" -wikipedia -egscomics.com " yeilded over 10k hits, some of which lend toward noteability. For example: a review of EGS on College Jolt , Amazon's listing of EGS volume 1 , A tvtropes review of EGS , The Sequential tart review mentioned below , I shudder to think of it, but a fanfic page about EGS , shiveapedia, an EGS Wiki , The link cited at the start of this AfD , and a tangents review of EGS. This was all accomplished in a matter of 10 minutes worth of looking and 30 minutes worth of wikityping, while I do admit that not all of these articles meet the requirements of "reliable, independent sources" I feel that these do show a pattern of influence that is "notability." (One last thing I want to add, I may be scarred forever after finding the rule 34 EGS page that I didn't link here) Theturtlehermit (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are incorrect that Megatokyo has zero results on a Google News search. It has about 105 results. "Garfield" + "comic" returns about 8,550 results. Many of those results for Megatokyo and Garfield come form sources like The New York Times, Publishers Weekly, and the Washington Post, so they at least have the potential to meet our standards. In contrast, El Goonish Shive = zero. You are however correct that "Tangents" and "TV Tropes" and "The Webcomic Book Club" and all the others you list are not reliable sources. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The non-existant google news hits don't matter according to WP:GHITS. There seem to be enough reliable sources to prove notability to me. Narthring (talk • contribs) 22:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain which of them specifically, if any, do you feel show "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per Wikipedia:Notability? Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. Specifically the Sequential Tart Web Zine review. The article is significant, non-trivial coverage in an independent source. Its merit as a reliable source could be called into question, but it seems to pass reliability to me from looking at the website.Narthring (talk • contribs) 20:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That looked like the best source by far to me, too, but it is not significant coverage (it's only 4 paragraphs), it does not look like a reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (It's a Web zine that publishes reviews by apparently pseudonymous authors like "Jiffy Burke", "Wolfen Moondaughter" and "Michele Witchipoo"), It does not seem entirely independent of webcomics (I recognize the names of several webcomic artists among their contributors), and after all those concerns it is still a single source when multiple significant, reliable sources are generally needed to write an encyclopedia article. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 12:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. None of the references meet Wikipedia:Notability by any stretch of the imagination. I have looked at each of the sources and the very best of them are extremely insignificant (they, like Edutopia, are passing, trivial mentions or a few brief sentences with no detail). We need much, much better to write an encyclopedia article. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you do know that adding the word "strong" in front of your comment doesn't make it count any more, right? Theturtlehermit (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that "Strong Delete" is one of the valid !votes available in AfD discussions, right? Weak Keep, Keep, Delete, Strong Delete ... it's a veritable scale. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:15, 13 May 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. consensus is that sourcing isn't up to snuff Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James X. Nova[edit]

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

Unremarkable artist (see WP:GNG). Likely autobiography. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, probably some shameless self-promotion. I can't find any sources that he doesn't publish that discuss him. Angryapathy (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not sure if this is where to respond to editors or not. Was not able to find instructions on this procedure. I wanted to respond to the two individuals recommending deletion. This is a new page. I am still adding information, which is why I have requested suggestions on improving the page. I have followed the guidelines regarding notability. Sources and links have been provided. This is an artist with a long exhibition history, is well-known to New York gallerists, has received commendations from well-known curators, and has been considered to be controversial and innovative. As all such judgments are subjective, I would like to request specific suggestions for additional inclusions other than those cited, if contemporary art is a field for which you feel qualified to speak. Also, to the commenter who said "probably some shameless self-promotion." - first of all, that is untrue. I am a scientist, not an artist. I have been a co-worker and friend of James, but have adhered to the guidelines of neutrality as I understand them, leaving out laudatory remarks or promotional inclusions. Second of all, I find that kind of assertion and the manner in which it was phrased to be very unprofessional, assumptive, hostile, and frankly, libelous. It is unnecessary. Just stick to the facts and provide useful suggestions, please. I have never written an article of this kind before and am hoping to learn more as time goes one. Imlivin (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In order for a subject to be considered notable, there needs to be independent sources that describe the subject. None of the sources provided, nor any that I could locate, actualy discuss the artist in question. Merely providing sources that show the existance of a person is not notability. If what you say is true about Mr. Nova, in regards to him being "well-known", then you should be able to find a source that is about James X. Nova, not ones that mention him. You should re-read WP:NOTABILITY. Angryapathy (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know there have been newspaper reviews of James's art exhibits, but the ones I have seen were not from digital editions. I can investigate further. Is there a way to submit scanned hardcopies? And many pre-web era news and culture publications have never been digitally archived, most I would guess. As far as letters of commendation, I would guess that this would be a violation of privacy to reprint them or at least would require a request to the sender for permission to reprint. Please advise and thanks for the constructive criticism. Imlivin (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A source is a source, and does not have to be digital. But I would make sure that sources show one of the following, as stated in WP:ARTIST:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

If your sources can prove any of these, then that would weigh in favor in keeping the article. However, remember that if the article does get deleted, this is not a comment on the talent of the artist, but merely that the artist does not meet the requirements to be added to Wikipedia. Angryapathy (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please find recent additions, per suggestions by User:Angryapathy. Imlivin (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the articles references are what would be considered reliable sources. I can find none in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even with the additions, I do not feel that this artist meets the notability requirements for WP. Angryapathy (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with caveats. There are several assertions of notability, particularly exhibiting in major Manhattan and Taos galleries, either of which would place the subject in the top tier of living artists; both are major art centeres. I've read the Taos News, and I know that their website has a very poor archive (my mother lived there for 18 years, she subscribed to the Taos News, and I've visited the town 20 times.) Thus, the subject would pass under Factor 4 of WP:ARTIST. However, what this article really needs is much better sourcing. Assuming that can be done, it should be kept. Ironically, asserting notability and also defamation are virtually mutually exclusive, according to the public figure doctrine. The nominator often says hurtful comments, but we've gotten used to him. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 11 May 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 3 Words. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 Words: Tour[edit]

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

Unsourced and fails WP:MUSIC#Concert tours. Being a support act and performing at three festivals is not a solo tour. JuneGloom07 Talk? 18:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC, and none of it is Cheryl Cole's tour. Anemone Projectors 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - presently I don't think this qualifies as notable enough to be an article; it can be covered in sufficient detail in the main article for the lady in question. HOWEVER, I'd like to state that as a rock music fan - where live shows are a more central focus of the fandom than pop music - support slots and festivals count as touring. And tons of tours include dates at such things. It just depends on if they become an event or not. Delete for now, put it back up if it blows up int o anything significant. (The Elfoid (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The first night has already recieved some notable reports in the UK press (added to the article) with the Daily Mail arguing she upstaged the peas. This coverage will only continue as the tour does, especially in London this week. Furthermore I think Cole's appearance at the festivals is notable and received quite a lot of attention and press because of the unusual choice for V festival and as her first solo appearance. She is also headlining the stage she is on. For example:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Showbiz-News/Cheryl-Cole-To-Go-It-Alone-At-V-Festival-Singer-To-Make-Festival-Debut-As-A-Solo-Artist/Article/201003115563628?f=rss

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/7347189/Cheryl-Cole-to-go-solo-at-V-Festival.html

http://www.metro.co.uk/metrolife/music/815423-cheryl-cole-to-headline-v-festival-2010

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/cheryl-cole-turns-rock-chick-to-perform-at-v-festival-1914668.html

http://www.mtv.co.uk/events/v-festival/news/197568-kasabian-cheryl-cole-kings-of-leon-for-v-festival

(Spyka (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

But it's still the Black Eyed Peas' tour, not hers. Information relating to her support of their tour should be in the article on their tour. Also, note that sources simply establish that a tour happened are not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Anemone Projectors 18:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 3 Words, which isn't exactly overwhelmingly long. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 19:18, 6 May 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

John Troutman[edit]

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

Biography of a living person with no reliable sources. The only source given is a blog on ComixTalk ([11]) which was generally deemed not to be reliable following discussion. The only other sources I can find unreliable, blogs or otherwise ([12], [13], [14]). Without independent reliable sourcing it will not be possible to verify the content of the article and per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons we should "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources" for this type of article. In this case that might be especially true as the questionable sources are mainly describing some kind of alleged dispute. Several stand alone articles on the individual's works have been deleted or merged following discussion (Examples: 1, 2, 3), the remaining article on his work (Basil Flint, P.I.) itself lacks any third party sourcing. I do not feel that merging the content anywhere would be appropriate as its entirely unsourced (or unreliably source) information about a living person. Guest9999 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete couldn't find signifcant coverage in gnews [15], [16]. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article fails wikipedia's standard of verifiability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:09, 13 May 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 Nigel Farage. There is a consensus that the incident is worth mentioning somewhere but not as a separate article. I'll redirect to Farage's article since it is mentioned there. History can be accessed. Tone 07:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 UKIP PZL-104 Wilga crash[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a news service. This event, while marginally interesting through the timing and the passenger, does not, and likely never will, pass our specific guidance on when to and when not to write about such events. It has a satisfactory Wikinews article, there's no need for this to be here. MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets WP:AIRCRASH guidelines in that a Wikinotable person (Nigel Farage) is significantly involved. Had the aircraft just been carrying the pilot then I agree that coverage wouldn't need to extend past a couple of sentences in the articles on UKIP and the election. In this case, I believe the notability threshold has been passed.

Other factors to consider are that the flight may have been illegal on at least two counts - contrary to the Polling Stations (Regulation) Bill by attempting to conduct election activity within 250m (vertically!) of a polling station when an election was taking place, and also contrary to the Air Navigation Order by taking a passenger whilst engaged in banner towing. OK, this is getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory, and the investigation by the AAIB will take months. Any prosecution would be by the CAA, again a process which could take months. Mjroots (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:AIRCRASH is currently an essay, presumably because it contains wording that suggests all that is required for an article is a significantly involved a blue-linked passenger. That clearly isn't inline with our actual guidelines about such current events articles. Even if it turns out to have lasting effect on him as a person, it still arguably wouldn't make the crash itself notable.

2. wp:crystal aside, I harldy think the fact the flight's notability as an air incident is boosted by its notability as a breach of electoral law. Had it landed safely and he was later arrested and prosecuted, I hardly think anybody would even think of creating an article on that event. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, thanks for your comments. You are quite within your rights to nominate the article for deletion, but may I please ask that you don't comment to every editor who votes "keep". You've stated why you feel the article should be deleted, I've stated why I feel it should be kept. Let's now let the debate run and allow due process to take place without further comment from either of us unless a direct question is asked of us. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think one comment is innappropriate. If/when I start repeating myself or badgering mutliple people, then you can start dishing out the advice. As it is, what with you being the creator and all, I find this advice highly innappropriate, an attempt to stifle the very debate you want to see occur. I reserve the right to comment on any new argument made, and seeing as it wasn't mentioned in the article, I could hardly have been expected to pre-empt the electiion law issue being put up as a defence, in the nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't advice, it was a request, that's all. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nigel Farage and/or UK Independence Party. Potentially temporary news coverage due to the involvement of the individual shouldn't establish independent notability. The essay mentioned above states (itself quoting Wikipedia:Notability) that it "takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability" and that "Articles that meet criteria in only a single section are less likely to be notable enough for a separate article than those that meet criteria in multiple sections". The article appears to meet one out of the 18(!) criteria. In any case a Wikiproject essay (which is apparently "being beta tested") should not outweigh the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Guest9999 (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This incident does not meet WP:AIRCRASH, the relevant section saying, "Notable person or group - a notable person or group is killed, seriously injured or otherwise significantly involved. A standalone article will normally only be appropriate if more than just the notable person or group is significantly involved." (emphasis mine) One notable person, no deaths, this can be covered fully in Farage's article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with UK Independence Party. --Kristian 21:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we ought to wait and see the level of coverage that this incident earns. As a developing story, it's a bit premature to render judgment on something that, while apparently trivial, has been widely reported in many sources. At present, I'm leaning merge or keep, but I'd wait 3 or 4 days before entering a definitive vote (to avoid too much supposition). (Presuming that this AfD discussion continues for the customary period and results in a merge, we'll know better at closure whether to merge to the UKIP article, or to Farage's article. If deleted, I wouldn't oppose re-creation at a later date if the CAA report on this incident earns significant coverage.) Notability of this incident is, in my mind, separate from notability of its victims. Regarding WP:AIRCRASH, I don't think there's sufficient acceptance of that essay to base an AfD decision on its arbitrary criteria—it's therefore not a significant factor in my rationale, which instead relies upon the much more robust WP:GNG. TheFeds 22:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay so I I really don't give a toss about it. But this fails WP:NOTNEWS as it is highly unlikely to have any lasting significance.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge salient details to Nigel Farage, fails [[WP:NOTNEWS}}. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Whether or not it meets WP:NOTNEWS, it is a notable and unusual event, and WP:IAR would seem to apply. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nigel Farage. Not article-worthy but worth a section in Farage's article.--Michig (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It was in the headlines for half an hour, but now the tabloids have found other things to fixate on and this event has no lasting notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The small plane injury accident is referred to in the article about Nigel Farage, and there's no need to describe the technical details about the pitot tube separating from the aircraft and breaking the strut. Mandsford (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Actually, people will want to know the cause of the crash, damage and such. Wikipedia is the 'sum total of human knowledge', after all. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So toss in the link to the accident report [17] as part of the mention in Farage's article. Mandsford (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but merge the relevant details into Nigel Farage. Was very surprised to see this had its own article, but the info is warranted on the notable individuals page. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - passing event of no long-term notability, which doesn't satisfy the notability requirements for air disasters. No merge needed, as the significant content is already in the Nigel Farage article. Robofish (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nigel Farage -- This crash of a light aircraft trying to do some kind of stunt on election day is merely one incident in his life, but otherwise NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hinton-in-the-Hedges Airfield, which has a significant mention of this accident. I consider that merging with Nigel Farage would be slightly inappropriate because whilst news coverage is still ongoing about the accident from his perspective, I doubt his article being the centre of attention for a disaster at an airfield would be in keeping with the general political and biographical theme of that article. Macintosher (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there'll be no Keep consensus... Merge per Macintosher. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like this will result in a merge. If that is the result, then the article on the airfield would be the better target. Should changes be introduced to the practice of banner towing as a result of this action, then I would expect that the article could be recreated and expanded. Any AAIB report is likely to take at least several months, thus any CAA action is probably going to be in the timescale of a year or two. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your agreement on my suggestion to merge it with the airfield article. Whilst I'm writing you might like to be aware that the BBC is still continuing coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macintosher (talk • contribs) 17:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is still keep, but I'll bow to consensus. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without prejudice against re-creating article later, if accident report has substantial new information. It doesn't look like any new and significant developments have surfaced regarding this story that would serve to improve the article or raise the profile of this event. I think the content is probably better suited to Farage's article—while the accident did occur at that airport, the coverage has seemed to centre around Farage himself. TheFeds 16:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youngsuk Chi[edit]

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

DELETE Disclosure - I am the author of the article. Article has not been improved nor does it represent the person being discussed accurately. It is difficult to cite due to lack of a significant number of cite-able sources. The edits that have been made do not add to the article and were sometimes false in a harmful way. For these reasons, Wikipedia is not the right medium to hold this person's history. {{MRM09 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)|MRM09}}— MRM09 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment The nominator was unfamiliar with the AfD process so I changed the formatting of the page to make it appear properly on the main AfD page. I have no opinion on the article itself. —Soap— 17:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I can find gNews confirmation for most of the facts presented in the current article, I'm not convinced the subject is notable. There are reliable sources for much of his employment history and whatnot, but I'm not sure any of it amounts to significant coverage. I also don't believe the awards Mr. Chi has received are significant enough to confer notability. There are some gScholar hits, but many come from publications owned by his current employer which raises questions of independence. » scoops “対談„ 19:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use some trimming but even if we took out everything that isn't sourced there would still be an article. The coverage is significant enough for me. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more sources that show his notability:[18][19][20]. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not well-written. Those citations suggesting notoriety are primarily from the subject's employer, suggesting potential bias. The question of adequate cited "coverage" is irrelevant. The subject is not notable based on reliable, cited information. It also does not conform to a standard encyclopedic entry. {{TQPP (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)|TQPP}}— TQPP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This AfD and the editing history of the article smell fishy to me. I'd wager a beer or six that TQPP (talk · contribs), MRM09 (talk · contribs) & Ejchi (talk · contribs) are...closely-related...acounts that might violate WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT, including potential vote-stacking on this AfD. However, given that the article started out as basically a promotional piece, reading like a resume, I'd be inclined to delete this marginally-notable BLP. — Scientizzle 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm going to close this, even though I participated in the discussion, because I'm closing against my own opinion, an opinion I continue to hold (but I do not now have time to find the necessary sources myself, and nobody else has done so) The consensus is clearly against keeping this without them DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kali's teeth bracelet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article does not have sources and does not meet the General Notability Guidelines. Suggest merge into a more general article on such devices. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. All the hits on Google Books derive from Wikipedia, zero hits on Google Scholar, zero hits on Google News Archive. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until and unless someone explains what has meaningfully changed since the last AFD nomination (which this article survived). AnonMoos (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that hasn't happened is that two years after the comment at that AFD "Sources are findable", no-one has found any reliable sources. That adds considerable weight to the case above for non-notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chastity cage. Joal Beal (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete. i don't see notability. and wouldn't this hurt? Qö₮$@37 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's actually supposed to be a kind of "bed of nails" effect which partially mitigates things... AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Widespread presence on the web and in some sorts of fiction, & I think known in the RW also. DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we need reliable sources. Web sites are not necessarily reliable, fiction hardly ever. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The KTB is actually pretty widely known about among people interested in chastity belts (though only used by a small minority)... AnonMoos (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this address the question of reliable sources? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 07:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it did, as such. I was talking about the real world. AnonMoos (talk) 08:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So irrelevant to this discussion then? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat unfortunate when Wikipedia declares the real world to be irrelevant to Wikipedia... AnonMoos (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 09:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. If reliable sources have not been found since the last AfD over two years ago, we must assume they don't exist. We can only keep saying "sources are findable" for so long. — Satori Son 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to an apparent lack of any reliable sources. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"; the last discussion was more than two years ago, ample time for any interested person to find any sources that might exist. Guest9999 (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while its obvious that the device exists, has been made by various people, and discussed widely on blogs, etc, we dont have any verifiable, reliable sources that refer to it. i can guess one reason no online or brick (brick house?) retailer would sell it, and no one would manufacture it: product liability, infection, death, oh what joy. id rather be a cigarette manufacturer, or sell broken refridgerators as children's toys. unless we get a good source, this is like an amorphous 4chan meme that cant be pinned down. maybe they should call it the Cheshire Cat bracelet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found. Epbr123 (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning keep~~ Found an entry for this in "Bracelet: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases". As a matter of fact, this entry was copied and pasted in its entirety to create this article back in 2005. Since then its been edited quite a bit so I don't think it constitutes copyright infringement. Them From Space 17:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the other way round. These books are derived from Wikipedia articles and so cannot be used as sources. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see now. So delete since no reliable sources have been produced. Them From Space 17:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and no reliable sources are available. Neitherday (talk) 04:58, 9 May 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. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clicks principle[edit]

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

Contested PROD; the reason given for the original prod says it all, "Attempt to give a new name to a basic principle of algebra." Appears to be an attempt by the creator to name a "principle" after himself. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source is a blog entry, and Google doesn't produce anything that may support this name for this bit of basic algebra. Favonian (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax (the name being the hoax, not the equation). --Pgallert (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The application is the principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.108.90 (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC) I see that it is a principle but the actual name is non-existent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.108.90 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as prodder. Wikipedia is not in the business of redefining semantics. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply attempting to put something, which is seemingly true and is not on wikipedia, on wikipedia. {98.251.108.90 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete - self-aggrandizement - UtherSRG (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{98.251.108.90 (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep as an arguable truth. {98.251.108.90 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: from this user's editing pattern I'm pretty sure that he's a sockpuppet of the article's author. andy (talk)

15:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete per nom. andy (talk) 15:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am a sockpuppet and I agree with trashing the name but the principle is not even touched from where i've searched on wikipedia because it is truly a personal idea but the math,science and philosophy are unprovably false so far. I give in to the fight. {98.251.108.90 ([[User talk:98.251.108.90|talk]]) 16:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)} Okay so would not it be reasonable to keep this article until the name of the equation is found?{Kk8 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

If the name of the equation is not found, the article is not kept. Simple as that. We can't have people guess what the name is of whatever they're looking for. Have you considered mentioning the equation (without a name) in Algebra? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I am certainly not one of those who need to be prodded. In fact, if anything, I am the prod."- Winston Churchill {98.251.108.90 (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete, hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 12:13, 10 May 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. Tone 20:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Kelemen[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who has never played a fully professional match, and who fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested without reason Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appearances in reserve teams and youth internationals aren't enough to meet WP:ATHLETE, and there's no indication of general notability neither. Bettia (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one's not even an article, it's just an info box.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:53, 10 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subspace (BDSM)[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable term and a likely neologism. Article’s only reference is a personal essay, despite article having been tagged with {{refimprove}} for almost three years. Any verifiable information contained in this article should instead be included at the BDSM article, if it is not already. — Satori Son 15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep another standard concept, widely used in nonfictional and fictional accounts. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable source to establish notability of concept.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. Joal Beal (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: term certainly seems to be in common use (even after you discard stuff sourced from Wikipedia itself): see http://books.google.com/books?q=bdsm+%22sub+space%22 , http://books.google.com/books?q=bdsm+subspace The article needs better sourcing, but preemptive deletion is not the answer. -- Karada (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after discussion, we have kept lots of odd articles. There is no evidence it is a neologism, and is in fact well-reported in the media. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is the second common BDSM term I have found under AfD attack. I have added sources, again. I'd add more but sources from this underground sexual genre use sites that are blacklisted from WP. The censorship people have this well guarded from two directions. But there are plenty of other sources and mentions of the concept--which is the goal of a BDSM bottom. The fact that I am finding multiple attacks on the core definitions of the subject show an ulterior motive--to censor or remove this kind of information. Taken as a whole, this is a dangerous trend for WP to undertake. OsamaPJ (talk) 22:50, 11 May 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) 02:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viroj Wiwanitkit[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP - IP editor removed BLP PROD -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails criteria for notability.Novangelis (talk) 18:12, 11 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanking Love[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

1995 Japanese Erotic film. Does not meet WP:NF or WP:GNG (at time of nomination) Stillwaterising (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. References do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (films) criteria. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the new version of the article. Glad to see it improved. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is notable as Schmidt explained in the first AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He explained that it might be "savable". Unfortunately no-one seems to have saved it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvable? Let's change that to "further improvable". With respects, that no one jumped to improve is not a valid reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is for re-release after 5 years -- this is clearly about the film being released cinematically (hence the comment about festivals). This was released to video, quite a different thing. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly"? Sorry , ~~let's not POV or OR these arguments.~~ No where does it state that a "commercial re-release" for monetary gain refers only to theaters or festivals... or is your assertion meant to intend that any films ever released on video could never be found notable through a commercial video release. Yikes. However, this side-discussion has been rendered moot due to the terrific work by others in improving the article now that the AFD forced cleanup.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion, not an article. So let's not have the acronym soup. I didn't state any of those things, so no need to argue against them. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and apoplogies. My impressions toward of your interpretation of guideline are simply my own. I have struck the offending acronym soup. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The film assuredly meets WP:NF, in it being the feature film debut of an actual modern-day cannibal Issei Sagawa, and in having commercial re-release 5 years after its original release. Heck, even Jeff Dahmer never starred in a film, so this is indeed a very unusual and notable "first". With respects to the nom, this meets criteria for inclusion and should be allowed to remain and be improved (or not) over time and through regular editing. Even Wikipedia understands that it is itself imperfect and grants that improvements do not have to happen immediately. Better that we consider the precepts of Project:CSB, as Japanese cult films rarely get wide coverage in Western sources, and so be more active in getting input from Japanese language-reading Wikipedians, rather than tossing due to WP:UNKNOWNHERE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll do a little work on the article before chiming in officially here, but I'll point out: This isn't Sagawa's film debut, since I find a couple other roles before this-- most notably in cinematic enfant terrible Hisayasu Satō's Promiscuous Wife: Disgraceful Torture (1992). Nor does he star in the film. Not to tip my hand here, but this film is released by Daiei, one of the biggest film studios in Japan-- comparable to MGM or Universal... Dekkappai (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If not "film debut", it is asserted "feature debut" in that Anime Nation wrote "In the early 1990's, Kazumasa Sagawa (same as Issei Sagawa), while in Paris, killed and ate his girlfriend. In 1995, he starred in his feature film debut, Spanking Love." However, I am quite happy that you are looking in. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Involving a notable person is not enough. Notability is not inherited. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect You're misreading WP:NOTINHERITED. What you may have missed in WP:NF is it specifically allowing consideration of a film's notability if it features significant involvement by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. A feature film debut of a notable qualifies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His "career" was being a cannibal, as least, that's what he's notable/notorious for. This film was not a significant part of that! Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no, he's not a professional cannibal. He capitalized on that crime to launch into some sort of cult celebrity. Film appearances were a major part of that-- though, according to the Weisser book anyway, it is the Satō film that gave his career the boost. In any case, this particular film is notable without reference to Sagawa. Major studios, and coverage by independent, reliable sources. Dekkappai (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Released by a major studio, satisfies GNG with a full discussion/description in Kinema Junpo[21], and an entry in the Weisser Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia (a rule of thumb: If a subject has an entry in a paper encyclopedia, why should it be excluded from an online one purporting to aspire to "the sum of human knowledge"?). Personally I think the Issei Sagawa angle is over-emphasized. He seems to have just had a bit-part in this film, and it is perfectly "notable" without reference to him... Dekkappai (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Article has undergone major improvement since forced to by this AFD!!! What began as this, is now THIS. Major kudos to Kudos to Dekkappai. Awesome job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its mentioned in a published encyclopedia, and various notable entries found elsewhere, as mentioned by those above. Clearly notable. Dream Focus 08:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see the significant improvements have been made in sourcing. Good work. One of the purposes of Afd's is to force users to "improve it or remove it." - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I prefer the carrot and not the stick, is that a withdrawal? :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
- I'd always heard that AfD was for judging the subject's suitability for an article, not the state of the article itself. Though, as these AfDs are actually practiced, you are probably right. I think this is bad because a decent, sourced stub can always be improved by someone who has the knowledge/access to sourcing to do so. Removing the article prevents any future improvement. Anyway, glad to have chipped in on this article, and thanks to Michael too, who is being modest about his own contributions to the improvement of this article. And, I suspect, a native Japanese speaker with interest and access to appropriate sourcing, could expand this article much more. Dekkappai (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now that there's no longer any delete votes I would like to ask that this Afd be withdrawn, unless there's any objections. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources seem reliable to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are too trivial. The film doesn't seem to have had much coverage outside database and retail sites. Epbr123 (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Right. Only a full page at Kinema Junpo,[22], rare for this type of film, and a listing in the Weisser Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia. (There have been hundreds of such films released every year for the past 50 years in Japan, only a relative few could be listed in the Weisser work.)... Dekkappai (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia coverage is just a three-sentence plot summary, which makes it trivial per WP:NF. The film hasn't received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Epbr123 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The film was released by Daiei, one of the oldest and largest studios in Japan. That it would be covered in sources is highly likely. Without doing much searching I've found an entry on the film in an actual encyclopedia on Japanese film, in English no less. Out of a hundred or more such films released that year, this one was given an entry-- your judgment of that entry is irrelevant. I also found a full description of it at Kinema Junpo. Unless you have access to a wide variety of Japanese sourcing-- which is notoriously lacking on the Internet-- then your assertion that the film has not received more coverage is pure groundless conjecture. Epbr123, you appear to be here only to draw out this AfD beyond the point at which the nominator requested its withdrawal. You appear to be here only to waste the community's time. This is practically the definition of trolling. I suggest you do the right thing. Dekkappai (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Besides the lack of substance in the recent Delete !vote, it came after the nominator requested withdrawal of this AfD. Can it be disqualified? The Delete vote is free to re-nominate, ad-infinitum, of course. But, this particular one should have been closed, as requested and agreed upon by consensus. It hurts nothing to let the AfD ride out to its obvious conclusion, of course, but it is a waste of community time. Dekkappai (talk) 01:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MichaelQSchmidt and Dekkappai. Tabercil (talk) 00:07, 11 May 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 BDSM. Shimeru (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scene (BDSM)[edit]

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

No sources. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term itself is not notable enough to justify a standalone article. Any verifiable information it might contain should be merged into the BDSM article (but much of it is covered there already). — Satori Son 15:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think you are mixing too things. Deletion should not be decided on the quality of the article, BUT on the interest of the subject. The article is poorly sourced, ok, too short, but this is a notable and interesting topic, from the standpoint of BDSM activities. So I think it should be kept.

PS : it seems you have started a massive deletion campaign of BDSM related articles. Don't be surprised if you read me saying keep in other articles for exactly the same reasons. Hektor (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to BDSM. Nothing here that could not be covered in the main article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Satori Son. The term is not encyclopedic. Joal Beal (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep' About as basic as you can get. Appropriate for an article, something that someone might reasonably look for in a contemporary encyclopedia.. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourcable content with BDSM. Epbr123 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge are redirect to BDSM -- Karada (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As DGG said, this is about as basic as it comes and a necessary definition for further discussion of the subject. I am shocked nobody has gotten off their butt to google the term, which is used commonly in almost all BDSM discussion. I have added three links to its usage, taking only a few seconds to find them on the first page of google. Instead all these AfD people would rather sit on their hands, vote delete, and watch another informative WP article die. Thank you all you lazy . . . OsamaPJ (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the references you have added do not appear to be reliable sources, that is, "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The usage of the term is not in doubt, but its notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I provided are sources from within the BDSM community--the people who are in the know about this subject matter. What you consider unreliable are exactly what you will get when the entire subject matter is pushed underground. THIS IS the media you will get within BDSM--things that allow anonymity. It is a convenient stipulation you place on this subject in order to censor it rather than to learn about it. Shame on you.OsamaPJ (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are the requirements agreed by the Wikipedia community as part of the policy on verifiability, namely, "whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true". This is one of the core content policies. I see nothing to be ashamed of in following it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:06, 13 May 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. I would also point out that, as DGG states, we have been systematically including schools with a lower notability threshold then other pages. In this particular case there are also several notable alumni origionating from this school, which is another indication that the school itself is notable. The combination of these two, along with the clear keep majority, leads me to believe this should be kept. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collège Antoine-Girouard[edit]

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

NN school. merge to school district and redirect UtherSRG (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no school district, it's a private catholic high school in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec, Canada. I'm translating from the French article since Collège Antoine-Girouard was often cited in the English Wikipedia. --Gregory.lussier (talk) 14:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gregory, thanks for your work on the article, but please don't remove the AfD tag. The admin who closes this discussion will do so. Thanks. — Satori Son 15:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I wasn't aware of that rule. Thank you, --Gregory.lussier (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long list of notable alumni there. Refs would be nice, but I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for all high schools, we we consistently for the last 3 years or so have judged notable as a general although informal guideline. This particulr one is undoubtedly specially notable, judging by the alumni list,. DGG ( talk ) 20:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NHS contains the arguments for keeping high schools. In addition, there are sufficient sources available to meet WP:ORG. This is a historic school with an unusually large number of notable alumni. TerriersFan (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the usual generic arguments, there are 1,780 hits of the school's current name (mainly in French) at Google News Archives, demonstrating substantial coverage; and it is 200 years old, which ought to count for something.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I can post this here, but I have some references. I guess it's difficult to justify each and every notable student, but their Wikipedia page already stated they studied at the Séminaire de Saint-Hyacinthe. I only added those who had their own English Wikipedia page. I don't really understand why the English page is pending deletion. I have created the French page years ago, which has been approved and modified over the time to comply the exact same rules. There is a number of independant references stating the existence and importance of that high school, which are obviously in French since it's an article about a French high school in the most French-speaking city of the province of Quebec (Saint-Hyacinthe, QC) --Gregory.lussier (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC):[reply]
Please see that I have added references to the notable alumni. --Gregory.lussier (talk) 17:16, 8 May 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 an overwhelming majority to delete mostly citing policy based reasons around a lack of substantial reliable secondary sourcing. The keep side relies mostly on admitedly marginal sources and/or assertion and I have excluded the SPA votes that have been placed on the talk page. I have purposely not taken into account delete votes based on how poor this article is because, as Col Warden rightly states, AFD isn't for clean up. That said the clear consensus is that this doesn't pass the bar and my personal advice to any editors seeking to rescue this is to start fresh and concentrate purely on material from reliable sources in recreating a userspace draft. I am happy to review the close in the context a such a draft at any time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Irving Literary Society[edit]

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

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

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

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

Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, seek comments from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another.

NOTE TO NEW WIKIPEDIA EDITORS Large numbers of new editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules have made excessive numbers of edits to this discussion, many of which are unhelpful, and this makes it difficult for the reviewing administrator to determine whether the article should be kept or deleted. I've moved those editors' comments to the discussion talk page, in order to prevent further disruption. However, if you have useful contributions to make (for example, if you've discovered reliable sources that would shed light on the discussion), please feel free to make those contributions on the talk page. I will monitor the talk page, and move comments that include useful new information to this page- I also encourage the closing admin to review the conversation there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Most of the article's information has no sources. Many claims in the article are not supported, especially that it is the oldest Cornell Student Organization. Information that is sourced appears to be copied from unverifiable sources and much appears to be lifted from other copyrighted material. Cornell1890 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

DELETE - This article is largely fictional history and self-promotion. There are no legitimate citations from after 1900. The article is riddled with factual errors. (The Student Assembly didn't even exist until 1981. There was no "constitutional collapse" in 1969, because the student government had voted itself out of existence the previous year. The formation of the IFC was not in contrast to student government. Etc.) While Phi Kappa Psi may privately preserve elements of the early literary society, it cannot be said that it truly still exists or holds influence on campus, and it is certainly not a separate entity from the fraternity. Cornell2010 (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I usually lean toward inclusion, but the article is absolutely nonsensical. Consider this outtake, grabbed at random:
To the stoical looker-on, his occasional eulogistic paroxysms would seem enough to make dame Nature blush at so much flattery, but she has met vis a vis many a “lover at first sight,” ere this, and is used to compliments. The views of the author are given frankly and apparently from the heart, just as a real amateur would express himself on the spot, while to the more conservative it would doubtless seem that there were too many superlative degrees among his adjectives.
I don't even know what I'm looking at! —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing the above because overly-dense and florid style isn't a valid reason in itself to delete an article. I didn't realize that the text I plucked out was a quotation from a primary source, as it was not formatted as such at the time. The article- assuming it were to be kept- would clearly require a lot of cleanup, but that's how Wikipedia works. I still lean toward deletion, but I haven't reviewed enough sources to be qualified to make a strong statement either way. —Notyourbroom (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is largely fictional and very manipulative of the facts. I cannot support it. There are no legitimate sources from 1900 onward. The group of promoters (Cmagha and BRB72 [sock puppet?][net ID much?]) speak of the existence in the present tense, as if the group were still active on campus today. I fear that this is very self promoting and trying to lend credibility to a "newly" formed student group that is attempting to ride the coattails of a long dead organization. Wikipedia is not the place. Cornell1890 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - The citations are farcical, and the existence of this group can't be independently verified. NYCRuss ☎ 02:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary as of 30 April, 04:05[edit]

This page has been massively botched with legions of redundantly-marked opinions. I've waded through it as best I can.

In support of keeping the article:

Cmagha (talk · contribs)— Cmagha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Brb72 (talk · contribs) — Brb72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
128.84.144.214 (talk · contribs)— 128.84.144.214 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hadem (talk · contribs)— Hadem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In support of deletion:

All of the individuals in support of keeping the article have single-purpose accounts, as a cursory examination of their editing histories will reveal. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC) Updated —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you to Notyourbroom for summarizing the mess these SPAs have made of this discussion. I should also point out that some of these accounts may be the same person. Note here where Tea36 (talk · contribs) deletes the signature of 128.84.144.214 (talk · contribs) and here where Brb72 (talk · contribs) inappropriately comments on Cornell1890's user page instead of his talk page and then Hadem (talk · contribs) comes back to make minor copyedits to it two hours later. And why does Cmagha (talk · contribs) refer to him/herself in the third person here? Will the "pro-keepers" (and I use the plural advisedly) please read this for guidance on how to participate constructively at an AfD. Most importantly, stop prefacing every comment with "keep" (you say it only once). Stop adding unsigned comments, and stop editing other users' comments. If some of you are actually the same person attempting to "vote-stack", continuing to edit this way is very likely to end you up here and possibly lead to you being blocked. Cut it out please. Voceditenore (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC) (updated by Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral based on notability concerns from looking at the sources cited and excerpts quoted, as well as looking around somewhat myself.

1. As an independent society, it has no documented notability outside Cornell and even within Cornell has no current relevance (and very little past relevance), except to the members of the local chapter of a national fraternity. Note this sole mention of the Irving Literary Society on page XLVIII of the 1916 edition of A Story Historical of Cornell University

Early Literary and Debating Societies

In the early days the undergraduates formed the Philalathean, Irving, Adelphi and Curtis Literary Societies. They met soon afterwards in the room in Morrill Hall, where the Registrar's office is now. These societies developed oratory and debate, but did not greatly promote social life, and so, as at other colleges, they were finally abandoned.

2. Notability is not inherited. It may have had members who later became notable, but unless you can demonstrate that their membership in this society was a significant aspect of their lives and future careers, their membership does not attest to the society's notability.

3. There were many Irving Literary Societies in American colleges, schools and towns in the 19th century, some of which appear to have been far more notable than this one, and some of which are still around as independent entities. See [23] and [24]. If nothing else this article's current name is completely misleading.

4. A very small amount of the material here could be appropriately added to an article on Cornell's history, the article on the parent fraternity, the Washington Irving article, or even ~~a new~~ the article/list on American college literary societies. But it needs to be drastically pruned and what's left needs serious copy editing - the style is bizarre and very "in universe", and I'm not talking about the 19th century quotes.

– Voceditenore (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. Its one claim to fame, being "the oldest literary society at Cornell", does not appear to be true. In the list at College literary societies, it is listed as being founded in 1868, while Cornell's Amphictyon Society is listed as 1853 and the Adelphian Society as 1858. All dates are sourced from: Seeley, I. C., Manual of College Literary Societies with Statistical Table, (Kalamazoo: Chaplin & Ihling Bro's Book and Job Printers, 1871), pgs. 19-135. This same source is used in this article from the Library Quarterly. As both the latter pre-date the founding of Cornell, it's possible they had already existed and were incorporated into the University (or the source could be wrong), but it's still not clear how the Irving's claim to be the oldest is adequately supported.

– Voceditenore (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: mystery solved. The latter two were at Cornell College in Iowa and wrongly linked in College literary societies to Cornell University. However, according to Cornell University, A History (1905) p. 4 (Section 2. Literary and Debating Societies), the Philalathean was the oldest, followed by the Irving: "The first society to be established, soon after the opening of the university, was the Philalathean, and soon afterwards, on October 22, 1868, the Irving."

- Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per the nom. Codf1977 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Was this article created for an end-of-semester project? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the information found at Voceeditnore--I consider his source a clearly RS. 19th century literary societies at major colleges ha as important a role in the college as the academic curriculum, and there can be--and in fact usually was--more than one of them. As Voceditenore, a careful editor, points out, there are many other such societies. But that is no reason to avoid covering this one, it's rather an argument that articles should be written on the others. That they eventually died out as the curriculum broadened is no reason not to include them--we cover historical topics also. Some of the other delete !votes as ignorant well as some of the !keeps represent very close to spa's, working only on very closely related topics. The problem here seems mainly a content dispute about the present-day importance of the society. Whether it has any present day importance at Cornell is irrelevant entirely to notability, as long as the article is written to indicate this properly. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. You make some good points. I might consider changing my mind.;-) However, I'm still not completely convinced that it sufficiently notable to merit an article on its own, although possibly feasible as an article on Cornell's literary societies in general. As you probably know, I try to rescue articles from AfD whenever I can, and I have to say that the nominator's rationale, is not something I would go along with. The fact that an article is dreadful, is not a reason to delete it. My comment about the other Irving Societies was mainly to the point that if kept, this article's title needs changing to something like The Irving Society (Cornell University). The current title is grossly misleading. Anyhow, I'll keep an eye on this and see how the discussion progresses. I'm willing to be convinced. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG and per general precedent against articles on student clubs at a single school. Also per Voceditenore, who notes that many of the primary claims are outright fictitious or grossly misleading. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
Delete as hoax. While some of the claims may be true, the amount of baloney encountered here means we will likely need to start from scratch. Brad 03:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep the content but not necessarily as a separate article~~ per the source found by Voceditenore and per the cogent arguments of DGG (there are many other such societies. But that is no reason to avoid covering this one, it's rather an argument that articles should be written on the others.) If there is a valid merge target, I would support merging instead of keeping this as a separate article. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete. The comments by Stifle, 4meter4, and other editors below convince me that because of the time it will take for an experienced editor to remove the inappropriate content (which is most of the article) and retain the small portions that can be verified by reliable sources (I read the article and was unable to find anything worthwhile, anything that wasn't original research), I prefer a close as "delete", rather than a close as "merge". Cunard (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find verification on the societies existence at Cornell in Lee de Forest and the fatherhood of radio - by James A. Hijiya as shown here [25]. This does give credit that the organization was once consider to be notable. My understanding, with regards to Wikipedia guild lines with regards to notability, is that once a person - place - or thing are found to be notable, either in past or present context, they retain this notability. In other words, once notable always notable. Thanks.ShoesssS ^Talk 13:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ShoesssS: From some of the research I have done, I have found many different "Irving Literary Societies" and I am not sure that the link you supplied above is the one at Cornell University. For one thing, Lee de Forest has no connection to Cornell University or Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity which makes me doubt any connection to the group. I think we need to be careful in assuming that every "Irving Literary Society" is associated with this group. Cornell1890 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, that is where he meet his wife Harriot Blatch, who graduated Cornell with a civil engineering degree. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've changed my view above from delete to neutral, as I am still not convinced that this should be an independent article, but wouldn't be horrified at a "keep" outcome. Having said that I want to make some strong recommendations.

It's clear from the style shifts that large parts of this article are copied from other sources, many of them in violation of copyright if published post-1923. I suspect they're from past alumni or fraternity publications. This has to go. I'm not talking about the clearly marked (but excessive) quotes. I'm talking about vast swathes of text presented as original writing. I and another editor have just finished deleting large chunks of pasted copyright material from 6 other articles created by the same editor.[26] (I don't think this was done in bad faith, just inexperience with editing on Wikipedia.)
The article's title is misleading and needs to be changed to The Irving Society (Cornell University) for the reasons I outlined above
The article should not be used as a coatrack for adding a large amount of material about the local chapter of Phi Kappa Psi and other tangential issues at Cornell. It needs to concentrate on the historic literary society itself with no more than a brief description of its current status, i.e. a non-notable sub-section of a fraternity chapter.
Finally, some style issues that need to be ironed out if the article is kept. It is currently written not for the general reader but for alumni of a particular university (Cornell) and members of a particular fraternity there. Frat-speak needs to be removed, i.e. referring to people as "Brother Jones" or "Sister Smith", using "brother" rather than "member", etc.. Likewise, terms used in a way that applies specifically to American fraternity life, "tap", "pledge", etc. should also be avoided, or at the very least explained in a footnote or linked to an explanatory article elsewhere in WP. Ditto discussing aspects of campus life and buildings as if everyone already knows what you're talking about. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article for a general and international audience, not an alumni magazine article. The style needs to reflect this.

– Voceditenore (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reading through the discussion I accept that it has been shown that the society existed and that some people who later gained notability were members of it however this does not give notability to the society itself sufficient to pass WP:ORG. Nancy ^talk 07:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to affirm that my opinion remains the same despite later changes to the article. Nancy ^talk 08:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same reasoning as Nancy. I think this topic would be better covered in an article about Cornell's literary societies in general as Voceditenore suggested earlier. By itself I am not convinced sufficient notability has been established. 4meter4 (talk) 08:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't sure I was going to take part in this, but I thought that another comment from someone who has been around a while should be made. It's obvious that the society existed, but that isn't sufficient for it to warrant an article. I've seen no evidence that the society itself passes WP:ORG. A short mention without all the bells and whistles in an article about Cornell's literary societies would be fine, so long as it is proportional to its significance. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tend to agree with you. I'm wondering if a solution might be to userfy this page and ask the article's creator to work on Cornell University literary societies, researching and adding material documenting the other societies as well, before moving it into article space. There's quite an editorial army now assembled on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society.;-) I'm not sure if they're interested in writing about stuff that doesn't pertain to their fraternity, but if they were, we'd get a potentially valuable article. Voceditenore (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep'~~ but edit sharply. The insistence on an over-detailed article about something notable but not terribly important is a reliable way to get it listed for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've already said "keep" in your previous post. Shouldn't this one be a "comment"? Voceditenore (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck doubled vote. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry--the discussion got so long I forgot. I'm glad at least i was consistent . :) DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been considerable improvements to the article today, although it's still too long. But a new editor has found several sources in the Ithaca press (not simple obituaries), which might help towards establishing notability. He didn't link them in the article, so I'll post the links here. They're PDF files and sometimes take a longish time to load. [27], [28], [29], [30] (the last one has quite a lengthy article) - Voceditenore (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless cleaned up. It appears that there are insufficient independent sources to establish notability. If kept, the footnotes need to be severely cleaned up to specify what is a citation (and citations should use proper citation templates), what is a footnote in the traditional sense (providing tangential information), etc. My suggested closure for this AFD is "relist in a month", which relisted debate should also be semiprotected, bearing in mind that there's an awful lot of content which needs to be unwound and evaluated, but a paucity of citations. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per DGG. Some of the sources seem to be reliable and independent, so there may just be enough here to meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request - This discussion will benefit significantly from someone doing a no kidding serious summary of the discussion based on the current state of the article. Focus the summary on notability and sourcing, not the stuff that is just clean-up oriented. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion summary prior to relisting Early on there were some editors who wanted the article deleted primarily on content issues, some of which were not trivial, i.e. the suspected plagiarism. One editor opined that it was a hoax. However, the majority of the discussion has been about whether there are sufficient reliable sources available to establish its notability as an organization.
The only press coverage of the Society (also called "Association" in some sources) has been in the Cornell student newspapers and the local Ithaca papers. The New York Times archives go back to this period, but have no coverage of it under either name. With the exception of this, this and possibly this from the Cornell Era (student paper) and this from The Ithacan (local paper) which discusses the Society's celebration of Washington Irving's birthday, the remaining coverage has been trivial (Society announcements, mentions of it in various obituaries of its members, etc.). In terms of books, there were brief mentions of the Society in conjunction with other literary societies at Cornell in its early days in A history of Cornell by Morris Bishop (1962); Cornell University, a history by Waterman Thomas Hewett, (1905) pp. 4-6; and A story historical of Cornell University by Murray Poole (1916). One other source offered which mentioned the Society was Lee de Forest and the fatherhood of radio by James A. Hijiya (1992) p.35. However this source was misinterpeted. If you read the actual page, it refers to the Irving Literary Society at de Forrest's prep school Mount Hermon.
Three editors on this page felt this was sufficient to keep it as an independent article. Some felt it should be kept but only as a pruned down addition to other relevant articles, not on its own. Several more found the sources were not sufficient to establish notability per WP:ORG and felt it should deleted. Note that there are also 10 editors all opining "keep" whose comments were moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Irving Literary Society by an administrator for reasons described here and at the top of this page. I encourage editors here to also look at those comments. Voceditenore (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are really only one or two potentially reliable sources listed in all the references (most of which are actually footnotes). I can't check them, but as they are broader history books, I can't presume that they deal with this society in a significant way. The vast amount of the coverage seems to be very limited in scope (the student paper), not indicating any notability outside the Cornell campus. Even Voceditenore's coverage is trivial, and that's the local newspaper. One would expect more than a passing paragraph on remotely notable subjects ("The literary society is doing this, the mechanical society is doing that." "The literary society held a poorly attended meeting."). The one long-ish article is really devoted to a function put on by the society and doesn't cover the society itself in any detail. I don't see how notability has been established. It might have been the first society founded at Cornell, but there are contradictory sources there, at best. Based on what I see, this society seems to deserve passing mention in a larger article on Cornell student life/clubs/etc. » scoops “対談„ 15:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cornell University. Add a mention to Cornell University that provides basic coverage of this society and gives it prominence appropriate to its actual importance. The Irving Literary Society is not notable, so it should not have its own article, but it is appropriate to mention it somewhere on Wikipedia. Also, in view of the nature this AfD, I think a redirect is a superior outcome to a deletion because I wouldn't want someone searching for The Irving Literary Society to find a redlink that encourages them to write an article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully disagree with the notion that anything should be added to Cornell University. That article is already too long. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) This is not a good solution. Many different organizations have operated under the name "The Irving Literary Society" (ILS), only one of which is associated with Cornell University. A redirect is therefore not a good idea as searchers may be looking for one of the other organizations using this name. Also, it would be difficult to add content on the ILS to the Cornell University article without raising concerns of WP:Undo. In my opinion deletion is the best option here. Notability still hasn't been adequately established. Further, many of the major contributors to this article most likely have a conflict of interest as they are Cornell students who are probably ILS members. They are also inexperienced with wikipedia's guidelines regarding verifiability, independent sources, neutrality, and referencing in general. Unless experienced wikipedians commit to overseeing the keeping/editing of this content (whether at this article or at another), I am not confident that we will end up with anything better. Further, so much weeding will need to be done with this content that a delete and merge will be a highly difficult close for the admin who ultimately rules on this AFD. I prefer deletion, but if the decision is to merge my suggestion to the closing admin is to userfy the content upon closure; preferably to an experienced wikipedian who is interested in tackling this content/over-seeing the merger. 4meter4 (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, redirection seems like a bad idea. There have been other Irving Literary Societies, including one (apparently) in Chicago that gets gNews archive hits and might actually be notable. Since there is no separate article on student life, if the relevant content of this article can't fit into History of Cornell University without giving undue weight (and I don't think it can), it probably doesn't belong here. » scoops “対談„ 18:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The mulitple ILSs are not a problem for re-direction, if that is the consensus. The page can be moved to The Irving Literary Society (Cornell University) and then re-directed. Voceditenore (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The gist of a recent point made on the talk page by Lebowski 666 (talk · contribs) is that other stuff exists (and badly referenced). He cites Philomathean Society, Philomathean Society (New York University), Eucleian Society, and Sphinx (senior society). While technically this isn't a valid argument for keeping this article, these other articles might provide the discussants here with a basis of comparison in terms of notability, structure, usefulness, etc. Voceditenore (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Actually there are a lot more articles of this type. Follow the blue links in this list. (Many, if not most, are poorly referenced.) Voceditenore (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is evident that the topic is notable. AFD is not cleanup and so discussion of how the content ought to be edited belongs on the article's talk page, not here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Respectfully, I completely disagree that notability is evident in this case. Nobody has yet provided substantial enough sources to satisfy WP:N and the subject clearly fails WP:ORG. How you came to the conclusion you did is a mystery to me, especially since you didn't explain how you reached it.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with 4meter4 regarding notability. The organization barely existed for more than two decades. It was one of many very similar groups at Cornell and elsewhere. In the thorough A History of Cornell by Morris Bishop, it warrants no more than a brief paragraph about literary societies, concluding with "In the eighties the clubs disappeared, or turned into debating societies." Few, if any, other Cornell historians refer to it. The Irving was not even the first of the literary clubs at Cornell to accept women, instead following the example of the Curtis Literary Society. See [31], which also refers to the Irving ceasing to exist in 1887. Cornell2010 (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brb72 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)brb72. Summary as of 8 May 2010; PM. Sourcing is complete, with secondaries in Hewett, Kammen and Bishop; though these authors have connections to Cornell University, the publishers are independent of the Cornell Board of Trustees, the party to the Residential Program connecting the Irving “to Cornell”. None of these secondaries are “Cornell publications”. As for the primaries, we have included many cites from the Cornell Era and some from the Ithacan and the Daily Democrat. Again, neither the Cornell Era, the Ithacan, nor the Daily Democrat are “Cornell publications”. Attempts to characterize them as such are a straining of the Wikipedia guidelines, especially given your previous predisposition to approval articles of this ilk, notably the Sphinx Head article which – do note – was approved AFTER a AfD petition against it, and its author, Cornell1890, has a screen name, coincidentally, which is the founding date of Sphinx Head. And given that experience, it is all the more odd that Cornell1890 initiated an AfD which could threatened the very page he or she created. Looking to Hewett, the notability lies in the Irving’s position on the tapping and admission of women. If you don’t find that notable in the 1870s, then perhaps the premise underlying Wikipedia is fundamentally flawed. One would have thought gender discrimination was understood by this time. As for the argument that the Daily Democrat is not as authoritative as Sphinx Head’s New York Times, remember, the Times has had several nasty accuracy accusations in the past decade. Just because a paper is regional in audience does not mean that it does not convey notability; who is to say New York City is more notable-minded than Upstate New York? Here is the summary, and these are not votes, because Wikipedia does not count votes even though many of the season veterans appear to, well, count votes:[reply]

!vote summary

KEEP:

1. Cmagha (talk · contribs), the author and member of the society [32] (secondary and primary sources exist; precedent exists and has been cited against the article, so it can be cited for the article; notable for the reasons I have culled from Cmagha’s posts and placed above);

2. Brb72, the Dean of the society (arguments against are conclusory, lack valid premises and cannot be substantiated; yes, I am the Dean, but my vote counts as much as Cornell1890s in the unsuccessful AfD for Sphinx Head . . .)— brb72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;

3. Tea36, the remorseful atoning accidental Sock Puppet: 12.84.144.214 (sourcing is correct; secondary sources do exist in Waterman, Kammen and Bishop)— Tea36 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;

4. Hadem (exists);— Hadem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

5. Gbendett (sourcing exists)— Gbendett (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;

6. Bigred4445 (meets wiki regs) — Bigred4445 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

7. Evie0124 (exists and meets wiki regs) — Evie0124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. <;

8. Dac0219 (sourcing sufficient) — Dac0219 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;

9. DDG (notable; sourcing sufficient);

~~Cunard (sourcing sufficient)~~ (changed to delete see below)

10. Shoesss (sourcing sufficient);

11. Brandnew215 (sourcing sufficient)— Brandnew215 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;

12. Lebowski 666 (notable);

13. Coldplay332 (notable) — Coldplay332 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ;

14. Alzarian (sourcing sufficient);

15. Colonel Warden (notable);

DELETE:

1. Cornell1890 (copyvio, sourcing insufficient);

2. Cornell 2010 (doesn’t exist; sourcing insuff.);

3. NYCRuss (sourcing; doesn’t exist);

4. FisherQueen, an administrator (“Delete”, then retracted vote solely because of her position as an Administrator);

5. Codf1977 (sourcing insuff.; as per nom.);

6. Andrew Lenahan (sourcing insuff; precedent is against);

7. Brad (it’s a hoax);

8. 4meter4 (not notable)

9. Nancy (not notable)

10. Dougweller (not notable)

11. Stifle (not notable)

12. Scoop (not notable)

13. Cunard per [33]

REDIRECT

1. S Marshall (not notable enough for an individual article)

As rough consensus for deletion does not exist, the decision under the Wiki regs should be for retention.

Brb72 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Brb72, Dean of the Irving Literary Society (and my vote should be ok, as Cornell1890 was a lead figure in the defense of Sphinx Head when it was subjected to a AfD).[reply]

Query What do you mean by: "the notability lies in the Irving’s position on the tapping and admission of women". Doesn't "tapping" refer to fraternities and similar college secret societies? Are you saying that membership in the ILS during 1870s was by "invitation only"? Voceditenore (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At least two adminstrators and several other editors have asked you and Cmagha not to add these "vote counts" to the discussions. However, since you insist upon doing this, I have corrected the errors in this one and marked those editors who have made few or no other edits to Wikipedia apart from this deletion discussion. I am also collapsing the wall of text for readability. Voceditenore (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a borderline article with a very questionable AFD. The meatpuppets and sockpuppets and other behavior here lead me to leaning towards deletion. In reality, it's an article that can be improved and can stand on its own, despite shameful behavior of many on this discussion. tedder (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brb72: Your facts are very wrong and I do not appreciate the slander. This page is getting to be ridiculous. Can we please have an editor make a final decision. The article is a disaster of unsourced and copyrighted material. Voceditenore has been very patient and straight forward, but I believe it is time to bring this mess to a close. Cornell1890 (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A "decision" will be made following the proper procedure (7 days after the AFD was relisted, if it's clear). Until then, please read WP:TLDR and focus on the issues, not the editors. tedder (talk) 20:36, 13 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genital jewellery[edit]

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

No sources. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think you are mixing too things. Deletion should not be decided on the quality of the article, BUT on the interest of the subject. The article is poorly sourced, ok, too short, but this is a notable and interesting topic, from the standpoint of BDSM activities. So I think it should be kept.

PS : it seems you have started a massive deletion campaign of BDSM related articles. Don't be surprised if you read me saying keep in other articles for exactly the same reasons. Hektor (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no source to establish notability separate from other forms of jewellery. Note that the MSNBC link in the article has nothing to address the issue, and that in List of jewellery types, it's the only one for which an article was created. --137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep widely and specifically sold as such. Good referencing should be possible. I know that the actual references are needed. But I want to enter a protest at this attempt to afd in very close succession a wide range of topics in sexual practices that are rather difficult to find with conventional sources. I can generally manage it, but I need about a week to deal with each of them.I see it as an attempt to overwhelm normal processes. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~(see below for further) this one DGG is 100% correct on (i disagreed on another related afd earlier). this is highly notable, patently easy to find refs for, if you know what you are doing. I cannot take the time unfortunately to rescue it, hope someone else can. i also agree that any bulk afds for a more difficult subject like obscure human sexual practices needs some time to be properly vetted, just like a supreme court justice. i hope most of the articles will be relisted if there are not sufficient comments in time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is generic enough that sources should be able to be found. Epbr123 (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so all the keep so far are just saying "sources exist" without trying to actually prove it.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not voting here as I'm the originator. Originally this was a cluster of very limited bits IIRC. I'm a silversmith, and yes thes things exist. 'Genital Jewelry' is not the common term, so sourcing that is not easy. Usually termed by the more direct name of the part for which it's intended - but I saw no sense in having separate articles for 'Nipple Rings', 'Labia piercings' etc etc - as that only turns it into wikiporn. One could now add the latest 'vagazzle' as well....my 2cents worth. Bridesmill (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies - just looked at what has become of the article over the years - I'm tempted to say delete now, as it's started to cross the line of wikiporn. And yes, I'm pretty darn librul....Bridesmill (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, the pics really show ordinary piercings, not the elaborate jewellry i recall seeing (not in person). i really dont think this is wikiporn, its just not directly relevant. if a jeweler says this is not the term, perhaps we should just merge and redirect to piercing, and include the terms he mentions above. I still say the subject is notable, and i dont feel like finding refs, but i now think it should be a subsection.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:07, 9 May 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. Tone 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Rotolo[edit]

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

The article appears to have been created for promotional purposes (recently appeared in...), and/or to try to establish the person's notability. While apparently she's on IMDB, that doesn't make someone notable. Also, there appears to be a conflict of interest, given the user name and the user account having only this contribution. — Timneu22 · talk 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - seems promotional and probably WP:COI as the nom states. Also, many of her supposed credits are not in IMDB. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

interesting point. if you go to the vimeo link you can watch the Lies credit. It's a short film and as a filmmaker I know things like that often don't exist on IMDb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRomeoT (talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:PEOPLE; can not find any significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, except for the IMDB listing which is not sufficient by itself. Davnor (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per too soon. While yes, she exists, her career fails ENT[34], and her coverage fails GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability from even remotely reliable sources. She may be a fine young actor, but she's not yet notable and has had no notable roles. The IMBD link is a dead one. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC) P.S. A Google search here revealed almost nothing useful or reliable. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 14:05, 12 May 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 Fetish art. Shimeru (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fetish photographer[edit]

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

No sources. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think you are mixing too things. Deletion should not be decided on the quality of the article, BUT on the interest of the subject. The article is poorly sourced, ok, too short, but this is a notable and interesting topic, from the standpoint of BDSM activities. So I think it should be kept.

PS : it seems you have started a massive deletion campaign of BDSM related articles. Don't be surprised if you read me saying keep in other articles for exactly the same reasons. Hektor (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:Notability#General notability guideline? It states that an article topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Can you please provide links to such coverage of this concept? If not, the article cannot meet the non-negotiable requirement of WP:Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source." — Satori Son 20:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is about the concept of "fetish photographer" and whether it is more than a mere dictionary definition. Google books gives 45 hits on phrase, almost all as noun phrases describing a particular person. There are no hits on sources about the concept as such. Similarly, just 5 hits on Google Scholar, none about the concept as such. That suggests that no-one has found it worth while to study the concept in what we normally regard as a reliable source. And that means non-notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source to establish notability separate from photographer or photography.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of fetish artists which would seem to include this profession. It's not really distinct enough in itself to warrant a separate article (or even esoteric academic study it seems). Obviously there are specialized forms of photography and various photographers who might practice such things but it seems Entertainment/Documentary/Artistic --> Animate/Inanimate are the divisions where the actual concept is explored.--Savonneux (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any potentially sourceable content to Fetish art, or if no content can be moved, just a redirect.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourceable content with Fetish art. Epbr123 (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Fetish art. Joal Beal (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dippoldism[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. Source contains only trivial mention of topic. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books gives numerous hits for this word in context: clearly notable. I have added a couple more references to the article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable, multiply sourced, as per above. -- The Anome (talk) 17:02, 11 May 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) 02:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cage (BDSM)[edit]

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

Reads like advert. No sources. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the use of cages in BDSM should be, without giving it undue weight compared to other uses, covered by cage (enclosure), which is suprisingly short and uncited.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable on its own terms. No sources, either. Joal Beal (talk) 19:13, 6 May 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 Sam Clark. actually merge but I did the redirect in the meantime, just move stuff over as required Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Broken (sam clark single)[edit]

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

~~delete~~ merge and redirect to Sam Clark as per policy. - fails WP:NSONGS UtherSRG (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why is this article up for deletion? everything on the article is true, the references are proof for evidence & i created the article beacuse no one else has created the article for this single. You must have got it by mistake! Ozurbanmusic 22:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Sam Clark. Essentially per nom. The info may well be true, but it needs third party, reliable refs to back it up. It has only charted in Australia so far and it appears that there is very little information about it. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sam Clark, per WP:NSONGS: "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Anemone Projectors 22:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean by third party? it has just as much information just like otehr artists single article such as Unbroken (Stan Walker song) Ozurbanmusic 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BoundCon[edit]

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

No sources. Reads like an advertisement. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. As far as I can tell, this is an advertisement. Tarheel95 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero hits on Google News archive for BoundCon BDSM. Not notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there any specific part that reads like an advertisement? JIP | Talk 19:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not anymore, though technically one could say it reads just like a blurb in a tourist guide. But the issue is the lack of reliable sources to establish notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, thanks. I removed a detailed description of what BoundCon 2005 included, and felt that what remained was basically just the basic facts - what sort of convention this is, where, and when. I have found it difficult to find reliable sources. There are plenty of Google hits for "BoundCon", but pretty much all of these come from either its official site, Wikipedia, or from the official sites of bondage models, bondage riggers, or BDSM photography/video sites that are appearing there. I guess these would constitute primary sources, which will not suffice for Wikipedia - these primary sources have to be noted by some secondary source first. JIP | Talk 21:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable event. Joal Beal (talk) 19:48, 7 May 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) 02:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Töre Ak[edit]

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

There is no evidence that he has ever played for Denizlispor's first team, resulting in a clear failure of WP:ATHLETE. There is insufficient coverage to merit keeping this article under WP:GNG Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Actually there are some information about his plays in Denizlispor here. Kubek15 ^write/sign 15:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He does play for Denizlispor but all his appearances have been for the reserves. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is about non-notable footballer who has only played for the reserves and I couldn't find significant coverage of his exploits. Jogurney (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 19:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Canals86966 (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 11:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not achieve notablity standards under any guideline or rule I can think of.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:54, 10 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami vivekananda senior secondary school raipur[edit]

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

This is a personal essay. Currently, we don't have a CSD reason for deleting these, so I'm putting through AFD. Sorry to waste everyone's time. — Timneu22 · talk 12:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsalvageable essay.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this unsalvagable? It's a (very poor) article about a secondary school in India. Has anyone tried looking for sources and cutting out the opinion? I've just cut it down to the bare bones. Fences&Windows 14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Salvagable in principle (which is why I removed the IAR speedy deletion notice), but it will take better Google foo than I possess to verify even that this school exists. I can find that a Laxminarayan Induriya was state president for Raipur,[35] and there's a school by a similar name in Raipur founded in 1993,[36] but I can't find anything concrete written in English. Searches in other languages might yield better results. Delete unless someone can work magic on it. Fences&Windows 15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: the current state of the article seems stubbable, however I had no way of figuring this out based on the previous content. If nothing else, the article needs to be renamed to the way it is written now. — Timneu22 · talk 18:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - In the current state, it still lacks sources for notability, or at the very least, if deemed "automatically notable" as a school (can't remember if it applies to high school), for verifiability. The Rahul Singh link goes to a disambig page that does not include the secretary who is probably not notable and thus will likely never have an article. It would still be wise to delete the history if kept.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "I had no way of figuring this out based on the previous content." But, but... I didn't edit the article using magical powers, I just read it and cut out all the opinion and waffle. Fences&Windows 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Further comment: upon looking it up, there is no formal notability guideline saying high schools are automatically notable (an attempt to make a guideline for schools failed). Thus we fall back to WP:GNG and my original delete stands.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether all high schools are inherently notable has never been agreed, though a large number of editors think they are. However, it is undisputed that we need verifiability, and at present we don't have it. There is a Swami Vivekananda Senior Secondary School in Yamunanagar and one in Bhilai. There are also other educational institutions with similar names, such as Swami Vivekanand Institute Of Technology in Udhana and Swami Vivekananda English Medium School in Kumbakonam, but I can find no confirmation for the existence of a school named anything like this in in Raipur. There may be one, but it seems to be unverifiable. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a convention that any high school taken to AfD will survive it. High schools almost always have many sources writing about them, and looking hard enough usually finds them. This school is the exception to this rule as it isn't verifiable. I stand by declining speedy deletion (as it gives a chance to actually search for sources), but in this case we can't have an article on this school. Fences&Windows 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Verifiability. After doing several searches on Google, Google News Archive, and Google Books, I have been unable to verify the existence of this secondary school. Although high schools are considered notable, one that cannot be verified should be deleted. No prejudice to recreation if/when reliable sources surface that demonstrate the school exists. Cunard (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice, per Cunard. We've had at least one AfD on an Indian school where we couldn't find any verification until we figured out that the school's common name was something quite different in English than the name used by the creator of the article. Perhaps that's what's going on here. However, like everyone else I was also unable to verify the existence of this school.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cunard. If sources and citations can be given, it's a different story. tedder (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title doesn't even make sense Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:06, 13 May 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) 02:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razael Wickham[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Can find no reliable sources for the artist nor either of his bands that would satisfy WP:GNG. Article was previously prod'ed. J04n(talk page) 12:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. No indication of notability per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources, and in particular, there is nothing to substantiate the claim that "he is considered to be a pioneer in bringing back the 80's style metal most notably thrash, back into the modern music scene." -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 7 May 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) 02:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vada Pochae[edit]

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

Non notable gaming clan, has been speedy deleted but was recreated. No good cites or references Dmol (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gaming clan with no notability. The refs are junk. Per nom. — Hellknowz ▎talk 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are to a Wikipedia article, a facebook page, and a download site offering a song for download. None of this goes anywhere near to showing notability. In addition to this none of the "references" actually supports the statement to which it is attached. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - given the speedy delete and recreation without any updates in reliable sources, I fear this one will keep getting recreated until it's salted. --Teancum (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. By the way, the article was rewritten with a hoax about it being a rock band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best. Considering re-creation, Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 14:21, 12 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonuz Kaceli[edit]

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

Non-notable outside single event - fails WP:BLP1E. The victims are already listed at Massacre of 1951 in Albania. It might make sense to keep it if being the brother of a famous painter confers some notability on him, or if his business activities really were notable - but I don't see any evidence of such notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Qoraliu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Delhysa -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Boing, are you suggesting that if a reference is brought forward that he pertains to the famous Kaceli family and is brother of the painter, or a reference on the notability of his business activities, you might consider to retire the nomination?--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 11:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If his business activities can be shown to be notable in themselves, then yes I'd withdraw the nomination as he would then be notable independently of the massacre. I'm not sure about being brother of a painter, as notability isn't inherited from family etc, so I don't think that would be sufficient even if proven (but others might have different opinions) -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on it, you must keep in mind it was a import figure, not only that he was the first man in albania executed without anyreason, he was a notable figure in Tirana (and that was the reason why they killed him(!)) --Vinie007 12:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The people that where executed where all important figures of that time that where not a communist. It is just a question of time before you can read the important things that they have done. I must collect first some sources before I can add it. --Albanian222 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you must wait till the article is expanded, please do not rush to delete as much articles as you can! --Vinie007 09:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really only a discussion about whether the article meets notability standards (as per WP:N), and in some ways it's possibly better to check such articles earlier - leaving them until people add more material could end up with more effort being wasted if it is actually deleted. And the discussion will run for at least a week (unless there's an obvious reason for a speedy delete), and can be rolled over for longer if it isn't settled then, which should be plenty of time to establish the notability of the subject. When creating new articles, what a lot of people do is search to establish their notability first and only create the article when they have it - either that, or develop the article first in user space, and only move it to main space when notability is established. Anyway, those are just a few thoughts, and I suspect this one has a good chance of being kept - we'll see how the discussion goes -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone got so much time like you, so you must be patient. If you really want to show your good side, you can improve it by your self! --Vinie007 12:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come one, let's keep this friendly - there's nothing personal here, and we're all only trying to improve the encyclopedia. I don't have to be an expert on a topic and capable of improving it myself in order to raise questions as to whether it currently meets the Wikipedia requirements - that takes people like yourself who understand the subject. And if it takes a long time to get the article up to standard, then that's what you'll get as a result of this discussion - for example, if the week or so that this discussion continues isn't enough time, then articles under development can easily be userfied for as long as you want, if that is thought to be a good way forward. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every demokrat in Albania will understand what importance these figures had. --Albanian222 (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, but you really need to provide some sources (see WP:RS) showing notability independent of their executions - for example, some evidence of their activities prior to that event -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or incubate until we find a reliable source for notability. Jonuz Kaceli was notable under several counts: as a business person, as a post mortem recepient of a medal from the President of Albania for his contributions to democracy, and through his act: he personally attacked and tried to hurt the future Prime Minister of Albania Mehmet Shehu, while he was being interrogated personally by Shehu. I am personally convinced we'll be able to come up with sources soon. He is one of the best known dissidents of Communist Albania. My suggestion is to keep, because incubation is more lengthy, but if someone really needs to delete it, it's better to incubate. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 17:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with sulmues --Vinie007 14:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Yeah echoing what was said above, this guy was a notable figure to the Albanians, otherwise they wouldn't have targetted him LOL. Needs more sources and expansion. This is definately a completely valid nomination though. The way the article is written fails ONEEVENT. It needs to be written from a neutral perspective saying he was a businessman etc who was unfortunately killed. Not .... was one of the 23 killed in one event. If you cannot not write about his importance as a figure indepently of this event then this does fail and should be deleted. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed and I'm working on it. I already have copies of an article dedicated to him, which can be used as a WP:RS. I'm going to use it as a reference and just in case we'll also have a copy of it on commons. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 02:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep Some nice work has been done on this article, so well done and thanks to those people who have put in the effort. It looks to me as if it's going to end up being kept now. (I won't formally ask for this to be withdrawn, as others might still have some important input) -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant that to be a change to "Keep", but I started out with a comment and forgot to change it -- Boing! said Zebedee 20:13, 10 May 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 Massacre of 1951 in Albania#Anton Delhysa . Shimeru (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Delhysa[edit]

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

Non-notable outside single event - fails WP:BLP1E. The victims are already listed at Massacre of 1951 in Albania -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Qoraliu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonuz Kaceli -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The people that where executed where all important figures of that time that where not a communist. It is just a question of time before you can read the important things that they have done. I must collect first some sources before I can add it. --Albanian222 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you can find some sources to show their notability prior to the massacre, that would be great -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect to Massacre of 1951 in Albania. At this point, with the exception of Jonuz Kaceli we don't have sufficient data for this person other than the notability through Massacre of 1951. I'm not saying this person wasn't notable. It's just that as of now we don't have sufficient data for this person to hold him notable for an article on Wikipedia. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Please redirect to Massacre of 1951 in Albania#Anton Delhysa --Vinie007 18:13, 10 May 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 Massacre of 1951 in Albania#Ali Qoraliu. Shimeru (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Qoraliu[edit]

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

Non-notable outside single event - fails WP:BLP1E. The victims are already listed at Massacre of 1951 in Albania -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Delhysa and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonuz Kaceli -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The people that where executed where all important figures of that time that where not a communist. It is just a question of time before you can read the important things that they have done. I must collect first some sources before I can add it. --Albanian222 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you can find some sources to show their notability prior to the massacre, that would be great -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My knowledge of Albanian history not being up to snuff, let me ask this question - If Ali Qoraliu had not been one of the victims of the 1951 massacre, but had died of natural non-dramatic causes at a similar point in his life, would his achievements to that point (and the coverage of those achievements in historical or contemporary reliable sources) be sufficient for an article? If the main reason for his notability is one event - the massacre - then he should be covered there. If not, then an article is appropriate IF we have the sources. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was an important figure in the early democratic struggle of Albania --Albanian222 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect to Massacre of 1951 in Albania. At this point, with the exception of Jonuz Kaceli we don't have sufficient data for this person other than the notability through Massacre of 1951. I'm not saying this person wasn't notable. It's just that as of now we don't have sufficient data for this person to hold him notable for an article on Wikipedia. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please redirect to Massacre of 1951 in Albania#Ali Qoraliu --Vinie007 18:12, 10 May 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. if its not notable anmd the consensus is it isn't then we wouldn't want to merge it into the amin article Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beatport Music Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable award from a single store. No indepentent sources or claims of notability. No non promotional sources found. Nothing suggests it is anything more than spam. Previous afd closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source for notability. Also guilty of abuse of flag icons (WP:MOSFLAG), though that's not ground for deletion by itself...--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- These are annual awards given by the dance music store, www.beatport.com Several notable artists such as Deadmau5 and Armin van Buuren have been nominated for them, this article simply needs a source. Tarheel95 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Giving awards to notable people does not make the awards themselves notable.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Very selectively Merge into Beatport without prejudice for recreation should notability be established sufficiently for a dedicated article. ~~The topic might be notable as there is independent coverage in multiple reliable sources in multiple languages.~~ However there is little in the current article worth saving, it's a mess of original research and overuse of Wiki formatting.--~~RadioFan (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)~~ --RadioFan (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- perhaps we could merge this article into Beatport? Tarheel95 (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thats a fine idea. I've updated my !vote to reflect your suggestion.--RadioFan (talk) 13:12, 9 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EVER TEAM[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. Of the five references, two do not mention Ever Team, two make only passing mentions, and the other (here) gives fairly brief coverage, not enough to establish notability. My searches have also failed to unearth substantial coverage in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Three times speedied before. --Pgallert (talk) 11:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and block to prevent further creation of this page (as per 3 speedies). Looks like the page is being dominated by a single editor. — Timneu22 · talk 14:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson what do you mean by 'gives fairly breif coverage' they write a whole paragraph about EVER and put it in comparison with other worldwide vendors like Oracle, Microsoft and others. here is what they wrote in case you did not read it well:

'Ever Team France's Ever Team focuses on vertical-market solutions, SharePoint supplements and transactional content management in EMEA. It has a growing "footprint" in the energy industry. Ever Team is one of the few vendors that offers both Java EE and .NET platform support. Strengths:

A substantial portion of Ever Team's new license revenue and growth derives from its partner channel.
Ever Team delivers a good program for services partner certification and continues to build an ecosystem for the development and delivery of composite content applications.
Ever Team delivers a range of products developed for fast deployment and low cost of services.

Cautions:

Ever Team has a very small footprint in key markets outside France, Spain and the Middle East, and must build an even stronger channel.
Ever Team's range of solutions — from those for small and midsize businesses to large enterprises — is not matched by the marketing muscle necessary to build visibility.
Ever Team will have to pick a primary focus and marketing approach to succeed.'

for the ones that you say do not mention EVER TEAM, in fact they do, but the document in which they do is a document that should be purchased, thus cannot be put online. if you provide me with your email address i can send you a snapshot of what they say about EVER TEAM.

thank you. --Sazarian (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one more thing the company is a French based Company, so if you try to research on google.fr about EVER TEAM you will see results...--Sazarian (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the references cannot be freely viewed, that it cannot be established that they are reliable references. I could make bold claims about anything and post references that are only available for a high price. I agree that it probably exists, but is it noteable? I vote no.--Evilbred (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you might also want to check those links

link1
link2

to see that EVER TEAM is acknowledged by Microsoft and that its products are listed and known on Microsoft Portals.--Sazarian (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Directory listings are meaningless; no editorial control is exercised and the coverage is not even close to significant in depth.--Cybercobra (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also if you can read french, here is an intresting article:

business and IT news--Sazarian (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Gartner coverage isn't of sufficient depth; the Microsoft directory entries are not discriminating by the very nature of it being a directory; the French article is borderline significant. Fails the "multiple" part of the WP:GNG. Article is also rather spammy. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both the multiple sources and significant coverage portions of WP:COMPANY. Jminthorne (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some additional sources:

Businessweek--Sazarian (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snapshot--Sazarian (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EVER TEAM constantly participates in worldwide exhibitions and events such as this one, this and this
Listed in the list of TOP SharePoint Product and Consultancy provider on Microsoft COnsulting Solutions
One of independant companies that talk about EVER TEAM on this link
Sazarian (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other intresting links

article1
article2--Sazarian (talk) 08:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases don't count as they're obviously not independent. Doubly for sponsorships as they are literally bought. The Europolitics piece is only a paragraph and thus not significant. The others are bare-bones directory entries; ~~I admit the BusinessWeek entry might be an exception~~. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that the BusinessWeek entry is non trivial? Jminthorne (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to contain some actual prose analysis; I don't know what BW's criteria for including entries is though (i.e. whether it's discriminate or not). --Cybercobra (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looked to me like a simple listing; the site has a search function that appears to poll a database of many thousands of privately held firms. Jminthorne (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Week entry is indeed a simple listing. There is no independent assessment, but just passing on what the company claims to do. This is what Business Week does. Apart from the fact that this is not very substantial coverage, there are also the issues of reliability and independence. A good deal of Business Week's material is submitted by "users", and in their "terms of use" they explicitly state that Business Week is not responsible for the accuracy of such information. Consequently Business Week is not a reliable independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (for now). I think there's not enough coverage for this vendor at the moment. Zero hits in EContent [37] or KMWorld [38] for instance. Besides the inclusion in the paywalled analyst report, there's no other coverage in CMS Watch of this firm [39]. Those aren't a must for a keep from me (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Composite_C1 for instance), but I'd expect some other significant coverage failing that, and that does not include Gartner magic quadrants, which usually has only a few lines about a company, and so does the businesswek catalog. Well-known French press would be ok because this is a French vendor and many CMS vendors tend to have a regional market (and notability). Pcap ping 14:13, 8 May 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) 02:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity International Society[edit]

Infinity_International_Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Article was created by members of "society", no notability offered after several days. May someday be notable, but is not now. Huw Powell (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.—αrgumziω^ϝ 03:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that, it was my first try. Thank you for fixing it. Huw Powell (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, the notability isn't there. That said, we might revisit this if the group someday becomes notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 May 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. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using TCRC Tibetan Fonts In Ubuntu[edit]

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

WP:HOWTO and possibly a copy paste too. Shadowjams (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-encyclopedic content (Wikipedia is not a manual). It's an obvious enough case that I'd support an early close (as delete) if other commenters agree. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as horrible. — Timneu22 · talk 12:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should absolutely add an entry to the reasons for deletion: Articles that are just horrible. It would save time in a lot of deletion debates. Maybe even a CSD criterion, who knows? :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of stuff one could start copy-pasting into the encyclopedia that can't get speedied as it is now...like, a grocery shopping list. Shadowjams (talk) 03:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Horrible might be a little strong, but I agree that it's unencyclopedic enough to delete outright. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a how-to manual. Not encyclopedic. Joal Beal (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably someone somewhere wants this info - but they are more likely to look in a Tibetan or Ubuntu forum for it. WP:HOWTO applies here. Peridon (talk) 10:05, 12 May 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. Those sources should really be added to the article, though... Shimeru (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant

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

An essentially unsourced article about a book whose significance is not explained. Guy (Help!) 09:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, or merge to the author. I'm not finding a lot about the book outside the conservative web-world, but the author was interviewed on C-Span about the book. The state of the article is significantly queered by one editor's apparent campaign against the author. Mangoe (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep C-Span interview per above and [40] and critical review [41] review in denver post I didnt read [42] etc. Meets WP:NBOOK --Savonneux (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as its own article. I would encourage editors to expand the article. Digby (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - borderline case; I've put a "rescue" tag on it, since I may be wrong (hey, it could happen). It's from a notoriously non-reliable publisher. There is no sourcing of substance, and the references are to the usual right-wing suspects. There is little or no evidence that this has been taken seriously anywhere in the real world outside the sealed gardens of the right. (Full disclosure: I lived in Miami for quite a while, and wearied of the violent obsessiveness of many of the local anti-Castro fanatics.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search link at the top of the AFD. [43] The first two summaries alone should prove its notable. Dream Focus 19:30, 12 May 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. Not sourced? The the consensus is delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arena (MMA)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. ~~Recreation of a CSD? (I'll have to check on that one)~~ An unreferenced article written in the style of a promotional advertisement. Does not hold any WP:RS, completely unverifiable by third-party sources. notability not established. I am also suspicious of a possible WP:COI on the part of the article's main contributor, User:Mmasource. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I found a lot of business-listings and myspace/facebook/twitter-stuff, but no independent mentions in major newspapers or other WP:RS. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. No sources to establish notability that I can find. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable business; only argument ever made for its retention was the ol' WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to indicate that this place is notable. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that a lot of external links have been added since my first vote. I agree with Rnickel, however, that these do not constitute "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources", so my opinion remains in the "delete" camp. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. I appreciate the article creator's attitude about trying to learn and respect the ways of Wikipedia, and I recognize the frustration of having created an article on something that is (to them) so obviously noteable. However, the comment on Benlisquare's talk page says it all: "The team is young and most newspapers do not cover much of MMA." Mmasource, you may well be right that MMA is the next coming thing, and five years from now, "The Arena" may well be a household name on par with the X Games or the Ultimate Fighting Championship. But— and here is the salient point— that has not happened yet, and that is why this article is premature. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and doesn't include articles on things that may become notable soon, once the newspapers overcome their institutional bias and start giving them the coverage they deserve. Wikipedia is a place for things that have broken through already and gotten such coverage. As a tertiary source encyclopedia, Wikipedia cannot be on the leading edge; it is and must be on the trailing edge.

I appreciate the work you've done in digging up third-party sources that mention The Arena, but there are two problems:

(less important) The sources you've mentioned are all very closely connected to to MMA, and as such could easily be construed as primary sources. One of the early lessons I learned about sourcing on Wikipedia is that secondary sources (like newspapers) are insisted upon, because they are used as the referee. They answer the question, "What is important to enough people that it merits inclusion?" A site dedicated to MMA may prove your facts are true, but it cannot convey notability outside a very narrow audience, and that is where such a source falls short for your purposes here.
(more important) Even among the sources you cited, the articles only mention The Arena. Not one of them is about The Arena. If you were trying to prove that The Arena exists, they might do the trick, but you're not: you're trying to prove that it's notable to merit an entire encyclopedia article dedicated to it.

Until someone, in a good secondary source, writes an article about The Arena that mentions the athletes in passing, you don't have notability for The Arena itself. Unfortunately at present, all the sources you can find, adequate or not, have got it the other way around.

Best luck to you, —Rnickel (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Mmasource* I appreciate the comments made here that have explained some of the ethos behind WP. I was obviously not aware of how detailed with 3rd party verifications I needed to be. I also appreciate Rnickel's comments specifically, as they have provided the most explanation to date. However, I would like to point out several things in regards to those comments, as well as those made by other editors above.

MMA is widely accepted as the fastest growing sport in the world. It has provided 7 out of 10 of the highest grossing PPV gates for any televised event in the world for the past 4 years running (the other events each year have been 2 boxing matches and 1 WWE match respectively). Consequently, I would argue that the notability of the sport, its promotions, and teams is not something to be concerned with 5 years from now. This is what is happening in popular culture today. Additionally, an example was made for the Ultimate Fighting Championship. And it is just one promotion (albeit it the most famous for now) among many in MMA. Yet look what sort of influence just this one promotion alone already holds in mainstream society.
Given that fact, no MMA team will ever match the fame of a promotion like the UFC. It is impossible, just like no individual football team will ever match the fame of the NFL itself. A sports team is not supposed to be bigger than the sport, particularly when it deals with athletes who compete in one-on-one sports like MMA and Boxing. Yet, a team can still be notable in terms of the athletes it trains to compete in such events. And the Arena is already such a team NOW, not a team to be considered in the future. This is proven by the verifiability (clearly referenced on The Arena's Article page) of the world-class athletes currently training there, including the current and most dominant champion in the history of Women's MMA (in itself an extremely notable occurence). To say that The Arena isn't recognizable just because its young is akin to a saying a new sports franchise team isn't recognizable because it was just introduced to a league. And much more so than franchised sports teams, combat sports teams like The Arena that don't actually compete against one another, but rather train athletes for combat, are that much more linked to the notoriety of the athletes who train there. So, most stories regarding teams that focus on training individual athletes are rarely about the team itself, but typically focused on the athletes who train there and why.
I understand the points made about referencing specific sites concerning MMA (primary sources) versus more generic newspapers (secondary sources). Rnickel references this by citing tertiary source, which contains the language "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages. For the purposes of this policy, primary, secondary and tertiary sources are defined as follows: Primary sources are very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. An account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident; similarly, a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources. Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge."
According to WP's policy above, these specific MMA sites I have referenced are appropriate as 3rd party references in this case, especially since I am not trying to provide an interpetation, but merely illustrating facts i.e. the world class caliber of the MMA athletes who train at The Arena. Any educated person without specialist knowledge could verify that given the primary sources I have provided.
Also, to refer to newspapers as the secondary sources primarily worth relying upon compared to other sources is an anachronistic viewpoint. It does not take into account the reality of today's digital era, where (printed) newspapers are facing extinction. They are understaffed and solely dependent on advertising revenue, which often skews the authenticity of the reporting, as much of the information fed to reporters comes directly from sources such as brands, and/or the Advertising/PR agencies that are hired by brands, that pay for advertising in newspapers in order to feed the information to the public that these brands wish disseminated. For example, if The Arena wished to hire a PR firm to have articles written about it in a paper such as The San Diego Union Tribune, I am quite sure it would be very easily accomplished if The Arena agreed to buy some advertising from the paper. This is the reality of the media industry and to ignore this fact is naive. So would an article about The Arena written by a reporter from the San Diego Union Tribune (a secondary source that would qualify The Arena for inclusion based on the comments presented by the WP editors above) really be what everyone is looking for? By the arguments presented to date, it seems like it would.
Additionally, these "primary sources" I reference in The Arena Article page such as Sherdog actually provide information to a far greater audience than might be imagined. As such, a "primary source" like Sherdog could also be construed as a secondary source, particularly since, like newspapers, they often serve as content aggregators that source info from even more primary sources. In fact, the number of visitors (readers, viewers, etc.) to "primary source" MMA sites like Sherdog are usually larger than the visitors to a typical metropolitan newspaper, let alone just the sports section of a newspaper where topics like MMA would usually be covered. For example, Alexa.com (the default popularity ranking site for other websites) currently rates Sherdog.com as the 894th most popular site in the U.S. In comparison, The San Diego Union Tribune (the main paper for San Diego, the 7th largest city in the U.S.) has it main website for the entire paper, Signonsandiego.com, pulling an Alexa.com U.S. rank of 970 (a higher # means less popularity).
So does an MMA site such as Sherdog.com truly have that narrow of an audience? Or is its large user base that patronizes the site wide enough to allow the site to be considered a secondary source? Is a site like Sherdog not a much more appropriate "referee" than some newspaper like USA Today that often simply aggregates content from primary sources rather than actually providing any original reporting. For example, the Yahoo Sports article I referenced in The Arena Article was in fact originally provided by mmajunkie.com. So which is the better reference? Yahoo or MMA Junkie?
But even more important than any of the preceding points, if you are going to have an entire category of Articles about various mixed martial arts training facilities like Wikipedia does, shouldn't the same standards be applied to those Articles and the teams described therein as you are proposing be applied to The Arena (MMA) Article? I encourage everyone relevant to this discussion to visit those various Articles on the teams just as I have done. They are located here [[44]]. In fact, I modeled The Arena's Article primarily from the other teams Articles. And most all of them provide far less 3rd party references than I have done for The Arena, with the vast majority of those references coming from the same or similar MMA specific sources that I am now being told are not good enough for the purposes of 3rd party verification for The Arena Article. Additionally, most of the references to the gyms/teams are made in much the same vein as The Arena itself is mentioned, with little specificity about the actual teams themselves beyond the athletes training there.
So, is it really being suggested that by deleting The Arena's article page then all the other team's Article pages should be deleted as well? Because that is the only fair standard that would apply. Would that really serve the best interests of the users of Wikipedia, particularly given the sheer number of those users searching for information related to the numerous teams and athletes in MMA, as opposed to those users searching for information contained in some of the far more obscure articles that also populate WP that are allowed to exist?
Finally, although most of the teams listed in WP's Mixed Martial Arts training facilities do not have articles specifically referencing the teams, there are other informations sources that do discuss The Arena specifically and I will provide links to them shortly. Hopefully, given this, I will have provided an abundance of verification for The Arena, especially compared to the other team pages that should be held up to the same standards.

In conclusion, I simply ask that the same standards that are applied to the other Articles for the other MMA teams contained in WP be applied to The Arena's page. Anything else would not seem fair nor in the spirit of WP. Thank you. Mmasource (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make some good points, and they have merit. But I do want to respond to a few of your assertions. We have a guideline called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which highlights a logical fallacy about Wikipedia - if we have an article about one subject, we need to have an article on another similar subject. We must evaluate each subject on its own merits - The Arena (MMA) shouldn't get an article just because a similar gym in Los Angeles has an article. Each case is different - sources are different, details change, and you can't use criteria from one article to evaluate another. That goes both ways, as well - we don't delete one article because another was deleted, unless they are identical in content or format.

For sourcing, We require sources like newspapers because there is usually a layer of editorial control over the content. Contrast with many blogs covering the sport, for example, where anything can be posted from rumor to fact. We look at readership, to a small extent - the college newspapers are considered less reliable than general circulation newspapers, for example - but the number of readers at a site doesn't do anything to lend (or detract) credibility from the content.

I don't know how reliable Sherdog is - the fact that it doesn't always receive press credentials from the UFC is problematic - but that's a question for the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and I'll ask them in a bit here. But, near as I can tell, the sherdog sources don't talk about The Arena - they talk about fighters associated with it. The core issue is that this is an article about The Arena, an MMA gym in San Diego. The sources have to talk about The Arena, not mention it in the context of people who have trained there. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with UltraExactZZ. Mmasource, again, I recognize your frustration. I have sometimes been similarly frustrated with "The Wikipedia Way". (My personal frustration is with the grossly unfair disparity in the standards of notability required for athletes vs entertainers.) Yes, it is uneven, but that's just the nature of the beast for an open-source encyclopedia. People work on what they have time to work on, and if they find one thing wrong, it's just not the case that now they're obligated to right all the wrongs in the world or else be accused of unfairness and bias. We all have jobs and lives; our efforts here to contribute something to the world and build an encyclopedia compete with that, but the hope is that by working on what we can, one piece at a time, we'll get it all right before the deadline.

One core way that we make progress is by working together in a cooperative spirit, even with those with whom we disagree. To that end, I'd like to caution you against statements about "witch hunts" and newspapers being corrupt. Be willing to consider that The Arena just isn't ready for primetime yet. Are you willing to consider that? That you may have jumped the gun and tried to use Wikipedia as a "leading edge" source of publicity that the mainstream media isn't yet ready for, when Wikipedia clearly defines itself as the opposite? Gut check time, y'know? Maybe you made a mistake, and all these nice people here are trying to spend their time telling you that in the most constructive and gentlest way possible. I think you can be a good contributor to Wikipedia, but why "kick against the goads"? Wikipedia will be what it will be. If you wanna reinvent the rules, OK, go for it. There are good places for that; you can start at the village pump. If you can form consensus among long-term established editors that we're wrong for insisting on established secondary sources, then good! Once that happens, all the arguments you're making will carry a lot more force. Until then, this is the way we do things. I know it sucks for your pet cause, but it sucks for mine too sometimes. (Have a look at [45].) That doesn't stop me from contributing about subjects that actually are notable by every existing standard, and I find my time is much better spent that way. I have tried cutting against the grain, and it's just too much of a drain. I have better things to save my emotional energy for. Even if you were the publicity director of The Arena, without any interest in contributing to other areas of the encyclopedia, I'd suggest your efforts would be better spent pitching yourself to real, mainstream newspapers and magazines (and no, you don't have to bribe them first with advertising; I spent two years of my life as a freelance writer, and always got paid for what I published, rather than the other way around). As a fan, why not look for MMA articles that have broken out into the mainstream, and spend your effort on those? I just think you'll have a much more satisfying Wikipedia experience.

Best of luck to you, —Rnickel (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response UltraExactZZ. I appreciate it. I understand your points and I also understand the concept of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It just seems hard to imagine that an ENTIRE CATEGORY of Mixed Martial Arts Training Facilities listed repeatedly in WP would not have at least similar editorial standards applied to it. We are not talking just a few articles, but over 35 all clearly referencing each other that have been in existence for quite some time now. Are you really saying that the editorial standards applied to all of these articles within this category that allow these articles to exist in WP are not applicable to The Arena Article and that these other articles should be allowed to remain even if The Arena article isn't? Thats hard to fathom, particularly given the sources and focus of the references provided in these articles i.e. they are from the same or similar sources as I have provided and these same sourced references in almost every case primarily talk about the athletes at these other gyms, very rarely the gyms themselves. I would understand if we were talking about different articles in different categories, but not a large amount of articles all within the same category.

Have you considered that maybe those articles exist because no one has gotten around to proposing them for deletion yet? Whether they ought to be here or not is outside the scope of this discussion, which is about The Arena. This is exactly the reason why deletion discussion are handled one article at a time; otherwise the scope would be overwhelming and we'd have to consider everything at once. The problems cited are all with this article. What may be going on with those other articles isn't germaine. —Rnickel (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additonally, if "a layer of editorial control" is the standard here, then magazines (which obviously have editorial control) should fall into the same category as newspapers, shouldn't they? And given today's digital era, wouldn't that apply equally to both both pure online magazines as well as offline magazines that reprint their articles online? Also, if "the number of readers at a site doesn't do anything to lend (or detract) credibility from the content", then a regionally focused magazine shouldn't be viewed any differently than a more nationally focused magazine, should it? So, if I produce a local magazine article (not a blog) about The Arena itself, would I not be meeting the guidelines the editors here are putting forth?

Many magazines are WP:RS, yes. My personal sense now, not quoting Wikipedia policy: National magazines carry more weight for establishing notability than local magazines, and "eZines" even less so. (It's too easy for two-guys-n'-some-funding to stick up a website, call it an "eZine", and now if we quote that, we're just quoting those two guys. Print publications necessarily imply a little bit more institutional gravitas.) However, that said, yes, if you have a mainstream magazine article about The Arena, then by all means produce it. :-) —Rnickel (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the reliability of Sherdog being questioned because of their credentials being pulled by the UFC...that has far more to do with Zuffa (parent company pf the UFC) and Dana White. For better or worse, the UFC is the 800lb gorilla in MMA right now. So, although the UFC does a tremendous amount to propagate MMA and I give all the credit in the world to them, the bottom line is that if you don't play by Dana's rules then you don't get to play. So when Sherdog reporters leak info about certain activities at the UFC, or they give favorable coverage to other promotions that the UFC doesn't like, Dana responds. Just the way it is. Sherdog will have their credentials back again, as they've already been pulled numerous times before. Still doesn't affect the reliability of sources within Sherdog. In my view, if anything, it enhances them since they don't (overtly at least) kowtow to the UFC. Thanks for being involved in this discussion. Mmasource (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for Sherdog, sure, call it a reliable source if you want to. It does have its own Wikipedia article, which goes into some depth about its editorial staff. IMHO (as I noted above), the problems with the sources are less important than the fact that there isn't in-depth coverage about the subject of this article, The Arena. If the way of MMA sources is to cover only the athletes, and not their training facilities per se, then Wikipedia should mirror that, so The Arena article would still be out of place. —Rnickel (talk) 17:51, 12 May 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 deleted (CSD A7) by CapitalR. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 19:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt world[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

CSD removed (suspect PROD would be too), Looks like promotion of non-notable tourism company. -- Boing! said Zebedee 08:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CORP -Reconsider ! 09:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. GregJackP (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bacon, eggs and spam. Fails WP:CORP. The phrasing in the article hints at WP:OWN and was created by a single purpose account with the same name as the corporation. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is pure spam, deserving speedy deletion as such. Speedy tag was twice removed by an IP which has done no other editing at all, and is no doubt the author of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 02:50, 7 May 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) 02:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Boyle (New Zealand)[edit]

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

Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not really, upon consideration, meet WP:BIO. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. One author who has requested deletion. decltype (talk) 19:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GfxEditor[edit]

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

Looks like non-notable web/software. It's only just been released in beta, and the only references are to the site itself -- Boing! said Zebedee 07:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not fair to exclude GfxEditor. Look at the wikipedia page of the other online graphic editors: Picnik and Aviary_(application_suite). Why are they allowed and not GfxEditor? GfxEditor pretty much follow the same guidelines as they. They only reference to themselves as well. So is it only because GfxEditor is in Beta and they are not? That would not be fair. Lots of web software are released in beta and stays in beta for years, very common with f.ex. Google_Apps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mersicainc (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not justification for keeping an article -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Just download links and whatnot. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - I have added some additional notable information to the page. This product was created by member of group TRSI. There are some references to products released by the creator of GfxEditor that goes under the alias name T-Bone from above mentioned group TRSI. So there is a connection between TRSI and GfxEditor, some external references were added.

Also GfxEditor is the first graphic design and DTP application to fully integrate with world leading merchandize fulfillment company Zazzle, this is a major innovation, and facts can be seen on the reference to Zazzle and You tube videos reference seen on GfxEditor home page.

TRSI page need to be and will soon be updated to contain reference to GfxEditor. Because I will write about how old members of the group went on to become entrepreneurs of some todays innovative software applications.

So is this enough notable stuff for you or should I find some more? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mersicainc (talk • contribs) 02:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no independent mention of GfxEditor in those new links you have added. Updating the TRSI page to mention GfXEditor does not count as a reference, because it is independent references from outside of WIkipedia that we want. Also, notability is not inherited, so even if people related to TRSI went on to do great things, that notability does not transfer to GfxEditor. To qualify for its own article, GfxEditor needs to be notable in its own right and covered by reliable sources in its own right. For details of notability, please see WP:N, which starts by saying...

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and 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"

(I have emphasised, in bold, the two parts that I think you need to pay attention to).

-- Boing! said Zebedee 09:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I you guys are right, Delete it, I'll try again in 3-6 months, by them there will be some independent reviews.

Just 1 question, will it be ok to update the TRSI page with parts of the text from the GfxEditor page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mersicainc (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion, but I would have thought a brief mention of it on the TRSI page would be ok - you don't need the same level of notability to mention something in passing in a related article. I really wish you every success and I hope this software does achieve the notability needed for its own article - best of luck -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a suggestion - it might be worth taking a copy of the existing article and keeping it in your own user space (eg by creating User:Mersicainc/GfxEditor), so you can come back to it later -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that, thank you for taking the time to review the GfxEditor page and for the suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mersicainc (talk • contribs) 17:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G7 Author has blanked the page to request deletion - I've tagged it -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:24, 9 May 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. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GEICO ad campaigns[edit]

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

This article is mainly unsourced or drawn directly from primary sources. It's not clear that the subject of GEICO's advertisements is independently notable. Guy (Help!) 07:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GEICO's ad campaigns are certainly notable. I'm sure they have been written about in various magazines that cover business and advertising. The article could be brought to WP's standards. Borock (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no doubt about the historic notability [46] of the various advertising campaigns-- the gekko, the caveman (which actually inspired an awful ABC television series), the "but I've got some good news", etc.-- done by what started as the Government Employees Insurance Company. I suppose that we could have separate articles called the GEICO Gekko, the GEICO Caveman, etc., but this is the better approach. Mandsford (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I like it. And so does the New York Times - [47]--Mike Cline (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is very sloppy and should be rewritten. But the subject is notable - the GEICO cavemen even had their own sitcom! Joal Beal (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I originally moved this list to its own page because it made up half the length of the GEICO page, and the list is even longer now. The subject is notable, as the diverse yet saturated ad campaign seems to be unprecedented; I don't know of any other company that's done it. I vote to keep the page; if it can be improved, so much the better. Wrightaway (talk) 16:22, 7 May 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 Cardinal virtues. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plato's four cardinal virtues[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Plato's four cardinal virtues

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

Contest prod. This article is a WP:COATRACK to push a particular WP:POV of material covered in The Republic (Plato). The editor who contested the prod last October has removed their objection, but an admin said that this was insufficient to renew the prod process and would have to go through an AfD. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article appears to cover the same ground as the Cardinal virtues article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cardinal virtues per the virtues of prudence and temperance. See The four cardinal virtues for an example of a recent source. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Colonel Warden. The article cardinal virtues refers to Plato as being the originator, but no redirect that mentions Plato. A lot of the redirects to the article can and should be deleted, since they're just variations on capitalization-- "Cardinal Virtues", "Cardinal virtue", "Cardinal Virtue", etc. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cardinal virtues and delete article. No direct reference to Plato is correct unless it is limited to the relevant Republic section. Currently article fails to meet Wikipedia quality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.197.78 (talk) 05:19, 10 May 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) 02:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opie Winston[edit]

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

Lacks any second or third part sources. No real world references. List of Sons of Anarchy characters already has an entry for that character. Magioladitis (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to list of sons of anarchy characters. No secondary or third party sources, making this unverifiable and non-notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:50, 13 May 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) 02:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bsd windows project[edit]

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

Prod tag removed. This article describes its subject as a rumoured student proejct. I can find no reliable sources confirming the project's existence, and therefore can't establish that it meets WP:notability criteria for inclusion. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no notability. Haakon (talk) 09:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see a speedy criterion that would cover this. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertisement for non-notable project. Tagged as such. Pcap ping 19:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the speedy, to let the discussion here decide, but I have no opinion about keeping or not keeping the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems unlikely to me that such a change in Windows would ever materialize, let alone done by a college student. PleaseStand ^(talk) 01:02, 11 May 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) 02:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Delaney[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks any second or third part sources. Article was on the past merged to the list of characters which already covers sufficiently the character. Magioladitis (talk) 07:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to list of sons of anarchy characters. No secondary or third party sources, making this unverifiable and non-notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:49, 13 May 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) 02:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaylin Cervini[edit]

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

Proposed deletion (and all problem tags) removed with the very deceptive edit summary "wording". No improvements were made. Deletion reason was "Fails WP:BIO. She is best known for her weightloss website? But that website is rather blatantly not known, with most of the 28 distinct Google hits from Wikipedia or her own website. She hasn't received attention apart from a short mention in a local article when she sang on a funeral." Fram (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 08:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had endorsed deletion because research failed to turn up anything notable. Hekerui (talk) 09:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could possibly be speedied as blatant advertising. Don't forget to delete the images, too. Heather (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, promotional. ALI ^{nom nom} 22:35, 12 May 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. — Scientizzle 19:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yogaswami[edit]

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

Not a very notable swami. Promoted by the direct disciple who founded Hinduism Today. No independent sources that verify the notion of notability. Wikid ^as© 06:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Non-notable religious type. Article is promotional, as are sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books seems to have quite a few (51) hits, including one that calls him "one of Sri Lanka's most renowned spiritual masters". (A few of these books seem to be by the same person — his disciple — but the majority are not.) Shreevatsa (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clean up is no cause for deletion, the article is an absolute mess no doubt. If I find tinme, i will fix it meanwhile tag it and keep it per RS sources. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable - self promotional sources from 'the search' do not qualify for the article to remain. All sources are seen as not only promotional but also promoted by a follower. None of the editors added the reliable source to support notability, thus delete. I do not think that there will be more sources for him in the near future. (User) Mb (Talk) 14:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We do not delete articles on grounds of notability based on what is in the article itself, but on what we argue here. I did not edit the article because I'm not interested in it, but I showed above that there were independent reliable sources establishing notability (which are not in the article). Shreevatsa (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC) No, they are not independent.[reply]

Comment. A few independent reliable sources with varying degrees of coverage of the subject: [48][49][50][51][52][53]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source no1 concludes: "With deep gratitude and reverence we pay homage to Siva Yogaswami and cherish his memory and immortal words" -- not independent, next one is much the same, other links are not about him - mentioned in passing in relation to some other notable dude, or a dead link and the last is again not about him - it is about the same notable dude (the successor) --(User) Mb (Talk) 19:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that followers of Yogaswami have control over the editorial policy of the Daily News? That newspaper made the editorial decision to publish articles about the subject, which would appear to go some way towards establishing notability, especially when taken alongside briefer mentions in The Sunday Times, The Washington Post (which says that the movement started by Yogaswami grew to have 2.5 million followers) and in a book published by the Oxford University Press. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to establish notability. I've also found this one.--Gaura79 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I saw that one when I was looking for sources but dismissed it because I didn't recognise the publisher. It seems, however, that Ten Speed Press is a reputable outfit. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I didn't !vote earlier because I hadn't yet taken the time to examine the sources carefully, but I'm now convinced that the sources linked in this discussion are enough to meet notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google Books results. Heather (talk) 22:50, 12 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaggi Vasudev[edit]

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

Self promotional/vanity page of a guru, not supported by secondary sources. Delete. Wikid ^as© 05:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The tone of the article may be promotional, but the subject is clearly notable. Plenty of reliable sources are available; just click the 'news' link in the find sources above. Salih (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very popular guru in Tamil Nadu. Has had lots of coverage in National media (as the Gnews links show). If the article is promotional, go ahead and stub it. It is a content issue not a cause for deletion.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up the article; removed links to his websites. added RS to backup most of the claims.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously, per the many independent reliable sources with significant coverage found by the Google News and Books searches spoon-fed above. Is it too much to ask that nominators should at least glance at those links before clicking the "save page" button, thus avoiding a time-wasting discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from the talk page) Keep. I do not see why such a famous personality doesn't deserve a few lines in the Wikipedia. And the article is pretty cleaned up as well. The references are news articles from DAILIES and not from any magazines or recreational literature. DharmaNeji (talk) 04:36, 13 May 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 headcount shows that roughly three out of four contributors want to keep the article, so I could find a consensus for deletion only if the "delete" arguments are so strong as to mandate deletion without regard to any other arguments (such as, e.g., in the case of copyright violations). That is not the case. Most "delete" arguments concern the content of the article, including its neutrality and the selection of topics which it covers. This is a class of problems that can be resolved by judicious consensus-based editing rather than deletion. Sandstein 07:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Judaism[edit]

__

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination for IP that went I wish to nominate this page for deletion as it is clearly Original Research and entirely unencyclopedic. If a registered editor or admin can please complete the AfD process I would be grateful. Thank you. 71.235.101.111 (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - as far as I can tell (and I am no expert and a complete outsider), the individual criticisms or discussions are quite disparate - Rejection of concept of a personal God could be applied to many monotheistic religions (hence nonspecific), Rejection of concept of Chosen People is more of a discussion which can live in the parent article, ditto Christian-Jewish disputations which are historical, etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am receptive to the idea of a rename to Reactions to Judaism as outlined below, to try and forge some way forward. I haven't looked at many of the other 'criticism of' articles, but suspect that many of them will have the same problem as this in that they misrepresent diverse and at times unrelated reactions as some coherent criticism. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Criticism of Judaism is not notable or encyclopedic. This is just a hatchery of point of view and original research. Mike Allen 07:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clarifying my own position as my completing the nomination was a procedureal action for an ip who could not do it themselves. I can't see how this article can ever discuss criticism in context or avoid issues of original research by synthesis WP:SYNTH. This is always going to be a subject where criticism is plagued by having a POV and lacking a balanced view and I think it would be impossible to write a balanced neutral article that relies exclusively on balanced sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It has not been explained above why the article is not considered notable, as I clearly see numerous sources and the fact that the article correctly lists types of criticism of Judaism, which fits under the subject. I do not see original research in the article, as the references very clearly define where the information in the article is taken from. POV problems (and OR problems for that matter anyways) are not criteria for deletion. I view the article more as a list proper, just with information for understanding. The subject headings all fit under the subject of the article properly and the sources show that the article clearly passes WP:N. There are numerous other articles on Criticism of religion (even a Criticism of Religion article), so I believe the subject is notable. Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, my showing of these other articles provides consistency for this article and should not be dismissed offhand. I also believe this section on the talk page properly explains away other assumed problems with the article. Silver seren^C 10:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article never addresses "criticism of Judaism." "Criticism of Judaism" is like a precipice that the editors contributing material to this article refuse to approach. Judaism is a religion with some big sweeping themes. Those big sweeping themes represent valid areas for criticism, but this article concentrates on carping about minor themes and unfortunately gives the reader the impression that those petty complaints represent real criticism of the actual entity of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD is not for cleanup. The subject is notable, and has enough potential depth to warrant a standalone article. The fact that the material currently in the article may be original research or synthesis is something that can be addressed through normal editing. Similar articles (Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of Islam) provide some (mixed) evidence as to the viability and usefulness of this kind of article. Delete votes above essentially amount to "this is a difficult and controversial topic which will likely suffer continual vandalism and POV pushing". This is true, but is not currently a valid reason for deletion under deletion policy, for good reason. - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- utterly notable. Criticism of Judaism has been a quite significant and notable part of Judaism's existence in the world (even apart from Anti-semitism and Anti-Judaism); there is no reason to eliminate the article simply because it lends itself to problems like WP:OR. Savant1984 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because the article is much too large to be merged into Judaism and because deleting this article would upset the balance of neutrality with respect to other major religions that have separate "Criticism of..." articles (see Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Mormonism, and many others, all of which are viewable at Template:Criticism of religion). I don't see any problems with original research in this article; synthesis is arguable, but because of the list-like structure of this article (and the other ciriticism articles) I don't believe the claims of synthesis are valid either. If they are, they can surely be solved without deleting the article. Also, with respect to Spartaz's claim that the sources used in this article are not balanced, I'm not aware of a rule in WP:NPOV that states that sources used to verify claims but themselves conform to WP:NPOV, only that their use in the article must. If we did have to reject POV sources, sentences in the WP:NPOV page such as Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. would seem to not make sense. —Soap— 11:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this article ought to exist so as not to "upset the balance of neutrality with respect to other major religions" articles" is off-base. There is no "balance of neutrality" called for in Wikipedia policy — not in relation to different articles. This article is and has always been a dumping ground for any petty so-called criticism of Judaism. Most interestingly, no criticism of the big themes of Judaism are ever encountered in this article. The article fails ever to rise to the occasion and criticize Judaism for being for instance monotheistic or for instance based on halacha. What that indicates is that this article is not ever being used for criticism of Judaism itself, but rather for the noting of any petty reference to Judaism that can be found. The article is a hopeless cause. I've tried for weeks to get the involved editors to consider picking criteria to guide what should be included here. There has been no inclination to arrive at any such criteria. But there has been huge interest in reinserting marginal material that at best carps about topics that are not at all major themes in Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether or not there is general merit in the idea of "Criticism of..."-entries is a different matter. As long as these exist, Judaism must not be treated any different; as mentioned above, AfD isn't for clean-up. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - WP:OTHERCRAP aside; Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of Atheism. If this is viewed as a problem, then address the notion itself of criticism of... religious articles as a whole; singling out one religion's article and trying to give it special treatment smacks of hypocrisy. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly an "other crap exists" argument and for that reason invalid.--Scott Mac 14:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that "OTHERCRAP is part of an essay; it is not some sort of bright-line policy that all such arguments are invalid or forbidden. I see no logical rationale for allowing a criticism article on one of the world's major religions to disappear while leaving intact articles on other major religions. If we wish to tackle the subject of "Critical of Religion X" itself in the same manner we have cut down on "Criticism of Person X" articles, then I am all for it. But AfD'ing one of the lot is not the proper way to go. Hell, batch delete the lot of em, but I think that will bring far more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism is Judaism. It has nothing to do with Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism. (I don't know if atheism is a religion.) The reasons for the failure of this article are not necessarily related to factors found at those other articles, which superficially may seem similar, but in fact are different from this one. It is sign of the weakness of the argument for the "Keep" of this article that reference to these other articles seems necessary. The problem here was the failure to criticize Judaism in the big picture. That may not be a problem encountered at the articles referred to. For whatever reason, editors have been hesitant to criticize Judaism for what it represents in its giant themes. That could be done. That would make this a good article, at least potentially it would. But working with editors for a few weeks has led me to conclude that a real criticism of Judaism is never going to be attempted. I tried to get editors to discuss criteria that would be applicable to this article, but the editors I've encountered seemed committed to using this article to concentrate on only lesser issues. That isn't going to change by sending this article back into working space. More of the same will prevail. The article will continue to be used in a petty manner to document petty offenses that never ever rise to the level of an actual criticism of Judaism. Deleting the article seems a good way to free up people's energy to move on to other work. Bus stop (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a word; bullshit. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are not focussing on this article if you are only preoccupied with the existence of other articles that may be superficially similar. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete the article is simply too diffuse, and will always be. The article on Judaism should neutrally narrate different attitudes to to. We would not allow and article called Support for Judaism, would we. I am one who is often critical of the pro-Jewish POV pushing on wikipedia - but making sure articles on Judaism are neutral is the thing, not trying to balance them with pastiches of negativity. As for the fact we've got other "criticisms of x", well other crap exist doesn't really wash with me, and they should probably be deleted too. Would we have Criticisms of Communism, Criticisms of the United States of America, - or are we into WP:POVFORK territory?--Scott Mac 14:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of communism exists, and Criticism of American foreign policy addresses at least a subset of the other one. —Soap— 14:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Judaism is a word game — we don't have Supportive approaches for Hamlet, but Critical approaches to Hamlet exists. The name for all these articles should be better, to avoid POV forking: I want something like Outside reactions to Judaism, except not so stupid sounding. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep only if cleaned up and clear criteria provided, otherwise delete due to numerous violations There exists criticism of Judaism as a religion. However, the way certain, seemingly partisan, editors have been treating this article, it has turned into a dumping ground of unrelated inappropriate coatracky-type sections whose only connection is some negative comment about Jewish people, Jewish law, Jewish texts, and mostly not even the religion perse. If the POV-pushing information was removed, or placed in its own articles for the few real criticisms (e.g. Shechita issues belong in Shechita - a religino is not defined by any one of its traditions) then I would vote to keep the article. Which is why I an d many other editors have been combing through this article trying to seperate the valid and appropriate points from the mess it was. However, if there is no way to develop a CLEAR set of criteria for what belongs in this article, and it keeps on being a magnet for partisan editors, then the violations to wikipedia policy and guideline outweigh the benefits of the article and it must be deleted. Avi (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As Jay describes elowuently below, basically every entry in the article more properly belongs in other articles, and for the most--if not all--part they are already there! To lump together various discussions based on the ephemeral connection of the Bible, through the concept of a G-d (not even restricted to monotheism for that matter), or through the fact that some adherents of a political philosophy happen to be Jewish, appears to be a WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV which I do not see being surmountable. -- Avi (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor excuse for an article. Major disconnect between title and contents. The title implies that the whole religion of Judaism is being criticized. In fact only petty fault-finding that never addresses the whole religion of Judaism is the norm. The editors that apparently want to "criticize Judaism" also apparently don't want to do their homework and find "criticism" that actually addresses the whole religion of Judaism. This article is a title waiting for content to materialize. The trouble is that apparently someone came up with an idea for the subject for an article, but they didn't have any idea, in the specifics, what to put into it. And that is how it remains to this day: an empty repository for indiscriminately badmouthing Judaism. Not a very noble concept for an article. And living up to its title is something that is not likely to happen. I've made numerous suggestions. I suggested we arrive at criteria for inclusion based on what Judaism actually is. Most editors didn't like that idea. It seems they prefer an article that has no standards, that can serve as a convenient place for digging up the dirt on Judaism, even if in point of fact that "dirt" is not even necessarily related to the actual religion in its major themes. Bus stop (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: AFD is not clean-up. Article needs big changes. But there is a ton of reliable research on this topic, as there is on criticisms of Islam, Christianity, and Atheism. If clean-up proves to be a problem, take it to RFC, or request mediation. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a "ton of reliable research on this topic" but there is some material relevant to the topic. How do you explain that up until now no one has put on-topic material into this article? Bus stop (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep Pulling together information on the same topic from different sources is not WP:OR. Only when claims made in the article are not supported by the sources is it WP:OR, which is not the case here. Further, every other religion and large organization has a criticism article, including people (though these are now called "cultural and political image of..."). The article needs more good faith editors, not deletion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not original research, as it's based on sources. Not improper synthesis, as sources that discuss criticism of aspects of Judaism can reasonably be construed to be part of the wider topic of "Criticism of Judaism". Remember, this article is about the topic of Criticism of Judaism, it exists to summarise the coverage of this topic in secondary sources, not to endorse such criticism, and I don't think it does this. The topic is plainly notable, hundreds of books have discussed it and notable philosophers such as Hegel and Nietzsche have made criticisms of Judaism.[54] This nomination and support for deletion seems to be part of a trend whereby anything negative about Judaism must be excised from Wikipedia, which is not a trend we should continue. Fences&Windows 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge elsewhere. The content looks reasonable, but we don't need to fork it. If we do, we might as well have Praise of Judaism to keep the balance. Aiken ♫ 17:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find significant coverage in reliable sources discussing Praise of Judaism, and if it's not able to be easily covered in an existing article, then go ahead and make it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What both Aiken and DustFormsWords are saying (above) is interesting. The logical solution is to have one article incorporating both approaches. I have suggested this on the article Talk page. Why not have one article entitled "Critique of Judaism"? In such an article both positive criticism and negative criticism could be permitted. (The present article, "Criticism of Judaism," only allows for negative criticism. I have asked if I could put positive criticism into this article and I was told that no, I could not.) This article does allow for a response that is supposed to counterbalance the negative criticism, I guess as some sort of token amount of WP:NPOV, but this article clearly places the emphasis on the negative. An article that would make sense would be an article constructed on a level playing field, so to speak. An article named Critique of Judaism could also have as one of its guiding principles that only the major themes of the religion get critiqued; minor themes would not merit inclusion. That could be a dignified article. Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTo the person who quoted "wp:snowball" I'd like to point out that Judaism doesnt believe in hell (and therefore the snowball that might have a chance there) ;) Camelbinky (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Each subsection has a "see also" or "main article" all each to a different article, it isnt that this is just a long subsection of one article that needed to be split off for length purposes... this is just section and section and section from different Jewish-related articles put all together in one place for the purpose of criticizing a religion for believing in something different than other religions, and it brings in criticisms about different brands of Judaism and of things Judaism doesnt even do anymore. Article has no encyclopedic value. It is a magnet for ant-semites and that's not what we want to encourage. Everything covered in the article can be found in other places that normal people would be more likely to be looking at anyways.Camelbinky (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then after we delete this article we should go delete World War 2 because every subsection contains a "see also" or "main article". Lol. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OR, SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. AzureFury: I think that the writers of this article have been very careful to include claims that are based on sources; the only problem is that the selection of these sources is limited, haphazard, and gives undue weight to minor "scholars" as to major. I do not understand the purpose of any of these Category:Criticism of religion articles, as they seem to be a dumping ground for religious slurs, rabble-rousing and anti-(name your religion) digs. Yoninah (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the knowledge to make the claim that "the selection of sources is limited, haphazard, and gives undue weight to minor scholars," then you have the knowledge to balance the article. Why are you voting delete? If you don't know what sources should be included to improve the article, then you don't know that the sources included in the article are selective. If you do know what sources should be included in the article, you should be including them, rather than trying to censor the whole thing. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a question for those users voting delete. Is it because of the organization of this article not being as fluid as the other criticism articles and including minority topics? If so, these are things that should be fixed, but the topic itself shouldn't be deleted. For those that are saying that this is just a way to bash religion, consider that there is a criticism of atheism article. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with these articles, so long as they correctly utilize their sources. Wikipedia isn't bashing religion with these articles, it is explaining viewpoints by notable scholars and critics across the world. If you feel, like this article, is biased, then it needs to be fixed, not deleted. Silver seren^C 20:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deleting this article is its failure to criticize Judaism. The criticizing of Judaism would first entail the defining of Judaism. What is Judaism? Judaism is a monotheistic religion. Does anyone not find it curious that this article fails to criticize Jewish monotheism? Instead it opts for criticizing lesser themes. That is petty. Judaism is also a religion that is strongly defined by its reliance on Halacha. Where is the criticism of Judaism's heavy reliance on Halacha? Why the shying away from the big themes in favor of petty themes? This article is a flop because all the editors that wish to add material to this article fail to recognize the need to recognize big themes. They are myopically focussing on petty issues that are not deserving of the title of this article.

The article is misleading because the article gives the misimpression that the topics it covers represent Judaism. Only in the most minimal sense is this true. And totally absent is what the title indicates the article is about. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then that means that the article itself needs a major overhaul. I agree with the points you just made, but that doesn't lessen the notability of the subject at all, it just means that it needs to be rewritten or, at the very least, include the criticisms you're talking about and feature them prominantly, with the current stuff beneath that. Silver seren^C 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will never happen. Just look at the history of the article and Talk page for the past few weeks. The "current stuff" does not belong in it. The topics covered are misleading in that they convey the notion that they are criticism of Judaism but the upshot is just petty carping, never rising to the level of actually critiquing Judaism, as the article's title would suggest. Bus stop (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I incorporate the reasoning of Tarc, Soap and DustFormsWords as my own. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The topic is notable, and would be too long to merge into the parent article. There may be problems with it, but that's not what AFD is for. Buddy431 (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic? What is the topic? That is the one of the main problems — there is no topic. This article was conceived as a space for complaining. About what? That is anyone's guess. Bus stop (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ICANTHEARYOU. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AzureFury — since this article is only being used for petty criticism, I think it should be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ad nauseam. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Tarc, Soap and DustFormsWords. This is an obvious keep, article needs work - but those discussions are for the article talk page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep per DustFormsWords and others above. Topic is notable Traxs7 (Talk) 01:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Tarc, Soap. Why should one religion be singled out, and have no "Criticism"-article? Huldra (talk) 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup/improvement, but core topic appears notable and the article cites many sources. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rework into Reactions to Judaism or something similar. I appreciate the arguments made by Dustformswords et al, and I agree that this topic is notable. Furthermore, while this article clearly needs some work, I do not believe it would be beneficial to simply remove all this content by deleting the article. However this article's title (and thus subject) necessarily restricts it to a point of view that is critical of Judaism. I cannot see how an article that necessarily violates the neutral point of view policy should be retained in that form. If there were an article called Reactions to Judaism, and the criticisms section became so long that a fork called Criticism of Judaism grew organically out of it, I would definitely !vote keep, but as far as I can tell, this is not a content fork of any article. Most of the article that link to it do so from the Series on Judaism template, so it appears to be existing in a vacuum. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's inherently NPOV is a misunderstanding of the nature of criticism. Criticism is the result of critique and it's not inherently negative any more than movie critics give only negative reviews. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then it is your understanding that this article is as open to positive criticism as negative criticism? As it stands right now positive criticism is only allowable as rebuttal to negative criticism, but only negative criticism is allowable as the initiator of a topic. This is discussed at length on the article Talk page, such as in this section. Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this, #7. Silver seren^C 03:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well that is a one-sided conversation. See link above for a discussion involving two sides, at least. Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the current article content is; that's a matter for clean-up. All that's relevant is that this article subject does not meet any of the reasons for deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the section you linked and it appears to me that you constantly and consistently ignored everything that Noleander brought up, instead trying to redirect the conversation back to the fact that you think the article should be deleted. As AzureFury stated above, you have continued to raise that point ad nauseum. Silver seren^C 04:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I pointed out to Noleander, in that section of the Talk page, that the article may be in violation of WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which, regardless, is not a reason for deletion. Silver seren^C 04:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is inherently in violation of WP:NPOV I think that would argue for deletion. If the article only allows for negative criticism that hardly seems consistent with WP:NPOV. An article can be created replacing this article allowing for both a positive and a negative critiquing of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are that concerned with there needing to be positive criticism in the article, which I am not entirely sure is necessary beyond balancing positive information directly with the topics at hand, then that information should be added. The negative information shouldn't all just be deleted. Silver seren^C 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silverseren — you said you read the section I linked to. Did you see where I asked if I could initiate positive criticism? I was basically told "no." And if positive criticism is allowable, I think the article should be named something like Critique of Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what happened. Noleander pointed out that the other Criticism articles didn't have fully positive sections because it was redundant in terms of the articles on the religion themselves. However, positive criticism that offsets the subjects already included in the article was pointed out by him/her that it was fine and encouraged you to do so. Please do not try and twist what happened on the talk page, we can all read it rather easily ourselves and see what was really said. As for renaming, no, following the style guide, "Criticism" is the correct terminology for a title, which is why all of the articles are titled as such. Silver seren^C 05:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Judaism in this context is bad English; it's the difference between "Books about Judaism" and "A book about Judaism"; and in any case AfD isn't for page moves. Also "I have trouble working with the other editors on this article" is yet ANOTHER thing that isn't a valid reason for deletion. The valid reasons for deletion are at WP:DEL#REASONS and the only ones that have been raised are "content fork" and "unencyclopedic content", both of which I argue don't apply here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After checking up on this discussion, I noticed Noleander's name was mentioned. I'd like to point out for everyone that Noleander has gotten in "trouble" with the community on several occasions for work on, and creation of, Jewish-related articles of a POV nature that deal with negative information against Judaism, and at least two of those POV anti-Jewish articles were deleted. I wouldnt go around using what he says as a defence and I'm disheartened to hear he continues to edit on Jewish related articles as MANY editors and admins "encouraged" him to stay away from such articles almost to the point of an actual topic-ban being put on him.Camelbinky (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of his past actions, his explanations on the talk page were rather complete, concise, understandable, and backed by policy. It did and does not seem like he is pushing a POV on this article, as he stated that he was completely open to adding positive information on the topics therein. Silver seren^C 05:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a great example of WP:SYNTH. The article is inventing, rather than citing, argumentation; "X, however Y" is a juxtaposition created by the editors of the article, rather than drawn from other authors' comparisons of X and Y. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give specific examples? Silver seren^C 05:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The section entitled "Rejection of concept of Chosen People". The section entitled "Criticism from Islam". The section entitled "Violence". The section entitled "Historical accuracy of religious texts". The section entitled "Discrimination against non-Jews". The section entitled "Divorce and agunah". The section entitled "Niddah (menstruation laws)". "Homosexuality". "Brit milah (covenant of circumcision)". There are sometimes more, depending on the state of the eternal edit war there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the closest article we have is Criticism of Hinduism, a similar religion/ethnic grouping/cultural grouping, as judaism is not a religion of creed so much as a modernized indigenous lifeway (well, my opinion anyway), so the other crap that exists really does support this article staying. if this specific article is biased, fix it. no matter how much it is trimmed back or altered, there will always be an article with this title, or, if people want to bother, a whole series of articles on criticisms of various religions under some other name (problems with..., arguments against..., internal inconsistencies within..., controversies surrounding..., critical commentaries on... etc), as all of these religions have had numerous criticisms of them published, both cogent and insane, with many of them extremely notable. really a snow keep.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many books and news sources out there, showing criticism of Judaism, so its a notable topic to have. Just don't give any undue weight to crazed conspiracy nuts and hate mongers, and it'll be a fine topic. Dream Focus 10:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a valid topic at all. Antisemitism exists in abundance. The "books and news sources" you mention can also be vectors of antisemitism. The article's structure is oddball. In its conceptualization it is not neutral. Most articles have subjects. This article, by dint of its oddball conceptualization, has a blank slate for painting Judaism in a negative light. It would not occur to anyone to write an article from the point of view of Philo-Semitism for the overly simple reason that it would be oddball. It should be obvious that the conceptualization of an article influences the eventual form it takes. Formulate an article on a faulty basis and you have an article that will always gravitate to the problematic leaning built in at its inception. This article is in violation of WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, which reads: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." That is inbuilt from this article's inception. Numerous solutions have been suggested for remedying this. Deleting the article would be one of those solutions but not the only one. Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing surprising about the playing of the "OMG antisemitism!" victim card in this debate is that it didn't happen until Day 2. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said more than that in the above. "Criticism of Judaism" is not in the form of most Wikipedia articles. It contains no structure. It is not an articulated realm. I think I said in my above statement that it was "oddball." It is an undefined receptacle that would lend itself to antisemitism. I'm not going to go out on a limb and try to prognosticate the likelihood of this article containing antisemitism this month, last year, or a year from now, but I will contend that the article has the natural leaning in that direction, and that is a factor of its conception. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the subject matter is certainly worthy of it's own article, it's just the current content of the article that is lacking. The article needs to be tagged for a re-write and/or cleanup, not removed entirely. --Pump me up 14:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I read the article to see what the fuss is about. I agree this article contains way too much original research, and is very one sided. If kept this article would need a significant overhaul. Marokwitz (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Since, if my understanding of policy is correct, an article needs consensus to be deleted, it seems that at the moment there is a snowball's chance in Gehenna of it being deleted. There is a lot of discussion here at the moment. Much of the content (and perspective of editors) in this discussion, though, could be very important; may I suggest that we direct our attentions to the article talk page to channel this energy into improving the article, (since it seems it will indeed remain with us)? Savant1984 (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cogent reason was given for deleting this article. It was given by me. At WP:DEL we find that: "Reasons for deletion" include: "content not suitable for an encyclopedia." At content not suitable for an encyclopedia we find: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, which states: "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." This article, "Criticism of Judaism," is in violation of the injunction against using Wikipedia to "nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Policy opposes this article. It is an article for nurturing prejudice, hatred and fear. Wikipedia doesn't have to lend itself to unencyclopedic purposes, and policy tries to steer this encyclopedia away from being used for such purposes. There are many ways of incorporating everyone's goals into the process of writing an encyclopedia, only limited by creativity. This article is just one dead-end that, for the creative, can point the way forward. But policy, as I think I've demonstrated clearly, blocks this particular article from wasting anyone's additional time. Bus stop (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and respect that you think that, Bus stop. My point was merely that since there is no consensus in agreement with you to delete, having this conversation here rather than there seems pointless. Savant1984 (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a battleground is not a valid reason to delete an article, and it does not "nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear" to have an article on a contentious subject. Controversial topics should be covered neutrally, and not by advancing or supporting said controversy as fact (see WP:TIGER). If there are combatants who cannot get along, then subject to WP:ARBPIA they can be easily topic-banned. Tarc (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Being a battleground" is a valid reason to delete. According to WP:DEL a valid reason for deleting an article is "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia," at which we find WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.

I disagree with your other point: the article does "nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." Whatever content this article could hold, could just as well be held in an article that critiqued Judaism on a level playing field — allowing for the free input of positive criticism as well as negative criticism. Judaism is not, after all, a despised system that has racked up immeasurable harm. It is a belief system that enjoys considerable stature among such word-wide human organizing principles.

Thanks for the link to WP:TIGER. It is new to me. It's nice when people take time to write to other people as if they were real people, which of course they are. Bus stop (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. As already noted, there has been no convincing case made that the page fails sourcing requirements for notability. Issues of POV and SYNTH can, and are, being addressed through normal editing, and do not require page deletion. Opinions that editors will never fix these things are assumptions of bad faith. It seems that any page that deals with criticism of anything having to do with any religion will, sooner or later, and often perennially, find its way to AfD. I am sure that this is because some editors find such criticism offensive. But Wikipedia isn't censored to avoid offending people, and IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this is kept, who is going to volunteer to remove the original research and POV? It's been like this for four years (2006) and still no improvement. Mike Allen 21:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you find OR and POV in the article - Please remove it, to be discussed on the talk page. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have been removing it; certain editors insist on restoring inappropriate information. As I said above, if we can get clear criteria and clean out all of the coat-rack POV sections, the article should be kept. But there are months of history indicating that this is problematic. -- Avi (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having conflicts in editing with other users, then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If any incidents develop, take it to ANI. Silver seren^C 22:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avi, if you find the talk page is not helping, please try ANI - this AFD is not the place for such discussions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silver, you know I respect you, but you have to understand that if we bring this to AN/I we will get told "editing conflict, this isnt the forum" and roundrobin we go. These articles like this one are a magnet for the wrong type of editor and they are more stuborn than good editors and game the system. Avi and others who have commented are right, this article is just things pulled from other articles into one spot where those with an agenda can manipulate the information out of sight because in the original articles they'd be out numbered, but when they manipulate the title and game the system than can have their way on selected articles like this one.Camelbinky (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I begin this comment by noting that I have a lot of respect for many of the editors who are arguing for deletion. Although I don't work on this particular page, I do know from experience how frustrating it can be to deal with editors who appear to have an agenda and who have bottomless reserves of energy for pushing their POV. But, at its core, Judaism, like all the major religions, is a major part of world culture, and, as such, is subject to notable criticism. Deleting this page is the wrong solution to a problem. If you find that when you go to ANI you are told that it is a content dispute, that should tell you that it is likely that uninvolved users think those editors with whom you disagree are acting within policy, whether they be right or wrong on the merits of the content. The right way to deal with content issues isn't ANI. Call an RfC and get more editors to look at the issue where you disagree. Call another, and keep plugging at it until you feel that you have been heard. And if you have been heard, and find that the community just does not agree with your arguments, you may have to accept that, and consider that you may have been wrong. Deleting the page is the wrong way to handle it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish — policy is saying the article should be deleted, yet you are saying, "Deleting the page is the wrong way to handle it." Religious intolerance is ubiquitous in the world. Does Wikipedia have to contribute to it? There has been no explanation in any of the above for what purpose this article serves. Why would one need one-stop-shopping for negative views on Judaism? Policy clearly is in place to stop this sort of thing. Yet for fun and games (and no other articulated reason) some seem to want Wikipedia to participate in the act of badmouthing Judaism.

WP:COATRACK subsection Attack Article says that "Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic. Articles about a particular person or topic should not primarily consist of criticisms of that person or topic."

At WP:ATTACK we find: "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time."

As has already been pointed out by me, at WP:DEL we find that: "Reasons for deletion" include: "content not suitable for an encyclopedia." At content not suitable for an encyclopedia we find: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND, which states "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear."

Let somebody explain why such junk is needed on Wikipedia or delete it. I created the Wheelie bin urinal article and I think it is a far higher quality article than this one. The surprising thing is that the "Criticism of Judaism" article hasn't been deleted yet. Bus stop (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article different in its potential for excellence or abuse from the following articles, found at the alphabetical listing of all WP articles (poorly formatted, but you get the idea):

Criticism of adventist hospitals Criticism of anarchism Criticism of anarcho-capitalism Criticism of anarchy Criticism of atheism Criticism of awarding of Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama Criticism of bible Criticism of bill o'reilly Criticism of buddhism Criticism of capitalism Criticism of child pornography laws Criticism of chiropractic care Criticism of christianity Criticism of college and university rankings Criticism of college and university rankings (2007 United States) Criticism of college and university rankings (North America) Criticism of communism Criticism of communist party rule Criticism of debt Criticism of democracy Criticism of eBay Criticism of en.wikipedia.org Criticism of evolution Criticism of fair trade Criticism of falun gong Criticism of falungong Criticism of family guyCriticism of fdr Criticism of financialization Criticism of fractional-reserve banking Criticism of george w bush Criticism of globalization Criticism of google Criticism of government Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina Criticism of hinduism Criticism of info-gap decision theory Criticism of intellectual property Criticism of islam Criticism of jainism Criticism of java Criticism of kemalism Criticism of laws regarding child pornography Criticism of lds Criticism of libertarianism Criticism of linux Criticism of marriage Criticism of microsoft Criticism of monotheism Criticism of mormonism Criticism of mormons Criticism of muhammad Criticism of multiculturalism Criticism of music Criticism of non-standard analysis Criticism of nonstandard analysis Criticism of objectivism Criticism of organized naturism and nudism Criticism of organized religion Criticism of parapsychology Criticism of patent Criticism of patent law Criticism of patent laws Criticism of patent protection Criticism of patent system Criticism of patent systems Criticism of patents Criticism of patents policy Criticism of postmodernism Criticism of prem rawat Criticism of recycling Criticism of religion Criticism of royalty Criticism of science Criticism of social nudity Criticism of socialism Criticism of sport utility vehicles Criticism of suvs Criticism of tesco Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report Criticism of the APL programming language Criticism of the Anti-Defamation League Criticism of the BBC Criticism of the Bible Criticism of the Book of Abraham Criticism of the Book of Mormon Criticism of the C programming language Criticism of the Catholic Church Criticism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Criticism of the DSM-IV Criticism of the European Union Criticism of the FBI Method of Classification of Serial Murderers Criticism of the FDA Criticism of the FRA law Criticism of the Falun Gong cult Criticism of the Fed Criticism of the Federal Reserve Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration Criticism of the IPCC Criticism of the IPCC AR4 Criticism of the IPCC AR4 report Criticism of the International Space Station Criticism of the Iraq War Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy Criticism of the Kantian Philosophy (Schopenhauer) Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol Criticism of the Latter-day Saint movement Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement Criticism of the Muslim Population growth and immigration theory Criticism of the NHS Criticism of the National Health Service Criticism of the No Child Left Behind Act Criticism of the Parents Television Council Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance Criticism of the Qur'an Criticism of the Quran Criticism of the Roman Catholic Church Criticism of the Security Council Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church Criticism of the Space Shuttle Program Criticism of the Space Shuttle program Criticism of the Talmud Criticism of the UN Criticism of the Unification Church Criticism of the United Nations Criticism of the United States Criticism of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God Criticism of the WTO Criticism of the War on Terror Criticism of the War on Terrorism Criticism of the Winter Soldier Investigation Criticism of the World Trade Organization Criticism of the bible Criticism of the book of mormon Criticism of the catholic church Criticism of the clothes free movement Criticism of the government response to Hurricane Katrina Criticism of the koran Criticism of the marketplace of ideas theory Criticism of the quran Criticism of the term Latino Criticism of the war on terrorism Criticism of the wikipedia Criticism of transhumanism Criticism of ubuntu Criticism of walmart Criticism of welfare states Criticism of wikipedia Criticism of windows vista

An attack page is different from a "criticism of" page. each of these subjects has been notable criticized, often vehemently, and thus deserves an article, with the concern being that the criticism be on an appropriate scale compared to the main article. an attack page typically contains unsourced criticisms written as original opinion a by the editor. this is not an attack article/page. and if the criticism article is of undue weight, that doesnt mean we delete it, but that we work on it. Think it through: if we allow all articles which are at times overwhelmed with POV editing to be deleted, what would we have left? maybe some math articles (except for 13, 23 and 666). I of course understand the feelings of people offended by undue or inappropriate criticism, but that cant be helped, it will occur in the process of editing here (and hopefully diligently removed). However, if anyone wants to fight consensus and propose that many or all of the above articles be reviewed for potential offensiveness, be my guest. I assume that the other criticism of religions pages listed here are potentially equally offensive.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercurywoodrose: Even scholarly "criticism" is often an attack in disguise, and you can be sure this applies 100% to Criticism of Judaism. Antisemitism has pervaded all strata of academia, rendering our "reliable sources" questionable. I think Bus stop has made a cogent case for deleting this article based on the Wikipedia policy pages which he cited. I leave it to you and the rest of this community to take the message to heart and delete the rest of these "criticism" pages. Yoninah (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury- yes, other things exist... that has no relevance for this AfD nor is it a legitimate or recognized reason for keep and must be ignored. I have yet to see one reason for keep that is accepted by our policies as a reason for keep. Yet there are three at least that fall under acceptable reasons for delete. If you want to have in one place all the criticism of Judaism I'm sure you can find them at Anti-semitism.Camelbinky (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All criticism of Judaism is anti-semitic? That's special pleading beyond reason. Libelling all academics who have written critiques of Judaism is a low tactic. Fences&Windows 21:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fences&Windows — Yoninah did not say that all criticism of Judaism is antisemitic. Bus stop (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made my previous comment saying, in the edit summary, that I hoped it would help. Well, we can see how that worked out. It's a pity to see editors just shouting at one another without listening (that's some editors, not all). I really do not think those clamoring for deletion are listening to the comments from the other side. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is voluminous, exhaustive commentary for at least the last 2000 years, of criticisms of various aspects of Judaism, both from within the culture/religion and from without, a significant portion of which cannot be considered anti-semitic. Early Christianity itself is a form of criticism of Judaism in some of its aspects, again discounting the anti-semitism sometimes found there. I do not agree that having many articles featuring criticism of other religions has no relevance here. i know "other stuff exists". i am stating quite clearly the criteria for this article to exist. if someone wants to show that there is in fact NO criticism of Judaism of any note, outside of anti-semitic circles, i welcome that effort, but i sincerely doubt it can be shown. I know for a fact that not all scholarly criticism of judaism is an attack in disguise, as many notable jewish scholars and intellectuals have criticized various aspects of judaism, and received extensive commentary on their critiques. I would seriously consider deleting some of the "criticisms" articles i listed, if it turns out that there really is not enough sourced commentary to justify an article. As to whether they should be deleted because they are offensive to the community being criticised, or because one can assume that ALL criticism of any group or movement MUST be based purely on irrational bias, and thus doesnt deserve to be given an article separate from the articles on the hatred of such groups, i would say that is simply not tenable. Many notable people have commented on the considerable, reasonable, or justified critiques of some aspects of judaism, and some jews have acknowledged this fact. Reform judaism is to some degree a response to social changes brought on by more modern protestant movements in the late 19th c., and the rabbinical response to the social pressure (mostly from the congregations) to change. I do admit that judaism, with its history of anti-semitic attacks against it, makes it somewhat unusual, though we do have the phrase "anti-catholicism" which is also separate from "criticism of the catholic church". I am trying to read the arguments for deletion here, to see if there is any logic to be found. i cant find any, sorry to say.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just another COATRACK. I have one of those at home, don't need another. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 00:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- COATRACK is an essay. Do you have a reason based in policy, rather than a VAGUEWAVE at an essay? Fences&Windows 21:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL at your VAGUEWAVE attempt to discredit my comment. This page violates 8 other policies and guidelines as well. Perhaps you should take a look at this sorry attempt for an article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 13:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, consider Speedy Deletion This article is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH, WP:COAT and WP:OR. I strongly urge it's deletion, even considering a speedy deletion. Basket of Puppies 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Friends, I want to point out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay which does not and cannot supersede our policy of WP:NPOV. Deleting this article will necessarily put us in clear violation of NPOV: the only rational conclusion to draw from the existence of all our other "Criticism of. . ." articles is that Judaism is somehow privileged from it. See also the sections on precedent and inherent notability in the WP:OTHERSTUFF essay. WP:POINT aside, deleting this article would require the deletion of the other "Criticism of . . ." articles on NPOV grounds, plain and simple, as far as I can tell. Savant1984 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savant1984 — WP:NPOV is a policy that applies "intra-article." Or, have you seen that it has "inter-article" applicability? Bus stop (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savant, the application of policy is on a case-by-case basis with no black and white application across the board. Because we decide one thing here does not in any way mean that we must apply policy on other articles. Policy is not set in stone as a law that must be applied everywhere equally by the letter. To the editor who thinks the deletionists havent been listening- I see it the other way around. Perhaps the keepers need to start listening. This article simply needs to go.Camelbinky (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to promise you that I have been reading everything said here, and thinking about it carefully, all along. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind explaining what makes Judaism different from the other religions with Criticism of articles? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence 2 from WP:NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

The claims of WP:COATRACK and WP:OR are completely unfounded and frankly, insulting. What in the article is NOT a criticism of Judaism? What in the article is not stated by the sources? I've heard there were Israel related POV issues on Wikipedia. This discussion is making is very obvious the rumors were true. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Israel related POV issues on Wikipedia. This discussion is making is very obvious the rumors were true." AzureFury, you need to back it up and strike that out because your coming awfully close to blatant anti-semitism. This article has nothing to do with Israel and none of the commentators on this AfD to my knowledge are from Israel (at least not personally, though many of us are Jewish and therefore go far enough back...). I will apply AGF in that you werent using "Israel related POV issues" as code for "Jews throwing their weight around" (as LESS than 2 percent of the US population and the ONLY minority that is actually shrinking in absolute numbers I dont see that being possible anyways). Basically in my view all your statements are tainted for me now.Camelbinky (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's rich. You know not too long ago I had an Iranian calling me a racist? It's pathetic if this is the way you try to get your way on Wikipedia. I couldn't care less what you think. This AFD is a joke, it's nothing more than a game. Deletionist arguments are made out of rage, not backed by policy. You haven't even been able to give an example of a supposed coat or instance of original research, but instead chose to waste your comment flinging around accusations of prejudice. It's sad and transparent. In disgust, AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camelbinky, as much as I hate to invoke it, I think that this is a matter of common sense. Of course as a rule we needn't and oughtn't mechanically apply an invocation of policy across the board. But that doesn't mean that what I said isn't true: having a "Criticism of every religion and belief system imaginable" except Judaism has pretty blatant non-NPOV implications. Bus stop: "All . . . encyclopedic content must be written from a NPOV" -- that this applies here again, seems to me to be common sense. Savant1984 (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other things existing has no relevance to an AfD no matter WHAT. Nor is it legitimate reason for keep. Any closing out of this AfD using "other things existing" is not possible and would be against our policy.Camelbinky (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, "Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too". However such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency." Silver seren^C 06:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article indefensible? I asked above, what is the purpose of this article? Does its existence serve any good purpose? Does it perhaps fill a niche that other articles don't cover adequately? Why do people want it to exist?

I don't think anyone entertains any doubts that this article is antisemitic. Wiki policy calls for the deletion of such articles. Wiki policy states that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear." And Wiki policy articulates that "Wikipedia policy specifically prohibits articles whose primary purpose is to disparage a particular person or topic. Articles about a particular person or topic should not primarily consist of criticisms of that person or topic." And Wiki policy also conveys that "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear."

If no one has any countervailing opinions of this article than it is clear that it should be deleted. Why don't some of its supporters come forth and explain its virtues? Does it have any virtues that anyone can point to? Bus stop (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article certainly serves a purpose: to present information about criticisms leveled at Judaism. Ideally, this article would be a neutral discussion of such critisisms, their history, origins and significance, rather than simply an essay actually levelling the criticisms, which is what I gather you're objecting to. I share this concern, that rather than being about the Criticisms themselves, this article simply presents them. However, the fact that the article has room to improve is not grounds for deletion, its grounds for improvement. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lear's Fool — Who says that it is "information about criticisms leveled at Judaism" and who holds that view? You are articulating a view held by only you. You say that this article is an "essay." This article will always be an essay. It can never be anything other than an essay. All parameters of this article are poorly defined. It is not clear what "Judaism" is. We have an editor on this page saying Judaism is a "lifeway," whatever that is. We have another editor on this page articulating that early Christianity is "criticism" of Judaism. The scope of this article is so poorly defined that not only essays, but books, and libraries, could be written under the subject heading of "Criticism of Judaism." Someone can put on their thinking cap and try to create a new article that will perhaps address some related topic, but this article does not correctly conceptualize an area for an article on Wikipedia. It is not clear what "criticism of Judaism" is. Judaism is called a culture. (I would simply call Judaism a religion, but my opinion is as irrelevant as your opinion, above, that this article is about "information about criticisms leveled at Judaism".) An article can only stand if in its conceptualization it is on solid ground. No criteria or scope or parameters have ever been articulated for this article because it would be impossible to do so. The notion of a crisply articulated article on the criticisms of Judaism is a ludicrous notion. There is no article here. That should be affirmed by getting rid of (deleting) the apparition masquerading under the title of "Criticism of Judaism." Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I see where you're coming from, but I'm not entirely sure it's so difficult to conceive what the parameters of this article are: I don't think they're so nebulous that it shouldn't exist. Judaism can be defined as either a culture, a religion, or both, and then criticisms of whatever you've defined "Judaism" to be are presented in the article, with each of these things being determined by consensus on the talkpage.

Essentially I'm trying to look at this from the perspective of a reader. It's not inconceivable for a reader to want to find a summary of criticisms that have been levelled at Judaism (or Islam, or Christianity, Windows Vista etc.), and a little about their history. They type in "Criticisms of Judaism", and get pretty much what they're looking for. Why, then should this article be deleted for being too poorly defined in scope, where there are plenty of conceivable situations where readers will look it up and find exactly the topic their looking for (even if, granted, it's not done very well)? -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, that last bit was a genuine question, it wasn't a retorical one. I'm trying to get a feel for where you're coming from. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not done very well" is a problem, in this instance. Not done very well may be indistinguishable from antisemitism, in this instance. Wikipedia should not be indulging the needs of those who feed on antisemitism. That is what policy points to: if a page primarily consists of criticism of a subject, it is a candidate for deletion. If a page dwells upon hatred, prejudice, and fear, in relation to a subject, it should be deleted. "Not done very well" is problematic in other ways as well. It points to unfulfilled areas of Wikipedia that need work — either in other (preexisting) articles, or articles yet to be created. If you are satisfying yourself with "not done very well" then you are depriving yourself of "done well." Editors can go to the antisemitism article and work on that article, if for instance they feel it is doing an inadequate job of listing the "criticisms of Judaism." In point of fact that article contains much of the material that might be in this article. That article also contains a "See also" area. Each of the areas covered in this article can probably be linked to from the "See also" area of the antisemitism article. If individual articles do not yet exist for all of the topics that an editor may want to see covered, they can be created, initially just as stub articles.

The reader should not be afforded the ability to "type in "Criticisms of Judaism", and get pretty much what they're looking for." Just because something is possible does not mean it should be facilitated. There are logics to how an encyclopedia should operate. It is a false premise that there are "criticisms" of Judaism. Yes, the general concept exists. But they (the criticisms) can't be succinctly arranged. It would take volumes of commentary to begin to shed light on "criticism of Judaism," and it would be misleading to suggest to a reader that the following bullet points represent the criticisms of Judaism. There exists no neat array of criticism of Judaism to be found in any literature that I am aware of. If such literature exists then the logical thing would be to create an article based on that literature, much as books serve as the topics for some articles. Doing something along those lines would stand a much better chance of resulting in an article with a defined area. The present article ("Criticism of Judaism") does not have such a defined area. Bus stop (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equating criticism with antisemitism? I think dialog in this AFD has officially broken down, I'm ready to close this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AzureFury — No one equated criticism in general with antisemitism. The point I was making is that providing safe harbor for antisemitism is against Wikipedia policy. Setting aside an area in the form of a poorly defined article for in general coming up with negative things to say about Judaism, and Jews, loosely related to sources, is basically providing safe harbor for a type of material that policy says should not be allowed to stand on Wikipedia. The point is twofold: as an area for exploration "criticism of Judaism" is too poorly defined. And the second point is that Wikipedia policy has some language in place that seems to argue against the use of article space to basically concentrate on disparaging a subject. Such disparagement is a problem. I don't think any of that is all that difficult to see. Bus stop (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Criticism of religion is a very significant topic of human discourse, and all major faiths have tons of notable criticisms levied at them, including Judaism. See similar articles Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Buddhism, Criticism of Mormonism, Criticism of religion. As for the article being in poor shape (and hence looks like it could be deleted and merged elsewhere) it was in decent shape a month ago, but a handful of aggressive editors have reduced it to its current state. --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is part of the problem. Noleander goes and pretty much unilaterally restores a number of sections that many experts in the field believe are inappropriate, out-of-scope, and possible original synthesis. As I said above, I beleieve the article should be kept, but only it can be cleaned up and not used to push improper POV's and original theories and synthesis. Continued edits such as Noleander's makes it difficult for the article to be focused solely on legitimate criticism of Judaism as a religion (and not of Jewish people, specific legal dictums, Zionism, etc.) -- Avi (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is you justifying deletion with original research. Noleander's edits are not unilateral. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletions have been performed by a bunch of editors, the restorations just by you and Noleander. Of those discussing the article over the past few months, Noleander has been the lone voice, with you joining him now, whereas Bus Stop, Debresser, myself, and others are all extremely concerned about the impropriety, POV pushing, SYNTH, and COAT-RACK-ness of much of the additions. Valid criticism should remain in the article; theory and unrelated tangents should not. Your actions are making it very difficult for the article to remain. -- Avi (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are deciding based on your understanding of what Judaism is what is and is not a valid criticism. Your decisions have nothing to do with the number and reliability of the sources. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being that the article is ostensibly about criticism of Judaism, it stands to reason that what Judaism is (a religious belief) is pertinent. The fact that uncontrolled computer-based flash trading caused a near 350 point drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average is a valid criticism too, but is irrelevant to the Criticism of Judaism article. -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Avi: what you are missing is that our opinions, as editors, dont count. We need to look to academics, scholars, and religious leaders to determine what is a criticism of Judaism. If scholars document a particular criticism, that makes it worthy of inclusion in the article, even if editors such as yourself disagree with the scholar. If you believe that a particular criticism is not valid, you should be able to find sources that support your contention, and those can be included to balance out what those other reliable secondary sources are saying. But that remedy involves adding content to the article, not removing it. --Noleander (talk) 22:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand the coatrack concerns, and the existence of the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS vector. Nevertheless, the existence of an article like this goes to a much larger question of practice. The argument could be made that these invented topics formed around a collection of items with a common theme, and usually the result of a split from another article, aren't actual encyclopedia topics. But they are, according to our current practice. Coatrack concerns are an argument especially to delete any "criticism of" article -- but we have like a hundred of those (completely rough estimate... but there are alot; Criticism of Christianity is one). Now aside from my possibly OTHERCRAP-worthy argument, I personally think articles like this are valuable for research purposes, even if they're magnets for this and that; On Wikipedia you need to check the sources to find out what's accurate and what's not; this is nothing new, and if you want it to be accurate, perhaps clean it up. Or don't... but don't demand that it be deleted. I try to stay away from things that get me angry, which helps me be more accepting of things like criticisms of popular religions, yes even if they contain inaccuracies. But if I were writing a thesis whose topic was to refute known criticisms of Judaism, I think I'd be glad this was here. Just saying. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second argument you make is very persuasive, though it still doesnt change my !vote. However, what now stops a new article from being created called Criticism of Jews being solely sourced to Hitler's Mein Kampf and other such published sources, which arent RS except for the opinion of critics of Jews, so perfectly legit in that article. Now the question isnt criticism of a religion, its blatant racism. Of all the criticism articles I have seen (and you are right there are alot) they have one thing in common- none on a race. What sets Judaism apart is that it is a religion tied to a race more closely than any other religion alive today. Even Hinduism has a huge percentage of followers outside Indian culture/race much more than the percentage of non-Jews following the Jewish religion (even counting Kabbalah followers in Hollywood ;)). So do you think Criticism of Jews is a legit topic for an article, and if not, what is the cut-off line between the two?Camelbinky (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE. Further, we do cover that material in Mein Kampf. Additionally, "Judaism" according to Judaism is "the religion, philosophy, and way of life of the Jewish people." So assuming one is considered a Jew if and only if that one adheres to at least one of the Jewish religion, Jewish philosophy, or Jewish way of life, the material appropriate for "Criticism of Jews" would be exactly the same material appropriate for Criticism of Judaism. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's bad enough critics of Judaism like Gilad Atzmon are trashed on talk pages and smeared in violation of WP:BLPpolicies in their articles. Let's not delete the topic as well. The patriarchal religions are not sacrosant and wikipedia should not act as if they - or one of them - are. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rewrite and permanently protect This is without doubt one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. It probably has to stay, since the topic is significant. However, as presently written, every section starting with the first is problematic, almost all are unuanced and poorly sourced, in some, the misinformation is so vile that it would be worthy of Joseph Goebbels if it were better written. There are problems with the articles on criticism of Islam and Christianity, but I have just looked at both and they are better and more balanced than this by several orders of magnitude. Furthermore, the history and discussion sections demonstrate that volunteering to keep this article honest would be a labor of Sisyphus. Therefore, I propose that because of the problematic edits that this article attracts, it be dealt with in a special manner. 1) A committee of editors of known reputation be put together. 2) university scholars who do not routinely edit on wikipedia could be consulted 3) the article be permanently protected 4) new material would have to be posted on the discussion page and approved by a standing committee of some sort. Without some sort of system like the one I propose, the article will simply be an ongoing disgrace to the encyclopedia.OldShul (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While i think this article is fairly good (it needs better sourcing for who exactly is critiquing), i have tried to consider the strong concern others have. perhaps the name of article implies that this is an overall, global critique of Judaism, which is most certainly not what the article content is. The actual article, as well as most of the "criticism" articles here, are really "critiques of xxx" articles, summaries of the notable critiques offered on specific aspects of, in this case, Judaism. While i do believe our article is not original research or synthesis, because notable authors have produced books and articles with multiple critiques, or summaries of others critiques, i do see how the title may be misleading. I would suggest that this, and the other articles eventually, be renamed "Critiques of Judaism" (similar to a comment above). This scans better, i think. we could even go so far as to rename it "Critiques of aspects of Judaism", though that is probably too specific a title. I honestly dont see this current article having wildly propagandistic material, a la Goebbels. i see a lot of critiques that are often directed at Judaism from Jews.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable. The article itself, however, may need a major overhaul. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 02:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is antisemitic. WP:ATTACK says that "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time."

It certainly is not my claim that the material in this article is antisemitic. The material has a rightful place in the encyclopedia. But this article is antisemitic. It is set up to disparage Judaism. The material exists on an "attack page," to use preexisting Wiki policy language. The article is problematic because its sole purpose is badmouthing Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATTACK applies to BLP's. This is clearly not a BLP. An article that is properly sourced can exist that is disparaging about an idea or belief. Religions are beliefs and can be criticized without it being considered an attack. Silver seren^C 02:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any language at WP:ATTACK indicating that it is only applicable to BLP's, because I don't. Bus stop (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I also point out that "Criticism of" articles do not mean that they are disparaging of the subject. Criticism is not inherently disparaging remarks, but criticism of specific actions of beliefs about the subject. This is far different than making comments that directly insult the subject. Criticism is allowed in all articles (so long as it is reliably sourced), because criticism is not an attack. Silver seren^C 02:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silver, if the article would restrict itself to criticisms of Judaism as a religion, and not criticisms of Jews, criticisms of particular laws, criticisms of certain texts, criticisms of religions in general, and antisemtic canards (such as the Jews killed Jesus canard) I think we would all agree that there is a place for this article in wikipedia. As I've said a number of times, I'd like to keep this article, just not as the garbage-magnet that it has become. Not every criticism is notable, not every criticism is sourced, and not every criticism is of Judaism. Articles such as this need a lot of care, which is not always being shown. -- Avi (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted because it is flawed in its conception. There is no Wikipedia-worthy article to be written under the heading "Criticism of Judaism." What "criticism of Judaism" means is anyone's guess. The title suggests an undefined area for any slight against Judaism. A subject area for an article must be understood to have a definition before editors set out to write it, or it is akin to creative writing — the editors can take the article wherever they want to. And the big fracas ensues when other editors show up to try to rein in the runaway writing.

Whatever is written under the heading "Criticism of Judaism" is going to be an "attack page," because it is going to consist of unrelieved complaints lodged against Judaism. The policy at WP:ATTACK is saying that an article cannot be "created primarily to disparage its subject." Bus stop (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see by Bus Stop's reply above mine here, s/he doesn't exactly share your viewpoint, Avi. As for me, I agree with you that the article needs to constrict itself to subject headings that are specifically about Judaism. That is, however, being discussed on the talk page. But, regardless, the subject of the article is notable, it is just the text that needs to be worked out. Bus Stop clearly does not share that viewpoint and that is why I was refuting the WP:ATTACK allegations. Silver seren^C 04:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, if the article entitled and about Judaism were nothing but criticisms of Judaisms, that would be an attack page. "Criticism of Judaism", OTOH, is a page about criticism of Judaism, which certainly exists, and should explain it both in terms of its supporters and its opponents (i.e., supporters of Judaism). To say that an article on "Criticism of Judaism" is inherently nothing other than a Judaism-attack page is to say that the articles "Marxism" or "Socialism" are just attack pages against capitalism, or that the article "Republicanism" is an attack page against hereditary monarchy. Savant1984 (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, unlike this page ("Criticism of Judaism"), Marxism aims for and probably succeeds in providing evenhanded treatment of Marxism. And there is a fine, almost indistinguishable distinction between "about criticism" and "criticism" itself. I think it would take a great deal of finesse to always be speaking about criticism without it ever seeming like criticism itself. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop makes the common error that discussion of a criticism is the same as advocacy of said criticism. This along ith the charges of antisemitism made by him and several other editors so far during this discussion is what causes acrimoney here; not the topic itself. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc — the article is in violation of numerous fundamental Wikipedia principles. And the acrimony you refer to is built into the article. I don't think there is anyone here who entertains any doubt that the article is antisemitic, but Wikipedia is not censored, so it is to other basic Wikipedia principles that one must appeal. And there are no shortage of other problems with this article, some of which can lead to deletion. WP:DELETE lists "Reasons for deletion," one of which is "…content not suitable for an encyclopedia." That links to WP:NOT, where probably two adequate reasons for deletion can be found, one of which is WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. (The other is WP:INDISCRIMINATE.) I read "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear" at WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. I think that constitutes one of several reasons that this article could be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to call other editors antisemites, you will be taken before WP:ANI in a heartbeat. Stop being disruptive, stop the personal attacks; address the subject matter, not the editors themselves. But unfortunately there, your reasons for deletion are without merit as well. As I noted earlier, if there are editors who are making an article into a battleground, then then they should be topic banned from the article. Being a battleground is not a reason to delete a article, as no matter how dickish editors can be, it does not invalidate subject material. The "grudge" angle is just built on your antisemitic BS, so that is dismissed. So what else are you left with? One heaping pile of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, in my opinion. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc — I find this edit summary problematic. No one called "other editors antisemites." I have called the article "antisemitic." It is an attack article on Judaism. Its sole purpose is to disparage Judaism. I feel that is antisemitism, in fact I think it easily fits the description of what antisemitism is. And that it (criticism) is all gathered together in one place falsely depicts a religion as something to be hated, which in turn conceivably leads to religious intolerance. If you wish to level accusations against me (or anyone else) please use some type of proper procedure. I don't think edit summaries are supposed to be used this way. Bus stop (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do "antisemitic articles" just pop magically out of a vaccuum? Someone would have to be behind the creation of such a nefarious article, right? Your insinuation against other editors is abundantly clear. Don't tapdance around semantics, it won't fly. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc — Please don't get carried away. Please don't depict me as insinuating something against other editors. Please don't read into anything I said to reach your own conclusions. I should not have to defend myself against something I never said in the first place. The article can be antisemitic without any editor being antisemitic. And I believe that is the way it is. For whatever reason this problematic article has come to this point at which deletion is probably called for. Calm down and discuss the AfD. I don't think any editor is guilty of anything problematic whatsoever. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, if we accept for a moment that you do not believe the editors are antisemites, but the article is. Do we infer from that that the subject matter itself is inherently antisemitic? You are moving from one indefensible position to the next, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not, you should not be inferring anything of the sort. I think I have clarified that before. The material in this article is not antisemitic — in many cases it belongs somewhere in this encyclopedia. But it belongs elsewhere. The article is the problem.

Please note my post, above, at 02:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC) , in which I say, "It certainly is not my claim that the material in this article is antisemitic. The material has a rightful place in the encyclopedia."

I am not sure where to place the problem with this article, there are so many places. But a good start is with notability, because I don't think "criticism of Judaism" stakes out a notable area for cogent article-writing. Bus stop (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protip; when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging;

"I don't think anyone entertains any doubts that this article is antisemitic"
"It is not a valid topic at all. Antisemitism exists in abundance. The "books and news sources" you mention can also be vectors of antisemitism"
"Even scholarly "criticism" is often an attack in disguise, and you can be sure this applies 100% to Criticism of Judaism. Antisemitism has pervaded all strata of academia, rendering our "reliable sources" questionable" - Yoninah
"Not done very well may be indistinguishable from antisemitism, in this instance. Wikipedia should not be indulging the needs of those who feed on antisemitism."
"...providing safe harbor for antisemitism is against Wikipedia policy"

You're tripping all over your own quotes trying to sell this "the material isn't antisemitic but the article is" lunacy, Bus Stop. There's nothing else to say to someone who contradicts himself post after post. I'm unwatching this, and will check back in on the 13th when a close is expected. Good luck. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are those all quotes from me? OMG — I can't believe I said all those things. Please accept all of my deepest apologies. I must have been sleep walking, or sleep typing — or something. Bus stop (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, your claim was that "Whatever is written under the heading 'Criticism of Judaism' is going to be an 'attack page,' because it is going to consist of unrelieved complaints lodged against Judaism." (emphasis mine.) That's what I was differing from. Savant1984 (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Savant1984 — This article is in violation of numerous policies. It probably does not pass notability requirements. Not, that is, unless violations of wp:synthesis are overlooked. Sources used to support material put in this article have in many cases been sources supporting just the straightforward material itself — not the depiction of that material as criticism. The construing of that material as criticism has involved reading into that material to reach the conclusion that the source intended it as criticism. I believe this has already been noted by other editors.

Also, this article would be in violation of wp:indiscriminate because of the amorphous ground covered by its title. No one really knows whether it is the religion being criticized or something else. And if the religion — at what level? My contention would be that this article's subject matter would be unassailably valid if it addressed the big themes in Judaism. Questions have been raised by others as to whether smaller issues are also valid. Do they represent the whole religion? The area of coverage is too large. It encompasses so much ground that for all intents and purposes it is almost indiscriminate.

Getting back to notability, we read that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." But the topic of "criticism of Judaism" has actually received only sparse coverage. Only by violating wp:synthesis has much of this material been construed as constituting "criticism." I don't think I am the only one saying this. Bus stop (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of gaming the system? Because that is what you're doing right now. Silver seren^C 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gaming the system? In what way am I gaming the system? Please try to be specific. Bus stop (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obviously a very notable subject, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Certainly the article could use some work, but that's also an invalid reason for deletion. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment has anyone stating that this is not a notable subject done any searches to determine it? While the phrase "criticism of Judaism" is not the only way to search for this, i did find this, showing emmanuel kant critiquing judaism, with a notable jewish intellectual sympathizing with his critique, all this included in an OUP book on jews in the modern world. examples like this show this is notable. We have this search, with over 600 uses of the phrase in google books, and this search, over 150 uses found through google scholar. i know search results dont automatically justify an article, but this is strong objective evidence for notability. The article just needs work, and occasional protection, like many articles on WP that dont have precise boundaries (say, articles on individual species, or people, or geographic features).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Torchiset, Huldra, Noleander, et al. We have a "criticism of X religion/philosophy" on many religions and ideas, and the ongoing consensus has been to keep these after discussions. As long as we keep out the blatant anti-semitism and non-notable fringe theories, I really do not see the problems. There is some synthesis, but little in the way of original thought, and lots of valid citations. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blank and rewrite. This article needs to be built from scratch from proper dispassionate secondary sources, not from the criticism itself (which is potentially endless and not necessarily notable). JFW | T@lk 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit contradiction of policy, well inline with the rest of the deletionist arguments. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 23:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm against "critism of x" articles in general, but if you think these articles are acceptable in Wikipedia, then surely the criticism of a major religion such as Judaism is a notable subject. In other words, the notablity argument for deletion is a weak argument; the "clean or delete" argument is even weaker, IMO. Sole Soul (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do we have a "WikiProject Criticism of"? I'm being facetious, of course. "Criticism of…" articles are articles starting with the same two words. I think each Wikipedia article should be considered on its own merits. As concerns this AfD, those supporting keeping this article, tirelessly point to other articles beginning with "Criticism of…" And on the other hand some of us who are in favor of deleting this article seem to focus on this article as we formulate our reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the reason you are citing for deletion. If you are citing the notability of the critisim, or the issues of the article then you are right in focusing narrowly on this article. But if you are for deleting this article only because you think there should not be a seperate article about critisism, then others have a point in pointing to other articles. This is not an WP:OTHERCRAP argument, it is a "there is consensus against your opinion shown by the existent of other articles" argument. Sole Soul (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You have stated - "some of us who are in favor of deleting this article seem to focus on this article as we formulate our reasoning," - well, which version of the article do you refer to? It is changing by the day, and there are many editions, what aspects in particular do you refer to? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Sole soul, I think you expressed very succinctly what i was trying to say. i also dont like "criticism of" articles, the name doesnt seem right, but the content of the articles is notable, and until someone comes up with a better name, your arguments here make a lot of sense to me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I agree, Sole Soul's arguements make the most sense. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It only list major debates, which have their own Wikipedia articles dedicated to them, with plenty of legitimate reliable sources. Dream Focus 05:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus — But it should be pointed out that that is decidedly not the case right now. Topics are not just listed — they are written up as paragraphs. And the topics covered are not just topics that have Wikipedia articles devoted to them.

I think all of the arguments for "keep" would be satisfied if that were the case, and I don't think this AfD would be necessary — if topics were just listed, with links to Wikipedia articles devoted to that topic.

The above is just my personal opinion. I hope others weigh in on what I think is a good suggestion.

What you are presenting is a conceptualization for this article that reins in the previous conceptualization — the one presently in place. I think you are presenting a good idea. Bus stop (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

paragraphs summarizing things should be there as well as the links to those articles. Is there anything there that doesn't have links proving that it is mentioned in reliable sources? Dream Focus 12:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think paragraphs or any other commentary should be a part of this article, if it is to be kept. If it is to be kept, it should be a list, with links to well-vetted Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia has fairly high standards in individual articles. One way of characterizing the problem with this article is that it is not in the standard Wikipedia format. I think the standard for Wikipedia articles is the sort of article that has a well-defined subject. Linking from this article to articles with well-defined subjects could represent an enhancement in Wikipedia usability. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Criticism of Judaism article should not be deleted as there are articles on Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, and Criticism of Buddhism. It is not neutral and WP:NPOV to have criticism articles on some religions while not on others. It would be incredibly biased and would never be accepted. Either there are criticism articles on all religions or no criticism articles on any religions with all criticism of religion as a whole covered in the Criticism of religion article. Articles should not be deleted merely due to content dispute. That is infantile and is not constructive work on Wikipedia. Articles should not be deleted because WP:IDONTLIKEIT otherwise many important but controversial articles would disappear from Wikipedia. This whole debate stinks of an attempt by some to censor Wikipedia, to censor criticism of a certain religion. WP:Wikipedia is not censored, it's a fundamental part of Wikipedia to be neutral and not censored. Wikipedia cannot work if is censored and biased. Censorship is bias. Space25689 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I agree there should be a "critisism of Judaism" article, but this is not it. The article "Anti-Judaism" is the correct article to either redirect to, or to be renamed, as the complement to the existing critisism articles for other religions. Anti-Judaism is critisism by "persons who accept a competing system of beliefs and practices and consider certain genuine Judaic beliefs and practices as inferior". That is the only encylopedic form of critisism. Oboler (talk) 20:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the Criticism of Judaism article should be renamed as "Anti-Judaism" then the articles Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Hinduism, and Criticism of Buddhism should also be renamed as "Anti-Christianity", "Anti-Islam", "Anti-Hinduism", and "Anti-Buddhism" respectively in order to remain neutral and unbiased. Note, I'm not in favour or against a certain level of criticism of religions on Wikipedia, however I am against bias and Judiasm must not be afforded any privilage over other religions. All religions must be dealt an equal hand on Wikipedia, lest there be never ending edit warring. None can be devoid of criticism, that is censorship. Space25689 (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space25689 — I don't think it would matter one iota what parallels anyone may wish to bring between separate articles — because they are separate. Each article on Wikipedia is an individual article. Multiple articles are not tied to one another in any way I'm aware of. I don't believe any article's existence is dependent on another article's existence. And I don't believe any article's existence creates a requirement that another article exist in order to "balance it out." If you know of instances contradicting this, please bring them to our attention.

Furthermore, I believe WP:NPOV is not applicable across articles. NPOV operates within an individual article. Can you show me language indicating that Wikipedia's policy of NPOV is applicable in the way that you are suggesting? If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that one article must "balance out" another article, in the sense that the principle of NPOV has as its aim the achieving of a neutral point of view within an article. But I do not believe that NPOV has applicability across articles as you seem to suggest, but please show me language indicating that if you can find such language. Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and Keep. An article in this space is essentially demanded by the other "Criticism of ..." religion articles. If there's a problem with the content, cut the content out and start over. Problem solved. Heather (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If "Criticism of religion" articles are to exist, why not have them exist as pure lists, with links to articles on each individual topic of criticism? The argument made by those in favor of "keeping" these articles is that they are a useful resource for those researching the sub-headings in these "Criticism of religion" articles. If that is the case then a click takes the researcher to the article of their choice. And another click brings them back to begin the process again. The virtue of this is that each of those articles on individual topics of criticism are likely to be articles well-vetted by a general population of Wikipedians. Articles such as this one suffer from the passions of a limited few editors laboring in relative isolation. It would be my contention that the sort of subject matter that can be contained in an article like this would benefit from a degree of of decentralization and a bit of Wikipedia fresh air. I would argue that this article be replaced with a pure list, linking to individual articles on each topic of criticism. Bus stop (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those who wish for the article to be deleted should make it clear whether they wish all criticism of religion articles to be deleted or only the Criticism of Judaism article to be deleted. If they wish only the Criticism of Judaism article to be deleted then perhaps they should explain why it is only the Criticism of Judaism article should be deleted and not the others, why the reasons for deleting Criticism of Judaism don't apply to deleting the criticism articles of other religions and why the reasons for maintaining the criticism articles of other religions don't apply to maintaining the Criticism of Judiasm article? In my view all religions are subject to criticisms, and it would be wrong for Wikipedia not to cover those criticisms due a demand from a few users to censor such criticisms, especially if only the criticisms of a particular religion are censored. Censorship has no place on Wikipedia, and neutrality, especially when concerning an important and controversial subject such as religion, is a must if Wikipedia is to work. I, as I am sure most on Wikipedia are, am not for or against religion, or for or against any particular religion, however I am for neutrality and against censorship, and removing the criticisms of a particular religion from Wikipedia is both censorship and bias, something I think most on Wikipedia are against. Space25689 (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Space25689 — no articles are tied to other articles. This is the AfD for the associated article. Decisions about other articles aren't made here. A resource you may want to consider is the VillagePump, where I think you can raise issues such as the ones you've voiced here, especially concerning your opinion that the existence of "Article A" requires the existence of "Article B" in order to balance out "Article A." I don't think Wikipedia policy supports that. Bus stop (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bus_stop are you implying I am not entitled to voice my opinion on this page or the talk page on the Criticism of Judaism article, that instead I had better go disappear off to the Village pump article and leave you to it? I think this sums up the opinion of some here that opinions, such as those on religions, ought to silienced and sent away. Space25689 (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent argument identifying the issues in this article[edit]

I am going to copy Jay's excellent response to Noleander on Criticism of Judaism verbatim. He says it more eloquently than I have. To reiterate, every one of the discussions listed by Noleander does have a place in the encyclopedia, in their respective articles. Moreover, they are all extant, to the best of my knowledge, in their respective articles. Collecting disparate issues that are barely tangentially related through the Bible, through the concept of a G-d (not even restricted to monotheism for that matter), or through the fact that some adherents of a political philosophy happen to be Jewish is synthesizing a relationship and a violation of wiki's policies and guidelines. -- Avi (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC):[reply]

The God postulated by Judaism does not exist - this is the same God of other faiths, including (for example), Islam. Is this, then, a criticism of Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the concept of God, and belongs in the God (or related) article.

Judaism is rooted in false stories about Moses, the Exodus, and conversations with God - these same stories are part of Christian belief, and often (in modified form) part of Muslim belief. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity/Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible/Qur'an, and belongs in the Biblical criticism/Criticism of the Qur'an (or related) articles.

God did not single out Jews as the chosen people - these idea is part of Christian belief, and (in modified form) part of Muslim belief. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity/Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible/Qur'an, and belongs in the Biblical criticism/Criticism of the Qur'an (or related) articles.

Judaism's religious texts endorse slavery (and were used to justify slavery in recent times) - this religious text is shared with Christianity. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible, and belongs in the Biblical criticism, Judaism and slavery (or related) articles.

Judaism's religious texts endorse violence and genocide (in an ancient context) - this religious text is shared with Christianity. Is this, then, a criticism of Christianity? No, this is actually a criticism of the Bible, and belongs in the Biblical criticism (or related) articles.

Judaism's modern religious leaders endorse violence based on religious principles - Judaism has many thousands of "modern religious leaders", none of whom have any authority over any others. Many of these religious leaders disagree completely with the other religious leaders, despite them all practicing Judaism. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, this is actually a criticism of specific religious leaders, and belongs in the articles on those leaders.

Judaism's laws treat homosexuals unfairly - Judaism's streams have hugely differing ways of treating homosexuals from welcoming acceptance to strong disapproval; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, it can't possibly be, since Judaism does not have monolithic views on this, and the material belongs in LGBT topics and Judaism.

Judaism treats women unfairly in the areas of divorce, menstruation taboos, responsibilities - Judaism's streams have hugely differing ways of treating women; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Is this, then, a criticism of Judaism? No, it can't possibly be, since Judaism does not have monolithic views on this, and the material belongs in Jewish feminism/Gender and Judaism or related articles.

Judaism's religious texts contain disparaging references to Jesus - do they? Or do they not even refer to Jesus at all? There is considerable academic debate about this. Given the complete lack of consensus regarding this, any material on this belongs in the article that actually discusses the topic, Yeshu.

Judaism's dietary laws lead to cruel treatment of animals when slaughtered - Judaism's streams have widely different views on this; a criticism of one stream would be irrelevant to another. Given the lack of consensus regarding this, any material on this belongs in the article that actually discusses the topic, Shechita.

Judaism's ritual of circumcision is painful and unnecessary - the vast majority of children who are ritually circumcised are Muslim, not Jewish. Is this then a criticism of Islam? No, this is actually a criticism of Circumcision, and belongs in that (or related) articles.
The topics listed here are not about Judaism, but about various practices/beliefs/texts/laws that are not uniformly practiced/believed/followed within Judaism itself, and are often shared with much larger groups. Thus they are not "criticisms of Judaism", but criticisms of these practices/beliefs/texts/laws, and belong in the articles about these practices/beliefs/texts/laws. Indeed, taking all these disparate and unrelated topics, and ripping them from their context to dump them in this article is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV (because they are out of the context of their actual subjects) and WP:NOR (because they are randomly jumbled together here). No-one is saying that "Judaism", or any one of these practices/beliefs/texts/laws cannot be criticized; rather, they are insisting that this be done in a way that complies with policy - i.e., in the relevant articles.
— Jayjg ^(talk) 03:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn with no other delete votes present. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neelapu Rami Reddy[edit]

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

There only seems to be one article on the subject that has been copied onto several sites. [55] I don't think it merits a speedy deletion, and I'd like to see what others think. Harland Q Pitt 05:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The user provided 3 reliable sources. This person clearly passess WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. I will try to add another source. Chzz ► 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' as a national champion under WP:ATHLETE. The issue, in this case, is not whether the sources are reliable, but whether they constitute significant coverage. They don't. However, I believe that an investigation of paper sources for the time period will produce results. --Bejnar (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:ATHLETE. A claim to notability is present, and sources are added that verify these claims. I would have preferred a bit more diversified sourcing, but it works for now. As Bejnar mentioned - there are likely offline sources as well. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ATHLETE and WP:NSPORT#Generally_acceptable_standards Traxs7 (Talk) 00:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on my initial search I had searched under "Neelapu Rami Reddy" and "Neelapu Reddy". It seems that in two of these sources, he is referred to as "Rami Reddy". In light of this information, I think the nomination can be withdrawn. Harland Q Pitt 02:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks good to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:47, 10 May 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. Voceditenore is correct; NPOV failure is not generally a reason to delete an article. Shimeru (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Batish[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOV Jacotto (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Failure to adhere to a neutral point of view is no reason to delete an article. It's a reason to fix it. The subject seems quite notable to me, and that's what the decision should be based on. See:
- Performing ethnomusicology: teaching and representation in world music ensembles by Ted Solís, p. 128
- Option, review of Ashwin Batish • Sitar Power II: "Sitar player Batish has followed his Sitar Power album with a sequel that further shows his ability to take the instrument around the world with only an occasional guitar or ..." 1995
- Jazz Times, review of Sitar Power II: "on which sitarist Ashwin Batish goes every way but traditional. He slathers on garrulous sequenced riffs and rock- tinted drum machine tracks, guitar overdubs by himself and David Harnish and cheeky Western musical notions ..." 1995
- BATISH BRINGS BACK THE SITAR, Boston Globe, Oct 25, 1988
- WORLD BEAT BOP ON A SITAR MUSICIAN ONE-MAN MUSICAL CARPET RIDE, Philadelphia Daily News, March 1, 1989
- MUSIC INTERVIEW From India, a Fresh Pop Sound, Christian Science Monitor, Mar 15, 1989
- Biography in the All Music Guide

– Voceditenore (talk) 15:44, 12 May 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) 02:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony John[edit]

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

NN engineer given NN award by Microsoft. delete UtherSRG (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - MVP is not a notable award.--Sodabottle (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:40, 12 May 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. Actually, there is a consensus to merge but no consensus for a target. That can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be BOLD and pick a target. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Can't Feel My Face[edit]

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

This album will most likly never be released and nothing is none about it and the sources are really outdated WP:CRYSTAL, WP:ALBUMS, WP:HAMMER STAT- Verse 03:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Incubate~~ per nom, if the album was supposedly completed by 2008 and by summer of 2009 all we hear from Juelz Santana and Lil Wayne is "It's done and we're willing to release the album as a mixtape" and we don't hear anything ever since, that's pretty much a guarantee it won't be released as a studio album. Especially after the whole record label dispute in 2007 for Juelz. I'm not opposed to Redirecting either. Str8cash (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment what would it be redirected to? Maybe a merge would be a better choice. STAT- Verse 05:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 06:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah i agree, the thing is that this mixtape has so much history and coverage it deserves at least a mention somewhere. Str8cash (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lil Wayne and/or Juelz Santana as explained in my comment above. Str8cash (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but where? That happened to Eve's long-delayed Flirt too. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be appropriate for a mention somewhere on both of the artists articles, but it's all but guaranteed the project is shelved. Str8cash (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lil Wayne and Juelz Santana - Per everyone. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 21:48, 10 May 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) 02:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Together Against Poverty Society[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. most coverage is passing mentions not in depth [56]. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per OP. Fails WP:ORG. -Reconsider ! 09:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and only semi-reliable article I could find is about TAPS funding being cut. Traxs7 (Talk) 00:23, 7 May 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. Tone 20:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty burn[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Google brings up nothing. See for yourself here [57]. They are also well used slang terms that don't have their own articles. An example would be Burn, and Nasty. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article tells us nothing but that it's a burn and it's dirty. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTDIRECTORY Traxs7 (Talk) 23:59, 6 May 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. Tone 20:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indiz[edit]

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

Another unsourced neologism that CSD has no criteria for. ALI ^{nom nom} 02:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Good faith creation, so I'm not willing to speedy it G3, but it utterly fails notability and verifiability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a proposal at the village pump right now to make additions to the current criteria for speedy deletions. ALI ^{nom nom} 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.. Traxs7 (Talk) 06:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the above. No indication that this term has any notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:51, 6 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Venezuela earthquake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails to assert historical significance of the event and WP:NOTNEWS certainly applies and possibly fails WP:EVENT. Article is generally written like a news story. Mike moral ♪♫ 01:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The purpose of WP is to have articles for people to read and learn about a general topic, not just to record events as they happen. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable coverage of a notable event. Lugnuts (talk) 06:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thank all inclusionists for their struggle in keeping this article alive, but I have got to admit that the article itself deserves no place in Wikipedia for all the aforementioned reasons in its first nomination. When I first created the article I expected some sort of aftermath, once nothing happened I see no reason to keep it here. Krenakarore (talk) 09:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of earthquakes, and we're not here to record current events as they happen. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Earthquake with minimal damage and no lasting impact.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not surprisingly, there are no mentions of this event a few months after it happened. When it first did occur, there were quite a few people who took the approach that "it's in the news right now, so it must be notable", but the test of Wikipedia notability is whether it is likely to have historical significance. For anyone who wasn't sure about that in January, we now have the benefit of four months passing. Not a chance in hell that I would suggest merging this crap to anywhere else, given the "Merge discussions can take place on the talk page of the article if necessary" closure of the last article. Mandsford (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above rationales. Hasn't received enough long-term mention in reliable sources and arguably fails notability guidelines. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Opinion, but historical significance is certainly not required. How many Pokemon have historical significance? Googlemeister (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:POKEMON :P --Savonneux (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that, by "historical significance" (which is drawn from WP:EVENT) doesn't require that something has to be a turning point in history, but it does require some indication that it is, or is likely to be, referred to long after the fact. Much of what is "breaking news" on CNN and FOX is going to be forgotten after it's no longer news. When an event has just happened, then deciding whether it's likely to be referred in the future is a judgment call based on the observer's experiences. A few months later, it's lasting impact can be objectively measured. Mandsford (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge pertinent information to 2010 earthquakes and delete article.--Savonneux (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTNEWS Traxs7 (Talk) 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original AFD nomination. No lasting significance. RapidR (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to have received international press attention. Everyking (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the day that it happened, sure, which is why we have the WP:NOTNEWS policy. Mandsford (talk) 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was an earthquake significant enough to receive international news coverage. Do you think that qualifies as "routine"? Everyking (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is routine coverage. A good analogy would be that when a car bomb is exploded somewhere in the world, it gets acknowledged in other nations; and yet, most car bombings aren't mentioned more than a day after they happened. Those that do get mentioned later are of such magnitude that there are reminders of them weeks, months and years later. I'd add that this didn't get "coverage", in the sense that a reporter was sent to "cover" the story, but rather acknowledgment in the form of passing along statements from seismological services. As I've said in other discussions, I think that the information on a quake should be saved somewhere, but not in its own individual article. I still hold out hope that the people who follow seismology will organize a compromise method for memorializing events in a different from, such as by region (for instance, and article called "Earthquakes in Venezuela"). The current system of trying to save these as individual articles and then running them past the critics is definitely NOT working. They're getting clobbered out there!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Andaman Islands earthquake deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Biobío earthquakes deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Oklahoma earthquake deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Illinois earthquake (2nd nomination) redirected

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/May 2010 Pichilemu earthquake deleted

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 South Texas earthquake deleted

I have a feeling that the list is going to expand. Time to think outside the infobox. Mandsford (talk) Mandsford 12:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to recreation with sources. Shimeru (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brass: Durham International Festival[edit]

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

I'm not sure about this one. A google search seems to turn up mostly promotional announcements. If someone can turn up something more substantial I will be more then happy to withdraw this nomination.

If kept the article will need a complete overhaul as it looks more like an advertisement then an encyclopedia article. I almost tagged it CSD G11. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one of the more major events in Durham, but the coverage in GNews turns up little more than articles in the local papers. I could be talked round to the case for an article, but certainly not this shamelessly promotional one. Suggest the best place to mention this is in a Culture section in Durham (along with other long-standing major events) should anyone want to do that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article as written is an unambiguous piece of spam. If this were a company I would have tagged it G11 and forgot about it. Also, the username of the article's main contributor is Brass festival. Obvious COI. Another editor tried tagging it as such and got reverted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 May 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) 01:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tone down -- I have tried to wikify the article, but it is far too much like advertising copy. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 8 May 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) 02:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donny B. Lord[edit]

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

Non-notable musician lacking GHits of substance and GNEWS. Cited references fail to meet criteria in WP:RS. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - don't forget to delete the three redirect pages if consensus is to delete (and removing his name from DBL):
DBL (disambiguation)

Donny B

D.B.L. Airplaneman ✈ 01:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite the copious references present in the article, there is no evidence for significant coverage in reliable sources. The article sourcing consists of entertainment directories, self-published sources such as linkedin, and social networking sites like myspace. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 30 April 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) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence for any real notability. promo page. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:18, 10 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SpinWatch[edit]

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

Non-notable website/blog-type thing. No substantial references to reliable sources indicate that this isn't a notable organization per WP:N, WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Hunting through google news turns up an occasional mention here or there, but most of it is unrelated to this organization. Jayron32 19:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No, I think that SpinWatch is notable. It has had an influence on the debates over Genetic Modification and the Nuclear industry in Britain. Jane Bowen (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N, WP:ORG. No significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources to meet notability standards. 92.30.124.25 (talk) 20:10, 5 May 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) 00:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sourced to itself and a non-notable paywall site. When it is mentioned in real sources like the Guardian, it is only in a "according to a SpinWatch report..." manner, which doesn't cut it for WP:N. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Bermuda Triangle incidents. merge as required redirect already in place Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Wakely[edit]

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

Fails WP:N by a longshot. Previous discussion was five years ago, standards have changed since then. Simply put, this guy came up with a tall tale about the Bermuda Triangle and was briefly mentioned in a few "Spooky Unsolved Mystery Anthology" books of the day. If that's all it takes for notability, I need to get working on that article about my grandpa and the fifty foot rainbow trout he caught. A prepherial figure even within the mutual backscratching society of Bermuda Triangle / Spooky Unsolved Spooky Mysteries That Are Spooky, Mysterious, And Have Not Been Solved!! crowd. Content could be merged into either Bermuda Triangle or List of Bermuda Triangle incidents, except that there is no way to verify this incident ever happening - the books that covered this sort of stuff aren't exactly the sort that are known for diligent fact-checking. The best we can hope for is that Mr. Wakely reported seeing weird things, and in my opinion that's several steps below the ships and planes that are well-documented to have disappeared. Anyway, bottom line: fails WP:N by a mile, I'll go with the flow with regards to merging, if it was up to me, I wouldn't even bother merging. Badger Drink (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC) (reason actually added! Badger Drink (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep – Yes I admit it is weak. However, he is cited in a number of books, in fact 24 books concerning the Bermuda Triangle. As shown here [58]. As such, I believe he meets our requirements. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually, the cited number of books is only 12 when you filter out the duplicate editions and "Webster's Quotations" which cites the wikipedia article as its source. Treatment of Wakely in the remaining books are passing mentions only, no significant in-depth coverage, and no coverage by respected or authoritative sources. If coverage of Wakely should, at some point in the future, become more significant then the article can be recreated at that time. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 29 April 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) 00:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if his story is 100% true it is still only one event, not coverage in depth. Better merge the whole thing into an article on the Bermuda Triangle itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean "Merge", then? Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge WP:ONEEVENT, but added Chuck Wakely to the List_of_Bermuda_Triangle_incidents Traxs7 (Talk) 06:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Bermuda Triangle incidents, his name is mentioned a lot for the 1964 incident (=1E), but he has no other notability. Abductive (reasoning) 03:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice to the creation of a sourced article about glass painting Shimeru (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glass paint[edit]

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

This article appears to originally have been created as an advertisement for a specific vendor's process. With the removal of the spammy content, the article now seems to lack a subject. I would recommend it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1 except that it has had too many hands in it to really qualify for speedy. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Glass painting is a notable subject that doesn't have its own article and should. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but there is already an article on that topic at Reverse glass painting. This article covers a significantly different topic, I believe. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The information on 'glass paint' and 'reverse glass painting' should be merged into a new article - 'glass painting'. Its not clear if a delete or redirect would be best for this afd. Its an awkward tidy up. Szzuk (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is an artifact from an attempt at advertising. Jminthorne (talk) 06:31, 30 April 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) 00:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Article should be merged with the appropriate article. White Trillium (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...it's still spammy. The content in this article and the content at Back painted glass (also worth deleting) have been created by Chrissommer36 (talk · contribs) (presumably the new account of Glasspaint (talk · contribs), now blocked as a COI username). These accounts and IPs 74.233.95.207 (talk · contribs) [note these two edits] & 98.64.173.173 (talk · contribs) are heavily focused on the promotion of certain links, which may need to be blacklisted, also targeting Glass coloring and color marking. I think there is probably room for an article on the art of painting on glass, something with which Reverse glass painting could be merged, but I think it should start fresh. As this doesn't provide any reliable sources, it's merely uncited advertorial content. — Scientizzle 19:03, 13 May 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Heinig[edit]

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

References are to athletic listings, not adequate indication of notability. Jminthorne (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 29 April 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) 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took a second look at this one and am less sure if it should be a delete. WP:ATHLETE indicates that the subject should compete at the professional or Olympic level (paraphrase), but I do not think think that Ultra-triathlons can be classified in either category. In any case, the subject has won some races in "IUTA" events, which apparently is a (the?) ultra triathlon association. The sport itself seems only borderline notable at first glance, with the WP article less than a month old and so far not a lot of third party references. If no one else has an opinion on this article, perhaps the best thing is to close the AfD as a weak keep and hope the references improve with time? Jminthorne (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice to re-submit. I'm kinda leaning that way too... give the article time to "Brew" in wikiland and let's revisit again. --Paul McDonald (talk) 03:57, 10 May 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 deleted. Page has been speed deleted by admin Nyttend. Housekeeping Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard floersch[edit]

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

Repeatedly contested CSD. Non-notable musician, fisherman, and dog owner. GregJackP (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. I'm sure his dog Charlie is very cute, but... ALI ^{nom nom} 01:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe some kindly administrator will come along and simply delete the whole thing as either A7 (cause there's nothing of note here) or G3 (cause I don't buy this nonsense at all, and it reads like bovine stool--and in the same motion they can go ahead and block the creator indefinitely for wasting editors' time. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The author is editing in bad faith, and the article doesn't deserve attention of afd. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author admits the article is nonsense on talk page. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And has now been blocked as disruptive..

That is unfortunate. He seemed like an important guy to me. Solid bio. Even wrote a book. And this article added a startling new insight. Oh well... Aymatth2 (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That Richard floersch looks quite mature for someone who's profile says was born in 1988... Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as G3 per comments here and at the article's talk page. Nyttend (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Micko Larkin[edit]

Micko_Larkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

I've seen no notability except the fact that he was in Hole and Larrikin Love. Hole is notable, but Larrikin Love is not because of all requirements in WP:BAND. Qotsa37 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks okay. If Larrikin Love have charted as is claimed in their article, they would seem to pass WP:BAND and thus the individual musician article is warranted. Camw (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

larrikin love hasn't charted, i don't know what your're talking about. i can't find it on its page. Qö₮$@37 (talk) 17:04, 6 May 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) 00:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the The Official Charts Company, Larrikin Love had four singles chart on the UK Singles Chart (although that official archive gives the incorrect song name "A Day in the Life" instead of "Well, Love Does Furnish A Life"), including three Top 40 singles. I have added this OCC reference to the band's page. Since this musician was in two charting acts, this article indeed should remain. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems Notable. Here is a article from Apr 2010 Traxs7 (Talk) 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Bell[edit]

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

"Achievements" may seem impressive but cannot find coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lacks GHits of substance and has zero GNEWS. ttonyb (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we verify the information in the article? Where are the stats for world blowgun holder at? Are the two organizations he founded notable? He is the founder of the National Sport Blowgun Association and American Sport Blowgun Association, and is "a former holder of the long-distance sport blowgun shooting record." Dream Focus 16:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it could be verified, I would not have taken this here. The article currently has one source - self-published. I'm not seeing any sources at all (in the article or by searching) that can verify the record-holding. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is easily verified as there are many sources available. The following are just the first few that I quickly found, including NY Daily News and Sport Blowgun records: [59] [60]

[61] [62] [63] [64]. These sources more than meet the notability criteria. Andy14and16 (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- How on earth do any of those constitute reliable indepenedent coverage? You've even used a web forum post. Do you think this is an encyclopaedia or a place to regurtitate anything posted on the internet. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:06, 5 May 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) 00:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Those additional references blow (and not in a good way). Clarityfiend (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Can't find WP:Reliable_sources Traxs7 (Talk) 05:56, 6 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pillar Nonprofit Network[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. looks like an ad with all the sources currently from its own website. appears to get no coverage outside London, Ontario. [65]. LibStar (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Local news doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See these Google Scholar hits. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does three small mentions show notability? Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, it fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:41, 1 May 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) 00:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Article could use some better sources. White Trillium (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

exactly how does it meet WP:ORG? LibStar (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real WP:N Traxs7 (Talk) 05:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are woefully insufficient to form the basis of an article that is properly verifiable and not promotional. WP:ORG should be upheld here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 13 May 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) 15:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tales from an Extinguished World[edit]

(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☯ 01:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 29 April 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) 00:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No source for notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:35, 6 May 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. BLP trumps GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Gunns[edit]

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

Tagged with notability concerns since December 2008 and there appears to be an unresolved dispute on the talk page regarding notability. Her career as an 'adult model' appears to be totally non-notable and I don't think the news stories about her working at a school are enough to assert notability. EuroPride (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. EuroPride (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A better reason for deletion probably would have been One Event. But even so, I believe the lady has received just enough coverage, as shown here [66], to squeak in under our notability guidelines. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:14, 29 April 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) 00:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. All sources found are about the school incident, so the article would always gives undue weight to it. Epbr123 (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: also at least one book with nothing to do with the non-notable 1 event. Starblueheather (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on starblueheather's book finding. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornstar who made a bit of news once after her porn career, sounds like WP:BLP1E. She's briefly mentioned three times in a book, but those appear to be just that, brief mentions as colleague of the author, not significant coverage.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and WP:BLP1E. Traxs7 (Talk) 23:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything outside the one event, including the book, is trivial coverage and insufficient to build a proper article. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Helmond[edit]

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

Non-notable academic that has yet to earn doctorate. Refs are all self-published. Already speedily deleted once. GregJackP (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not assert anything we would consider leading to notability. Technically an A7, but let's just have it here for 7 days to have possible recreations removed easier. --Pgallert (talk) 10:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is one secondary source with an interview but that alone would still not establish notability. De728631 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps she's an "emerging" artist. If so, let's wait till she's emerged. ¶ Incidentally, other articles created by the editor who created this one also merit attention. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is not even out of school yet. Statements like "Her work can be found at Flickr" are a dead giveaway – everyone's work could be found there if they bother to get a free account. Agree with checking other articles from this creator. I see that some of them already have notability tags (Danah Boyd) and I would expect to see them at AfD pretty soon. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitali Mukherjee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable journalist. The "sources" in the article consist a profile from her employer, and a verbatim copy of that profile on another website. Previously deleted at AfD. Rejected speedy ({{db-repost}} and {{db-nn}}). The only new bit of reliable source attention she's gotten since last time is a three-question interview [67] with an Indian finance website, and she herself is not the topic of the interview; rather, they ask her to make some commentary about the stock market. My comment from the previous AfD still applies: "She reads the news and gets talked about on forums for being pretty. That's it." cab (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - with regret. She is our equivalent of Erin Burnett. Doesn't get coverage of her own, as she is perceived as a light weight.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 24 April 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, 29 April 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) 00:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After 2 relists, still lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 12 May 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donaldson Report[edit]

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

Self-published original theory of TWA Flight 800 crash. Will never be be attributable to reliable sources. Merge not necessary as TWA Flight 800 alternative theories page already covers theory's allegations in greater detail. LoveUxoxo (talk) 08:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with a dab page to allow links relating to carious document including Lord Donaldson's Reports~~, the Donaldson Enquiry into human embryology~~ as well as the present case. Rich Farmbrough, 10:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 12:57, 29 April 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) 00:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect (without merger) to TWA Flight 800 alternative theories. Or make it a dabpage to deal with other Donaldson reports too, as User:Rich Farmbrough suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G4/G5/A7). Article also salted to prevent recreation by new users. –MuZemike 01:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Slocombe[edit]

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

Deleted via afd about a year ago. Recreated version reeked of self-promotion/advertising, was mostly stripped of that; notability still borderline. A few media mentions, but most mentions are either trivial or from non-notable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - deleted before for lack of notability, no evidence of any significant new coverage or achievements. Warofdreams talk 10:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - previously gone through AfD twice and been deleted. Seems to have been created as a spill over from edit wars Urban 75 article to push pov. Versions of the article have really significant BLP issues as well - related to the pov push. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete created by a now banned sock puppet who had an agenda. --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 6 May 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 Laura_Bush#Early_life_and_career. This would seem the sensible compromise having read the often reasonable rationales of other !votes. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dutton Douglas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. WP:ONEEVENT. Person who would not be notable was killed by a "pre-notable." This is still preserved in her bio, but "struck a classmate and killed him" would be sufficient with footnotes. Being killed does not make him notable. It must appear in her bio, but his name is irrelevant. Actually so are his accomplishments. What if he had been the lowest performer in the class? So what? Student7 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's surprising that this long-standing article is being nominated now, just when a book by Laura Bush is coming out in which she talks at length about the effect the accident had on her. See this story in The New York Times, for example. "Struck a classmate and killed him" would not be adequate -- it would omit the information that she ran a stop sign, for example. This article can be augmented with information from the book once it's published. Some of that might go into the Laura Bush article but going into full detail would be clutter there. I suppose this article could be moved to Laura Bush fatal car crash or the like, but that would really be fetishizing the "one event" idea. Its current title is where readers would actually look for it. JamesMLane t c 14:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some AfD maven's help needed. This nomination is procedurally messed up. What's been nominated is the talk page. It needs to be changed to a nomination of the article under the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas (3rd nomination), and it needs a box with links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Dutton Douglas (2nd nomination). Also, the article talk page links to the second AfD but not the first, which should be added there. I hope these tasks will be tackled by someone better versed in AfD mechanics than I am. JamesMLane t c 15:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should all be sorted, thank you for noticing this. –xeno^talk 15:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Laura Bush per WP:BLP1E. Dutton himself unfortunately isn't notable other than being the victim of a car crash involving Laura Bush. Previous nominations have had people comment that to merge it would overpower the Bush article. Much of the relevant information is already there, and what is actually notable here (that he won a popularity contest at school for example I would argue isn't) could easily be contianed there. Laura Bush is a fairly large article and some minor expansion of one paragraph is not going to attract undue weight. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that the accident is equal opportunity. if Laura sails blithely through 3 seconds earlier, it is Douglas who strikes her, killing her. She does not grow up. She does not have an article. It is Douglas who goes on to potential fame, marrying (say) Hillary Rodham and merits an article when she becomes President! This is not really an effort to "diminish" anyone who actually doesn't deserve it. Student7 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see the relevance of this point, but in any event it's mistaken. The accident was not "equal opportunity". She had a stop sign. He didn't. JamesMLane t c 07:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Laura Bush, or rename to something like Laura Bush fatal accident. Michael Dutton Douglas himself is not notable, and should not have an article; WP:BLP1E technically doesn't apply here, but we should treat it in the same spirit. The article should be rewritten to focus on the event itself, or else merged into the main article. (As an aside, I just looked up Chappaquiddick incident to see that the person killed in that event, Mary Jo Kopechne, does have her own article; however, there's a stronger claim to notability there, and in any case WP:WAX applies.) Robofish (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is coverage of it in Laura Bush (could always use some detail while keeping it npov I suppose). The subject of this article isn't notable on his own though per WP:BIO1E. The event wasn't notable at the time, but it got significant coverage later on because politics etc. which in my opinion would be WP:SENSATION, so not in favor of a merge. A redirect to the appropriate section heading in the Laura Bush bio would seem appropriate.--Savonneux (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Laura Bush#Early life and career. Well, he kinda fails the "L" part of WP:BLP1E but I think the spirit applies; this kids' name is only known in the context of dying at the (albeit unintentional) hands of a future First Lady. This doesn't rise to the level of notoriety of Mary Jo Kopechne, as Ted was an adult and a senator at the time, as well as the controversies and innuendo that followed his career forever after. A better analogy would be to Donald Turnupseed, the kid who killed James Dean; his name would be of no consequence if he hadn't accidentally killed a movie star. Let's do the same here. Tarc (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ONEEVENT--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Given his prominent mention in Laura Bush's new autobiography, and the subsequent news coverage of that mention, he is more notable now than he was the first two times. Redirecting is not the answer-- it's not fair to Laura Bush that her supporters or detractors would constantly be editing her biography to have more, or less, about this tragic event. For the same reason, it's not fair that this would be retitled as something with Laura Bush's name in it. As to the tired old "one event" objection, do you know why there was only one notable event in his life? Because someone ran over him with a car when he was only 17. The fact that he is referred to in greater detail in 2010 is another event entirely. But for all that, Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a reference source. People refer to Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) for the reason that they are curious about something that they have been made aware of and they want to find out more about the subject. Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A more prominent mention in her biography doesn't make him any more notable in his own right since it's still inextricably linked to the fact she became First Lady 27 years later. Redirect would keep the information available. --Savonneux (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Redirect would keep the information available only if, having been merged from this article into Laura Bush, the information stayed there. It is completely foreseeable that Laura Bush partisans will resist including all this information in her bio, on grounds of "undue weight". Per Wikipedia:Summary style, it's more appropriate that the Bush bio have only a summary, with full detail in a daughter article. JamesMLane t c 00:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Hollingsworth[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is a fictional character that appeared in one double episode of The Golden Girls, namely the final one. The character has no real-world notability or coverage and is a very minor character of little importance within the fictional work. Nonnotable per WP:FICT. The de-PRODder recommended a merge and redirect, but it isn't clear what the target would be, since we have no List of minor Golden Girls characters. +An gr 05:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. +An gr 05:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. +An gr 05:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can imagine that even Leslie Nielsen would be asking "Who the hell is Lucas Hollingworth?" This article dates from Wikipedia's "I-saw-it-on-TV" days, when a great deal of the submissions were detailed descriptions of the plot of a TV episode, extensive biographies of a character in the episode, and literary analyses of a quote from a character in the episode. Off to The Golden Girls Wiki with him. Thank you for being a friend. Mandsford (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary or third party sources, so the character is unverifiable and non-notable. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we verify plot facts preferably from the primary source, which is more accurate. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 13 May 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 Digital Visual Interface. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Monitor Power Management[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, is completely a stub (and could be merged into the Digital Visual Interface article) and the only source is primary - a technical document describing the standard. Mattnad (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Trivial. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Digital Visual Interface Traxs7 (Talk) 23:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not really notable enough on its own. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you haven't filed an AfD against DPMS, which is basically the same thing (except analog). AshtonBenson (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not a bad idea. It's not that notable on its own either. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I'll get around to it eventually. Mattnad (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with DPMS, since DMPM is basically the digital version of DPMS. I should have just created a new section in DPMS rather than creating a new article. AshtonBenson (talk) 17:02, 7 May 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.