The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge to Electronic Stability Control. It has a lot of hits on Google it seems like more than a single product name or marketing slang. Aeonx (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Electronic Stability Control; it's just a proprietary variation on ESC and I don't see much notability in its own right. bobrayner (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
INCUBATE for a couple weeks as this article is simply a littletoo soon. Ignoring IMDB, the film IS getting a lot of coverage elsewhere,[1][2] but is not quite yet worth being an exception to WP:NFF. As filming is about to commence, it's close... and I might excpect its return to mainspace before New Years Eve. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 04:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. There are verifiable, reliable sources that confirm this (I am actually rather excited about it now! :D) and they need some time to get into the article. Signed by Barts1aSuggestions/complements?Complaints? 08:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite there being very little information about it, this future film has already received a great deal of coverage: for example, [3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. Even if it hadn't, it might be considered notable for its association with Timur Bekmambetov and The Weinstein Company. As the film has a release date and is apparently definitely going to happen, and according to some sources may have already entered production, I think we should have an article on it; I don't see the point of deleting or incubating this one now only to recreate it in a few months when there's more to say. Robofish (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - with all that discussion by independent sources, which Robofish pointed out, I'm satisfied that it's notable. (I'd be happy with "incubate" too, but think it may be a bit pointless to incubate something on the understanding that already it's likely to pass some threshold for a return to mainspace by the end of the month) bobrayner (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable sketch show started by college students in 2010. E. Fokker (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us keep the page. It will be added to the general Rutgers University wikipedia areas, including Student Organizations and other general areas. Despite our young existence, we are still already a popular force on campus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homsar727 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of how popular you may or may not be on campus, wikipedia has very strict notability criteria. If you would like more exposure, I would recommended you place an external link to your website/facebook page under the external links section of a relevant article. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MemoryLapse (talk • contribs) 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Minor actor lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article includes numerous embedded refs that link to sources that do not mention the subject. Bit parts include roles as Hunter, Soldier, Fan, Student, Thug, etc. Fails WP:NACTOR. 1. Has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2. Does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3. Has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Cindamuse (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can convincingly argue why the roles he acted in were significant. They look like cameos to me. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, I think this actor [11] falls a little short of WP:NACTOR. bobrayner (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a waste of space, it says that few bands have gone mainstream and they are not even labelled geek rock. Mr. Bertytalk/stalk 21:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: There are few surer examples of the evolution of AfD than to look at the staggering 1st nomination from 2006 ... a tidal wave of Keep votes based around "could be useful," "valid genre," "needs expansion" and sourced from a last.fm link that cites ... the Wikipedia article. The current article is superficially sourced, but when you actually read the sources you find a bunch of casual, oblique mentions in college newspapers, the usual bloggers, broken links and, oh, the user-created last.fm link, not a single one of which credibly passes WP:RS. Neither the (heavily weasel-worded) article nor any of the links attempt to define this "genre" - and even admits as much - other than that the bands purportedly associated with it use uncommon instruments, have allegedly "dorky" looks, and often play songs concerning love, loneliness and isolation. (I could think of, oh, only about a thousand acts over the last fifty years which would fit that description in every particular, but I digress.) None of the sources discuss the subject of this article in any detail, let alone the "significant detail" that the GNG requires; they instead discuss groups for which this article attempts to claim the mantle of "geek rock" acts. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG going away. Ravenswing 07:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ravenswing said it best, but...despite the apparent sources, this appears to be a made-up genre, not unlike Nerdcore hip hop (maybe that should be AfDed next?). Erpert(let's talk about it) 07:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well known genre of rock. If its sourced poorly fix it, but clearly its notable. -DJSasso (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The problem I see here, even within the sources given, is that various people are throwing around the term "geek rock", but where is it actually reliably defined as a genre? (A similar discussion occurred for Piano rock. Erpert(let's talk about it) 18:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's my thought, Erpert. The article's quite blatant about it: that this alleged "genre" has little to nothing to do with music, and is based around the appearance and demeanor of the performers. That's garbage. The Keep voters four years ago pussyfooted around with how supposedly well known the genre is and that it's "clearly notable." How about we try it the way WP:V requires us to do, this time? Solid reliable sources - not from user-generated content, not from Some Guy's Blog - which are about this subject, discuss it in "significant detail" and define the genre, all as a prerequisite to saving the article. Ravenswing 19:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those opposed to keeping this seem to be arguing that the article is badly written, which it is. Fine - someone should research the genre and fix the article, rather than delete it. Geek Rock was not particularly big in the 80s and 90s but has picked up substantially in the 00s, presumably with the widespread availability of broadband and the appearance of applications like spotify, which allow geeks to listen while working. Listen to Jonathan Coulter (named on lists of geek rock) - his material just does not belong to any other genre available. However, there is a bit of an issue here with multiple definitions - bands that look like geeks, or have geeky origins like having met at engineering school, but play other genres, and bands that play music written specifically for a geek audience. My personal view is that the article might distinguish these two - my hope would be that eventually usage will consolidate around the latter definition. Forget the isolation and so on - as pointed out earlier, that is part of many genres. What sets geek rock apart is an interest in geek lifestyle issues (science, engineering, time spent in computer labs etc), geek culture (fantasy and science fiction themes), and geek stereotypes (glasses, pens in pocket, etc). I would be inclined to add Weird Al Yankovich's parody "White and Nerdy" to the genre - although it covers a song from a completely different genre, it is also an excellent parody of geek rock themes (which themselves are generally ironic or at least humorous - but this takes it considerably further). The point of all this is - there is plenty to write about Geek Rock. Encourage a knowledgeable person to do it rather than trying to erase geek rock from your recognised universe. You can't get rid of it just by denying it via Wikipedia, and you will only annoy people who love this genre. [User:JKLawrence| JKLawrence ]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jklawrence (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more on the above. If you go to the Guardian newspaper site (I haven't tried others) and search for "Geek rock" you will find it is in common usage. An article from 2007 mentions it in relation to They Might be Giants, one from 2005 mentions it in reference to Presidents of the United States of America, one from 2002 mentions a US band being labelled with it in 2002, with another article on the same band from 2001. One of the interesting things the internet has brought to music is the potential for musical genres with a locally small but widespread audience to obtain a serious following and independent status, in which bands can influence each other. The fact that your stereotypical geek is particularly well placed to access the technology has no doubt helped the spread of this type of music.added by Jklawrence (talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC) — Jklawrence (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Reply: Odd that; I can't find any references in The Guardian myself for "geek rock" [12]. Would you care to provide links to any sources which - as WP:RS requires - discuss the subject itself in "significant detail?" I have yet to find anything which does, other than the mere use of the term in tagging this band or that with the appellation. As far as your personal opinion as to what constitutes geek rock, you're entitled to it, but of course that doesn't constitute a reliable source. Ravenswing 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Admittedly, poorly demarcated definitions are inevitable with music genres, but this one seems very poorly demarcated. There's a shortage of decent sources, and when they do mention "Geek rock", they're not referring to some overarching definition so much as they are pairing an existing definition (rock) with a modifier (Geek). That, to me, does not establish notability. You could get a thousand google hits for "Tasty Salad" but if each one mentions different ingredients, there's no objectively notable "tasty salad". bobrayner (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - References cited make no mention whatsoever of Geek Rock— Preceding unsigned comment added by Petebutt (talk • contribs)
Delete - IMO, not a genre but rather a way of classification of groups by appearance or merely lyrical themes. But my primary concern is that there are no sources that bring real evidence that this is a real genre (i.e., who pioneered it, who coined the term, what it the exact definition, and more importantly what makes or doesn't make a band "geek rock"). Spatulli (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The actual tally was in favor in keeping the article, for whatever that is worth.
Several sources were presented to establish the notability of the topic itself: Jewish American cartoonists and the role of Jews in the comic book industry. Most of those who commented regarding the sources believed that there was indeed enough coverage to demonstrate that Jewish cartoonists is not just a random intersection. Many of the comments referred to Jewish cartoonists in general, as opposed to only Jewish Americans. I am inclined, however, to believe that Jewish Americans make up a large part of the Jewish influence on cartooning due to the discussion on sources presented by postdlf et al.
Many people said that a prose article on Jewish Americans and cartooning would be the best option, as there is no evidence that these cartoonists are specifically notable as Jewish Americans. Those in favor of this idea also argued that the list is indiscriminate, that there are BLP/sourcing concerns, and that the list is only viable if there is already a standalone prose article on Jewish cartoonists. These may all be legitimate concerns depending on the circumstances. However, the list does have inclusion criteria (that the cartoonist be Jewish American and notable enough to have an existing Wikipedia entry), WP:LISTPEOPLE states that an "exception is nationality/ethnicity", and, importantly, there is no evidence showing that many of the Jewish American cartoonists' "Jewishness" did not affect their work in the field. Concerns with the sourcing should not directly apply to its inclusion in this case; AfD is not for cleanup and as the article stands now, I find it fairly well-referenced. I also found no evidence that a standalone article would not be able to exist along with this list, and WP:WAX applies.
There were also some concerns raised about categorizing people by being a Jewish American. Being Jewish does not simply mean one adheres to Judaism; it also carries significant meanings pertaining to the Jewish culture and nationality, and it is not simply racist or singling a person out by religious beliefs when listing him/her on this type of list.
All in all, I think it is fairly clear that there is no real agreement between editors at this AfD. I was actually leaning toward closing it as "keep", but after reviewing the delete !votes, I think there are some good points raised, though not enough for this article's deletion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want everyone to know that I acknowledge Jewish American as an ethnic group in addition to a religious group. Secondly, this list has remained inadequately sourced for three years now, and appears to be of no interest or use to anyone. Special:WhatLinksHere/List of Jewish American cartoonists. Lastly the list is actually an egregious violation of WP:EGRS, which states "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity." There is no supplied reliable reference to indicate why being Jewish and being a cartoonist is not an irrelevant intersection. Lastly, for anyone who will argue that lists have different criteria than categories. A list's existence needs to be substantiated by something. Is it possible to write the article Jewish American cartoonists? If so, somebody write it, provide reliable sources, and we're all good. If not, Delete.Bulldog123 21:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Then? Write the article and source the list and we'll be good. Because, you see, every topic of essayist's interest deserves an article on wikipedia, regardless of how obscure and irrelevant. So, as you seem to have provided enough secondary sources -- I see no reason why you won't create the article stub now. The fact of the matter is this list has been around for three years and not a single person cares about it. Unsourced ethnicity lists cannot exist on wikipedia per policy. Bulldog123 19:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying not everything worthy of a book is worthy of an encyclopedia. We'd have to first actually read those books to understand the point they're trying to make... and if it's WP:FRINGEy or not. Bulldog123 01:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read numerous books that have recognized the role of Jewish Americans comics artists (included in this list as cartoonists) and discussed at length their contributions, and even how their ethnicity influenced the content of what they created. It's not fringey, it's a mainstream part of cultural history in this area. The fact that you haven't read anything on this, and that you seem at best unsure or unaware of that history, suggests to me that your nomination was premature before you actually did any research on that issue and instead just assumed that this was an irrelevant intersection. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blacks in comics never existed (maybe under a different title?), but is anyway irrelevant to this list topic; I'm not going to bother defending a different article in the AFD for this list. If it did exist, and I offered it as a comparison in support of this list, no doubt I would hear WP:OTHERSTUFF as a retort. But I think fundamentally you are just stubbornly denying the points others have made, ignoring what they have told you that reliable sources state, not because you have done any research to the contrary, but just because you want to delete this list. I'm "overstating" the intersection? From the dust jacket of Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gangsters, and the Birth of the Comic Book: "Gerald Jones, a longtime insider to the comic book business, draws on years of research and interviews to reveal how the collision of Yiddish and American culture shaped the modern vision of the hero." Jones on the historically recent embrace of comics as an essential part of the Jewish American cultural experience: "In 2003 Reform Judaism magazine ran Arie Kaplan's 'How the Jews Created the Comic Book Industry,' reclaiming a part of an ethnic heritage that any respectable Jew of the 1940s or 1950s would have vehemently denied. The next year, Jerry Robinson mounted an exhibit on superhero comics for the William Breman Jewish Heritage Museum in Atlanta." Men of Tomorrow, p. 339. See also my reference to the book Ten-Cent Plague below. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why - if this is such a notable topic as you claim - you haven't made the article yet. Or in the very least - a stub. Bulldog123 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No response? You seem to have plenty of sources which you believe would back it up. It comes off as disingenuous to support this list but show no care whatsoever for a prose article. For the record: [13]. Bulldog123 20:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't respond because I didn't see a point; it wasn't anywhere near an effective or substantive retort to anything I said above. Why hasn't a prose article been created yet is a very weak rhetorical question that has no bearing on whether this list is appropriate; why I personally haven't created the article is completely irrelevant. An article could clearly be written on the topic, and though that is not a requirement for any list at all, that the cultural intersection is notable and relevant helps establish that this list is encyclopedic. Maybe you could take a break from the Wikipedia space and try creating the prose article yourself, once you bother to read something on the topic. postdlf (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the whole thing. You haven't proven that the "cultural intersection" is notable - and repeating that you have and then jumping out of the conversation doesn't make it true. The sources you presented are not making the claim that all cartoonists who happen to be Jewish present that Jewishness in their work - which is what would substantiate a list of all Jewish American cartoonists. You've only proven that a prose article is viable "discussing" what elements of Jewish life and culture can be found in "some" Jewish cartoonist's work. The sheer fact that - despite having "read" all this grand, encyclopedic information - you still don't even bother to make a stub shows how disingenuous your points are. I would read the book and write the article myself, but I'm really not interested in injecting navel-gazing, cultural promotion dissembling as academia into Wikipedia. tl;dr - you're confusing a basis for an open-criteria list with a basis for a narrow-criteria article. Is that effective enough for a retort now? Bulldog123 22:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Informational.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While Bulldog123 is completely incorrect that this is an WP:EGRS violation (EGRS is clearly and only about adding categories to articles, nothing more), this article is nevertheless a non-notable intersection, inherent WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:BLP violation. The sources Starblueheather has brought might well be great ones for an article on the relationship between Jewish culture and comic books, but they in no way justify a more-or-less random list like this. Jayjg (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I might be completely incorrect but WP:OCAT has been used as a guideline in AfD discussions for years now. Few have objected to that expanded interpretation of it. Bulldog123 01:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might not object to expanding the scope either, but it should be done explicitly, in the policies and guidelines themselves, not just sometimes by 3 or 4 people commenting at some random AfD. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the refs reflect, entire books have been devoted to this notable intersection.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Many reliable sources talking specifically about the intersection, so is a notable intersection. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At point in time, not adequately sourced (fails WP:V). Would be more viable if there were an independent article on the topic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough adequately sourced material in the article to warrant a list. Any non-referenced names can be cite-tagged, and if no cite is provided they can be culled.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starblueheather's sources: the topic is clearly notable. No objection to cleanup, but AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as Mbz1. Epeefleche's reasoning means that this subject is covered by TPRS, which IMO indicates notability. Broccoli (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Jews as an ethnicity and nation. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3]
Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. In addition to the other points presented above, this is one that militates in favor or a !keep.
Comment: WP:ListPeople; application to nationality/ethnicity. As WP:LISTPEOPLE indicates with regard to "nationality/ethnicity" -- "List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania. The criteria for identifying as an Albanian does not solely depend upon the official citizenship laws of that country – a person could be related to the place by birth, residency, parentage, or by his or her personal admission, considers himself or herself to be an Albanian at heart."--Epeefleche (talk)
Actually, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't "permit" you to comment about other similar articles that exist, instead it encourages you to not comment about other articles that exist. SnottyWongspill the beans 19:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument".--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, we can argue all day about whether there is a "Jewish nation" and what relevance that even has, but you certainly can't argue that there is a "Jewish American nation", which is what would have to exist for your argument to be relevant. SnottyWongconverse 19:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have multiple lists with three criteria. Not at all unusual. Even in the lists reflected in this string.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, criteria #6, which states that: "Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." This article is an almost exact fit for "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", where religious group X = Jewish Americnas and organization Y = cartoonists. Article is also in conflict with WP:BLPCAT. SnottyWongtalk 19:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, your example might have applied to a list of Jewish cartoonists employed by Publisher X; an entire occupation is not the narrower group of a specific organization. I'm not sure that the examples given represent current consensus of how to interpret the general principle, but even if they do, this is not analogous to them. DGG ( talk ) 21:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per established precedents for such lists of notable individuals, as clarified in WP:SAL, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTPEOPLE, this list is specifically per applicable policies and guidelines and serves the project and its readers. As these cartooists already have sourced Wikipedia articles, including them in a list with defined parameters is not a violation of WP:NOTDIR, finding reasons to not like the list notwithstanding. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note that I have been notified of this AfD by Epeefleche, although he has every reason to expect that I will vote for deletion. RolandR (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... not reasonable, and wrong forum. As anyone is allowed to edit, might it not be better to take your allegation, based upon one recent edit and activity from "some years ago", to a different and more appropriate forum, and not use it here in an attempt to negatively color a discussion in progress among many editors? I suggest this off-topic comment be moved to the talk page until such time as Bulldog123 wishes to file a formal request at the proper venue... specially as I have seen it repeated at all the Jewish-related AFDs where you and he have disagreed. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 07:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - Epeefleche actually notified 65 editors on their talk pages about all of these jewish-list-related AfD's. I have posted a notice on his talk page asking for an explanation. This AfD is hopelessly tainted (as are all of the other ones), and should be automatically relisted at a later date in the hopes that an unbiased consensus can be determined. SnottyWongchatter 18:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A neutral notification sent out for balance only after the notice and accusation by Bulldog123 had been placed in all those same related discussions... and only to those who had already opined in other related "List of Jewish" discussions. It is clear that the neutral notification was not "targeted" to any one mindset nor was it accusatory or inflamatory, but was sent to editors equally, no matter their likelyness to !vote delete or keep. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - religion does not have an impact on someone being a cartoonist (yes, they may make religion themed cartoons - but that is a different isssue). --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "List of cartoonists" is in my opinion not a particularly notable topic; adding a relatively poorly-defined ethnicity qualifier to the term does not help either the scope or the notability criteria. Nergaal (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation not important in an encyclopedia unless without it the subject would not be as notable (very hard to prove). (As per WP:BLP, WP:EGRS, WP:Stand-alone_lists).) The only things real encyclopedias use are mainly place of birth, and occasionally citizenship. This goes for other similar (not just Jewish) lists.--Therexbanner (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No connection established between religion/erthnicity and cartooning. There may be scope for an article about cartoons and Jewish issues, with several appropriate inclusions (eg Art Spiegelman, Eli Valley); but this list is not equivalent. RolandR (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, normally I'm sympathetic to criticism of ethnic subcategorizations by occupation, but here there actually is an historically recognized, notable association between Jewish Americans and cartooning/comics, moreso than with any other American ethnic group. There was a time when Jewish artists and writers flooded into comics, and ended up dominating the industry like no other group, because they were restricted from entering more "respectable" creative fields. I just finished reading The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic-Book Scare and How It Changed America, which discusses this at length, and further goes to interpret much of the content Jewish cartoonists created as influenced by their experiences as lower class immigrants in NYC, as well as their outsider status and fantasies of empowerment; many comics depicted superheroes fighting Hitler and Nazis long before the U.S. actually entered the war. Ten-Cent Plague was not the first book to recognize this by far; Michael Chabon's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay is expressly about those themes, which have been widely discussed. The comments above insisting that an article should be written first are completely wrong; there is no such requirement for any list that a prose article be written on the subject first, or even that a prose article must be capable of being written. Instead, lists have long been recognized as valuable tools for indexing articles and for aiding further article creation. I am really disappointed in a wide swath of commenters here, whose comments are little more than dismissive rather than showing any knowledge or understanding (or interest) of the topic of either American Jews or American cartooning/comics. postdlf (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Ten-Cent Plague, Men of Tomorrow: Geeks, Gansters and the Birth of the Comic Book by Gerard Jones discusses Jewish culture, and contributions by Jewish American artists, as one of the most important elements in the formation of the superhero genre. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all similar lists. If this is a notable intersection then why does Jewish cartooning not exist? What if we agree that only intersections that are notable enough to have well sourced articles written on them get to have accompanying lists? People are claiming here, as elsewhere, that intersections between "ethnicity" and X are notable. Well in that case write a real entry about the intersection first. I find it rather suspicious that only the lists exist. Appear only to be vanity and trivia as long as this is the case.Griswaldo (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia should not be placing people into subjective and potentially contentious ethnic or religious categories, particularly when those categories are not relavent to the subject's notability. Doing so is against the spirit of WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The book sources listed above make it rather clear that Jewish cartoonists or some superiorly titled article could easily be written and sourced. However, I question whether this list itself is notable? The triple intersection of religion/ethnicity, nationality and occupation is concerning, and I have to wonder whether being Jewish is relevant at all to most of these cartoonist's careers? FWIW, Epeefleche did ping me on my talk page following my participation in the Nobel AfD, however they did so knowing I held the opposite viewpoint as they. Resolute 15:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The proper article would be something more like Jewish Americans in cartooning, though my one major complaint with this list is that it lumps animators in with comics artists. No one has really addressed that yet, so I'm not going to bother right now as to whether that is appropriate. The list itself does not need to be notable; it just needs to index notable topics (i.e., be limited to notable entries, and there are no non-notable cartoonists included here) by encyclopedic criteria. As for the relevance of that criteria, I'm again dismayed that no one seems to be actually researching this, let alone reading the comments, including mine above, that there are multiple reliable sources that expressly address the role and distinct contributions of Jewish Americans to cartooning/comics. Even if that wasn't the case, however, it would arguably be a sensible occupational sublist of lists of Jewish Americans. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How many inclusionists does it take to keep an article, oy veh! Bearian (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As numerous editors have pointed out, the influence of Jewish culture on the comic book industry in America is widely discussed in reliable, independent sources. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Since the history of U.S. superhero comics is the history of Jewish contributors, & since Supes & Spidey alone are famous, & since they were created or co-created by Jews, it's a notable list on that alone. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 01:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayjg, Nick-CT et al. (I was advised of this discussion by User:Epeefleche, who noted that I had participated in similar AfDs recently.) --JN466 23:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appear to be multiple reliable sources specifically on this topic so I think it passes the notability threshold. By all means take an axe to the list and remove any individual names if we don't have sufficient evidence of that individual's status. I think this would be less controversial if it were a prose article about "Jewish American cartoonists" rather than a list - surely more interesting text can be derived from those sources, rather than a mere list of names. As an aside, I would suggest to TREKphiler that notability isn't inherited - we have plenty of notable things which were created, built, supplied, or designed by non-notable people; and even if a bunch of people were notable and had something in common, that wouldn't necessarily merit a list article. bobrayner (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Racist, implies that only Jewish americans can be cartoonists. Better would be List of American Cartoonists with the ethnicity of each entry added. Apart from that what is a Jewish American? Too many unanswered questoins!!Petebutt (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does it imply that? The list says nothing about the ability of non-Jews to be cartoonists. One might as well argue that List of Russian aviators implies that non-Russians can't be aviators. bobrayner (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence or supporting sources that being Jewish and drawing cartoons is notable or exceptional intersection. WP:NOTDIR #6 specifically. I would also note the overall weakness of many calls to keep, some of them obviously (a one-word "informative") to the wordier ones that can be best summed up as WP:INTERESTING. Tarc (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One immediately finds numerous good sources for this such as Jewish cartoonists and the American experience, From Krakow to Krypton: Jews and comic books and The Jewish Role in American Life, which contains a list of jewish cartoonists. There is therefore no case for deletion and any imperfections are just a matter of ordinary editing per our policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which all support the article no one wants to make: Jewish American in cartooning - not an indiscriminate list including all cartoonists and animators who happen to be Jewish. Bulldog123 22:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list is not indiscriminate as all entries are blue links and so they are notable topics for which the list provides a good index. Expansion of the article to provide more narrative and history will be performed by ordinary editing, not by deletion - this is our editing policy. If such development leads to a change of article title, to reflect a wider scope, then this too may be done by ordinary editing as the move function is available to most editors. There is no place for deletion in this work as that would obstruct development rather than assisting it and so would be disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate because it makes the assumption that all Jewish American cartoonists Jewishness influences their work. That's original research. So yes, indiscriminate. This list has been here for almost 4 years - practically untouched and unsourced - and neither you nor any other !keep voter on here have ever so much as contributed a single improvement to the article you consider so note-worthy. Bulldog123 07:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption you talk of is yours, not the article's as it makes no claim of that kind. Your other argument is the poor one of WP:NOEFFORT. I have just added a couple of good citations for Ralph Bakshi - to American Jewish biographies and The Jew in American Cinema. The latter indicates that there is a strong Jewish influence in Fritz the Cat, for example, and so we could develop this point if we wanted. And notice how both sources, which are substantial books, both reference Jewishness in their title. This is clearly not an incidental attribute but is a fundamental one. It is therefore a sound basis for our encyclopaedic treatment. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is not about religion. Petri Krohn (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Future directions This article is obviously a keeper but, while we have some interest in it, we should consider its future development. One thing that bothers me about it is that its scope is limited to Americans. There have been notable Jewish cartoonists of other nationalities such as Zec and Vicky, both of whom will appear in any substantial work about the political cartoon. I could start a separate article called List of Jewish cartoonists and make the Americans a sublist but it might be simpler to move this article to that title and then either divide the list into sections for each country or just drop the nationality. Nationality seems a weak classification for these people as they typically were refugees from countries such as Hungary and Russia who ended up in the UK and US and so they would be associated with multiple countries. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have already talked to editors about this, I used the username Elika2010 to make the article because it was the first article i made, I have already been told about COI, and assured editors for AFC that i have no part in this or Andy's page i am currently working on.
Elika2010 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete combination of marginal notability, and the high probability that the article was solicited, make this a delete for me. Rs sources only mention company or company's employees in passing. Coverage is weak, integrity of article is suspect. The Interior(Talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete If there is a problem with the sources why did i have to find other ones than the ones I used for AFC! I worked on this for days and worked with editors to find RELIABLE sources in witch i did! I see nothing wrong, instead of being vague about the integrity of article, point out what exactly is wrong with this? I followed all guidelines to see how the editing process works, and i gathered my subject, sources and put it together with help of other editors from here in AFC...
The guidelines have been followed, with the help of AFC editors, and information added, removed and changed as the sources to fit the guidelines. Elika2010 (talk) 02:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I performed a Google search on the company before accepting. The company does have well established coverage. I felt that there were enough sources to accept the article. I will do a few style fixes and tag it for rescue. --Alpha Quadranttalk 16:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha, could you link those sources? The Interior(Talk) 19:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Particularly this, the prweb sources are unreliable (a payed publisher), but there are still three good sources there. There are some other sources that could be found thought this search. It being presumed to be a major company in Manhattan, and had three good sources, so I accepted. Best, --Alpha Quadranttalk 17:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious huge COI here. I think it would be better to delete and start over, rather than allowing someone who is being paid to advertise on Wikipedia to succeed. If we allow these people to make money by creating spam articles, then we are setting ourselves up for a lot more spam articles to be created. Also, sources are quite weak, most just passing mentions or regurgitated press releases. SnottyWongexpress 19:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete- I could just about be persuaded that the subject of this article could stand on its own two feet, but the coverage is rather trivial and run-of-the-mill. But I have to agree with Snottywong- the damage we would do to Wikipedia by allowing it to be exploited by paid marketers and spammers far, far, far outweighs the minimal gain we'd have by including coverage on this borderline subject. Better to nuke it and start over. ReykYO! 22:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Checking the references shows that almost every mention of the company has been added to the article, and the conclusion is that the company does not satisfy WP:CORP since the only mentions are very minor, or appear in articles not about the company, or appear in places where it is standard that every similar company will be mentioned sooner or later. It is very hard for a small realtor started two years ago to become sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedic article, and there is no evidence that this company has made that leap. Wikipedia is not a directory of all realtors, and if this article were accepted there would be no criterion to exclude any other realtor. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coverage is mainly in primary sources & trade rags, with only occasional & tangential coverage in more mainstream publications. Combine this with the obvious self-promotion/COI concerns (and I would note that Elika2010 has exacerbated those concerns by participating, quite incautiously, in this AfD, in violation of WP:COI -- giving very little reason to assume that they wouldn't continue to edit the article), and I do not think keeping this article would be a wise decision. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: couldn't find good sources... it's mentioned in the NYT but nothign to really write a page about Arskwad (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't care who created it; all I care about is that articles satisfy policy, and I don't think this one is notable. Some COI editors create good content, and some COI editors create content that doesn't satisfy existing content policies; why create a new rule that prohibits both - hence excluding good content - when we already have perfectly good rules that deal with the latter quite specifically? bobrayner (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles reads more like self-serving advertising to me. As Reyk said better to nuke it, start again and write a proper article, if possible.Petebutt (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Unremarkable location used by an unremarkable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If the claim only private seasonally occupied camp in Antarctica can be verified, then I'd say the location is distinctly notable indeed. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 21:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the Patriot Hills was also the only private seasonally occupied camp in Antarctica. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and they moved from one location to the other. Your point? And as Antarctic base camps, they should be inherently notable. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 02:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small point here: absolutely nothing is "inherently notable". Notability is a portmanteau of concepts related to verifiability, neutrality and sourcing; something which has no independent sources is not notable however interesting it might be. As an example, some believe all schools are inherently notable, but I went to one (state funded) school about which there is not one single available online source - it was open for only about ten years and closed with virtually no coverage. I can't even verify the spelling! So, let's not get carried away by what sounds notable, instead look at the actual objective evidence for notability, which probably does exist in this case. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is one of the few locations on Antarctica with a yearlong or seasonal human presence in a permanent or semipermanent camp. 76.66.194.212 (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of only a few outposts of mankind on the remotest continent on earth, covered in third-party sources. --Kam Solusar (talk) 22:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has third party sources... its the only camp on the continant Arskwad (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought it was a bit short on third party sources so I added one. More would be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same reasons as the prod brought up. List does not meet common selection criteria detailed at WP:STANDALONE (neither "Every entry meets the notability criteria" or "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." It also lacks references for verification violating WP:V. Not to mention it's very one sided and whenever an opposing view was added (even with a source for it) It was removed. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, turn into a proper list article, with a proper definition (that excludes football chants on all sides!!) and do a complete rewrite to include responses by artists of all sides and none. This should include the people's art (the outdoor murals in various parts of the region), the satirical work of the cartoonists, photography, fine arts, music and poetry (I seem to recall Bobby Sands wrote poetry, as did several others of the blanket protesters). It's not unsalveagable, but it needs to be way more than a collection of republican songs to be worth having. Alternatively, retitle to List of Republican songs about the 1981 Irish hunger strike - which would be a perfectly reasonable list article. Note that list articles where the main aim is a collation of otherwise non-notable topics needs reliable sources!!! of which I am seeing none so far. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Elen of the Roads. Article definitely needs work, but AFD is not cleanup. I am also confused and concerned by the nominator's comment "...whenever an opposing view was added (even with a source for it) It was removed" which implies that references for the items in the list do, in fact, exist. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally prodded this. If it is a list, the blue link would be to 1981 Irish hunger strike but there is nothing to artistic reactions (the closest would be a the "Commemorations" subsection of that article). The handful of items that have notability (1 song and 3 films) can be summed up in an existing article. This list does nothing for a better understanding of the subject and is little help navigation wise. The "Recordings by named artists/bands" is devoid of references so it is hard to verify. If this list were to be kept all of those would need to go leaving it of little value.
The "reference" that CoE mentions was a YouTube video from a nonnotable music group. An editor rightfully did not want it in but I do understand the frustration based on another editor allowing unsourced material in for items that are sympathetic of the hunger strikes. I mentioned on the talk page that some effort should be put in for the sources and nothing was done. O Finian has had since Oct 1 to improve the list (see: Talk:Artistic reactions to the 1981 Irish hunger strike#Loyalist reaction if he felt it was important enough. This list is stalled and should be userfied to bring it up to the level appropriate for the mainspace if editors want to work on it. Further reasons for deletion are WP:DEL#REASON -> WP:NOT -> WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTADVOCATE (based on NPOV), and WP:NOT#FANSITE (based on original research).Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree that the list is stalled. Have a look at it now. Anyone who has loyalist reaction or international artistic work is welcome to add it - the deaths of the hunger strikers had a considerable impact outside of the UK and it should be out there. I'm currently working my way through extensive selections of images on Commons as you can see.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, I'm not having much trouble finding refs for many of the songs listed, although clearly it will need to be trimmed. Also, POV issues can be resolved by editing rather than deletion. I'm not sure why Fansite would apply, given that there's very little fancruft in the article as it stands. I also fail to see how O Finian's actions or inaction have anything to do with whether the subject is notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then please provide those refs. It isn;t exactly stalled anynore since some editors have added info since this discussion as open. Unfortunately, the response to a deletion discussion should not be the addition of unsourced material. The new "Street Art" subsection is missing some sources and I personally looked fairly hard for the cheesburger song which was readded for some reason.Cptnono (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the article, references are being added there, significant progress has been made in just a few hours. As for "the response to a deletion discussion should not be the addition of unsourced material", I believe that Elen of the Roads restored an item that had been removed with the hope that a source could be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuujinn, I did, since the complaint was that O'Fenian was removing material in a pov manner. Cptnono You can't have it both ways - either he was removing for pov reasons or he was removing because it wasn't sourced. As for the murals, the photographs don't need sourcing, and I have tried to make the sentences uncontentious (all the info comes from the data on the image file) while I get a source for more information. You'll have to give me a day or two though. It's not relevant for deletion that the article contains insufficient sources as its not a BLP. Also Cptnono, I haven't a clue what your cryptic comment is supposed to mean. In one diff I'm adding back something as I say, in the other, I'm clarifying what's in th flippin' list. Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want it both ways. The YouTube reference was not sufficient which is why I argued for its removal. I also do not think that hibeamlyrics.com is sufficient. Does it meet any of the reasoning at WP:RELIABLE? Stop adding information that is not sourced and stop adding references that are not from reputable sources. It could also be said that hibeamlyrics.com doesn't even say what the song is about but common sense could apply there. Cptnono (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now this? "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." - WP:RELIABLECptnono (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, what specifically bothers you about the lyrics sites? I'm not certain about the triskelle site, but the other two do not seem to blogs or forums, they appear to be commercial sites that collect and publish lyrics for songs in general. The claims that a particular song exists and has these words hardly seems controversial. That being said, this isn't really an appropriate venue to debate the quality of individual sources, we should move this part of the discussion to the article's talk page. The question here is, I think, whether the subject appears to be notable enough that sources can be found. We now have a number of newspaper articles as sources, it seems to me that notability is pretty clearly established. That the article requires improvement is clear, and I am sure many items on the list will be deleted as we work through them, but, again, AFD is not cleanup. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an appropriate venue if people are saying to keep it while relying on poor sourcing to ensure that it happens. I did not see an "about us" page on the lyrics site but it does not meet the typical requirements of an RS. Who makes it and what makes them reliable. Furthermore, since notability is questioned for the items (which impacts the necessity for such a list unless the scope is changed to all not notable items as mentioned way up above) there is another problem. The noteworthiness is not asserted by the lyrics site.Cptnono (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, at this point I think you're arguing to throw out the baby with the bath water. There are certainly reliable sources for some of the songs, at this point the poetry section is, I think, well sourced, and the murals section is coming along nicely. To continue to argue for deletion of the entire article because you question some of the sources and some of the content makes little sense to me, as there are sufficient reliable and verifiable sources to support an article on this subject. In regard to the sites with music lyrics, what sources would you suggest we consult that you find reliable? --Nuujinn (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is barely a handful of properly sourced lines so the baby needs to go with the water :) IMO. If there was an article I could see the reason to have a list if more sources were found. There might be enough sources to write an article (not sure) but this list still needs to go until something like that comes to fruition as detailed in my initial reasoning.
And disagree about the mural section. Appreciate that sources are found for it but it is primarily a gallery that ignores the common layout of images in lists. That is for sure a discussion better off the deletion page unless that section is the deciding factor in any keep.Cptnono (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I reckon we'll have to agree to disagree. With 30 references added in about 24 hours, half of which are newspaper, magazine, or academic publications, it is clear to me that there's more than sufficient potential here for a decent article. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks to be an exaggeration. Most of the sources are not RS or are primary sources. However, this was a fantastic addition. If you had morelike that I could see an actual article instead of a list without a blue link to an article. Others that would be useful include some of the reviews like [37][38][39] One or two line blurbs like[40][41] could also be useful but would not assert notability. Doesn't look like half to me but if it is then the other half need to be removed which would severly impact the chances of such a list being suitable.Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, my bad layout is not a valid reason to delete the article. And while I agree that it's turning into more of an article than a list, that's not a valid reason the delete the article either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, did you read my comment? "That is for sure a discussion better off the deletion page..."Cptnono (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elen reads good, but maybe not extracts meaning Cptnono intended - "unless that section is the deciding factor in any keep" not intended to be serious perhaps? On a more serious note, I'd actually prefer this to be an article than a list - the street art, poetry and literature sections could all easily convert to proper sourced text, and the long, long list of songs could cut back to the more notable ones, for which sourced commentary could be found as well as mere proof of existence (bearing in mind that a list under current guidelines only requires sourcing of existence and connection, not also of notability)Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have emphasized "the" deciding factor. See my comment up above if you haven;t had the chance. That street mural source is great. If we had more like it I would say go for it. Even if it is a stub (which there might be enough for more) it would be better then this list in my opinion. And lists do not require notability but they need to link to an article that is notable from my understanding. So maybe create the article (or radically change this list) and if split out any sort of list if it becomes to unwieldy in the article.Cptnono (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Youtube source I used is OK to use the source for the Cheeseburger addition under WP:SOURCES as the video is (And I quote) "Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article..." The reason I fell that that the youtube source can be used for that as It is really only showing that that song exists. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple problems with that YouTube video as a reference. Do we need to revisit it?Cptnono (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Normally this would be a no-brainer for a merge. However, as there are a lot of different murals/books/songs etc. written about this, it won't be the easiest job to merge in the information. Either way, an AfD's not the best place to discuss this - this is better in a merge or content debate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've built up the song section and added more refs I obtained from lexis-nexus. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Quite possibly, any Keep proponents will cite the same sources that existed in the 2007 AfD and claim they are "significant." After looking over the surviving ones, that is bullshit; they didn't describe the subject in significant detail then and they don't now. Two of the sources are one paragraph long. All are reviews of a videogame or another, but none talk about the timeline in much of any detail (let alone the "significant detail" the GNG requires), which is after all the article up for discussion. Beyond that, the nom correctly cites the Manual of Style, and unless proponents claim the MoS is no longer a valid guideline, there is no choice but to advocate deletion and merger. Ravenswing 07:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this likely doesn't meet the GNG by itself (though the sources are pretty close), but I believe spinout articles like this should be organized by what works best for the topic, not by what sub-topics happen to have 3rd party coverage. That leads to a real poor organization. As the parent topic (Shadowrun) is highly notable, this article is very reasonable. So keep or perhaps IAR keep because our policies and guidelines as written don't clearly support having an article like this, but they are wrong in this instance. Hobit (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also would note that the nom is stretching to use WP:FICT as a deletion reason when it's nothing more than someone's view of what a guideline should be. Also the sources in the article are actually pretty good though not clearly over the GNG bar. Hobit (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Which of them discuss the Shadowrun timeline in detail? Ravenswing 06:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally consider it a bad sign when those in favor of keeping feel the need to blame the rules for not being good enough for the article. There is a reason why these rules have worked here for years. Here, we're not judging the rules but an article, so let's not do things in the wrong order.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an enduring truism at AfD that the number of Keep proponents in these particular cases who wind up saying "Dern, you're right, I suppose the article doesn't pass policy/guideline muster are outnumbered tenfold by those who argue that because reliable sources are hard (if not impossible) to find for articles of their type - among other such - the provisions of WP:V/WP:RS are suspended in their favor. This curious notion is nowhere found in either policy or guideline. Ravenswing 16:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, per Jfgslo's reasoning. This is a plot-only article, with too much trivial elements and without a single secondary source (about the actual storyline). There is thus nothing that establishes the notability of the subject (ie the relevance of an article centered around the chronology).Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another WP:CONTENTFORK where we have two articles trying to spin the same sources in two different ways. This one is solely a plot summary. Keep the main article which has some coverage of the plot but also could cover other aspects of the series. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. No doubt there's a handful of sources about Shadowrun in general, but they establish the notability of a different article. Independent sources aren't writing essays about the timeline. It's just a tedious in-universe text drawn up from primary sources. bobrayner (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete and Salt. The album already gets a mention in the main Megadeth article - as it should, given that the rationale for the previous deletion is unaltered. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've found no reliable independent sources for this demo. There were none a couple months ago, I've checked again to be safe and came up with the same; Tnd900, you've made a fair amount of good contributions, why recreate this? - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is inherently POV. The current article does have a number of sourced entries, but I've also found a lot of unsourced ones, many of which are BLP violations as such. Would be better as a category. - Burpelson AFB✈ 19:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You want POV? Go read Ronald Reagan. Sex scandals have swung several recent elections which makes this article important and I couldn't find any unsourced entries here either. Leeroy10 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Struck out vote by obvious sockpuppet[reply]
Keep You have found NO unreferenced entries here. You did find three in Political scandals. Two have been sourced and the third removed before you began the deletion process for the whole article. As long as politicians keep throwing this mud, someone should be keeping track of it. Richrakh (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep throwing, maybe it will stick, Richrakh. - Burpelson AFB✈ 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Perfectly good article about a subject of interest to many people. If it were a category, then it would be attacked it as lacking a place to to put explanatory comments that an article can, and this article does, contain. Most of the entries are sourced either directly or though their linked WP articles--the comments above are misleading. And there is nothing 'inherently POV' about documented facts. By the way, BLP only applies to living people, not dead ones. Hmains (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. POV? The nominator already admits that at least some of the entries are sourced. And if it's good enough for a category (like say Category:Political sex scandals in the United States), it's certainly good enough for a list (and undercuts the contention that it's POV). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely sourced, though the non-politician items like the Jeff Gannon scandal and the Homeland Security secretary should be removed as not meeting the threshold of the article title. Nate•(chatter) 02:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, nominator's rationale is flawed. The fact that more Republican sex scandals exist is a problem either with Republicans or the media, not with Wikipedia, and unsourced ones can be removed without deleting the whole (quite encyclopedic and relevant) article. Roscelese (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do Republicans have to do with anything? I didn't say anything about them. Are you sure you're commenting on this AFD? - Burpelson AFB✈ 14:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, sourced article that has spawned a category (or vice versa). No valid reason to nix this article.--MrRadioGuy PTCE 07:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not sourced, it's partially sourced and contains a number of totally unsourced entries that violate BLP. The article is little more than a coatrack. - Burpelson AFB✈ 14:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much is unsourced or insufficiently sourced where BLP must be followed. Of extraordinarily marginal value, using vague criteria at best. Note also that while virtually all Republicans are identified by party (even where no "scanal" existed), that is not true of all Democrats. Collect (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really. Why do I see so many 'D's then? Feel free to correct the article. Hmains (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an example where there are no BLP problems. For people whose notability is positions of public trust, such as politicians, such material is always relevant content if there are reliable sources. If they are not included in the list, its just a matter of copying them over from the main article. Anyone who thinks this is a bLP problem should propose a different standard of BLP than the one we are using. This is one area where we should have stable policy, for inclusion as well as exclusion. Are there any listed for which there are not RSs to be found? then remove them, but I doubt there are. DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment This article now has 92 citations, regardless of what the nominator says. Hmains (talk) 05:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I think the subject is notable and there's no shortage of sources. I think there's a lot of potential for problems with POV and BLPs, but I don't think these problems are now at a level where deletion is the best response. I would recommend, though, trying to make it more accessible for readers unfamiliar with American political terminology & abbreviations. For instance with "John Ensign Senator (R-NV)" there's no wikilink to explain what a senator is, nor what the R stands for, nor where NV is. bobrayner (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Boilerplate arguments don't really help, but there is evidently no consensus to delete, and I don't think a relist would be helpful given the massive number of similar AfDs we have open and the directions they are taking. T. Canens (talk) 08:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of lists are unmaintainable and prone to OR. Also Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Divebombis not British 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked {{cn}} and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
Keep The list does not " include every tourist attraction, etc. " Rather, it contains ones notable enough for Wikipedia articles. The few red links need to be checked to see if they are also. (fwiw, I'm a deletionist in term of shopping malls; most of my arguments for deletion of individual malls have been delete, and I've tried to help get consensus for tighter guidelines.) DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is huge and continues to grow. The article is so huge that going through it is a time sink. The current article does have a number of sourced entries, but I've also found a lot of unsourced ones. Article as it stands would be a nightmare to clean up and/or bring into compliance with BLP. Would be better as a category. - Burpelson AFB✈ 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Perfectly good article about a subject of interest to many people. If it were a category, then it would be attacked it as lacking a place to to put explanatory comments that an article can, and this article does, contain. Most of the entries are sourced either directly or though their linked WP articles--the comments above are misleading. 'Too long' is not a reason to destroy WP content; at most, it is a reason to split up the article. The time it takes for an editor to work on an article is also not a reason for deletion of anything. By the way, BLP only applies to living people, not dead ones and, in any case, criminal conviction is truth to be reported in WP, not hidden or deleted. Hmains (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... I don't know where to start... coat rack? Criteria narrow enough on the criminal side to convieniently exclude George Bush, but somehow broad enough on the political side that the list bizarrely includes clear non-politicians such as Frank Sturgis, Albert Hakim, Fawn Hall, etc etc. Hairhorn (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Be accurate. You have discovered NO unreferenced entries here. This is a short, to the point article which is important to studies of corruption. This important article is neither “huge” nor a “nightmare” and is similar to other lists in Wikipedia. Richrakh (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop top posting, follow the regular order. And your comments are all wrong.- Burpelson AFB✈ 14:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My opinions are as valid as yours...and better researched. Richrakh (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. The article contains MANY unreferenced entries. Your statements to the contrary as well as your repeated attempts to make this personal are pure nonsense. Saying I've found no unreferenced entries is a baldfaced lie. You're just hoping nobody else will take the time to actually look as I have. - Burpelson AFB✈ 14:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily KeepOf all three of these articles this is the most concise and unambigous. Why on earth would you want to remove it? Leeroy10 (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Struck out vote by obvious sockpuppet[reply]
Strong keep - This is kind of a cheap tack, guys. just ebcause the articles go after peopl you like doesnt make it a BLP violation. besides, some of these people are dead which obviates a BLP violation unelss you are suggesting that Frank Boykin, Ted Kennedy, AND Fred Richmond are ALL still alive despite being born in 1885 for the former!! BLP does not apply in this case for obvious reasons lol. Besides, the WP:RS are clearly numerous and extensive, including the New York Times and Los Angeles Post. i cant believe that all of you think that these sites, which are PEFECTLY good sources on other articles, somehow fail the WP:RS and WP:V tests here, and if youre suggesting that WP:N is an issue -- well, since when is Ted Kennedy not a notable person, despite being DEAD? User:Smith Jones 15:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might be a good idea, if length is a problem, to split by time period or branch of government. But such a list is unquestionably useful. RayTalk 02:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Useful does not trump BLP. - Burpelson AFB✈ 14:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLP problems with a good encyclopedic list are solved by editing, not deletion. RayTalk 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to trudge through this, finding the ones that aren't sourced and then determining whether each one is still living? Because if you're volunteering, please feel free to get to work as it just may save this article from deletion. These unreferenced BLP violations have existed now for some time and will continue to exist until all the people here demanding to "keep" it get busy fixing it or it is deleted and improved off-site to the point that it can exist on Wikipedia without violating a core policy. - Burpelson AFB✈ 14:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, my personal willingness to wade through tons of BLP-violating crap is not a deletion criterion. If it were, we could rapidly delete Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and Foreign policy of the United States in short order. Established custom is that if a topic is encyclopedic and worth covering, we will cover it - and for each topic there are editors willing to go through it all. RayTalk 15:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Makes claims of political connections for nonpolitical crimes, is a nebulous concept as it includes some state officials, excludes others, and includes people who were employed by officials who were not actually "politicians." Better served by a category than this melange. If the nebulous requirement for listing here is correct, it could end up being several megs long. Collect (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the classic example where there are no BLP problems. It is an accepted principle of BLP that crimes are admissible content when the people are public figures and the crimes are relevant to their notability. For people whose notability is positions of public trust, such as politicians, convictions for crimes are always relevant content--and even accusations can be. I am not sure i would emphasise them by making of list of politicians accused... but in the case of convictions, any conviction is very highly relevant to notability , would usually warrant a full section of an article, not just a mention, and is absolutely correct for a list. Anyone who thinks this is a bLP problem should propose a different standard of BLP than the one we are using. This is one area where we should have stable policy, for inclusion as well as exclusion. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur with DGG. That a politician is convicted of a crime is always significant in relation to their public life (although, disclaimer; only those crimes committed whilst in office, or in relation to their office). BLP policy for this issue is designed to ensure we are sensitive to the issues of using pejorative terms in relation to living persons - it does not mean we do not aply such terms. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not a violation of BLP to say "so and so was accused/convicted of a crime" and to not provide a reference for it? That's news to me. - Burpelson AFB✈ 18:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is referenced in the article this is accepted as fine. Otherwise, no, remove it. These should be fairly trivial to check, though. And deletion is a poor mans solution to that problem. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 18:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see some examples of unsourced inclusions. I've scanned through the list and can't really find any.--Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There are 13 in this section alone [42]. Some of those people may be dead, so not BLP violations, however the entry for Don Blandford is uncited and the article does not cite this accusation of committing a crime either. - Burpelson AFB✈ 19:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:V is a policy so it should be fine for you to just remove them. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed a large number of them from at least one of these three articles. The problem is, the article is massive and expecting someone to dig through it for unsourced entries is unrealistic, especially when they're still being added from time to time. - Burpelson AFB✈ 19:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whjat you deem as "unrealistic" is a cornerstone of WIkipedias WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT policies and cultural touchstoneds. Your decision that this is somehow too "hard" to expect anything to do is an editude unbecoming of an editor and I perosnally feel that if you think its that much work to just muddle through somehow because we are all in this togehter and this is a group project. simply destroying someone leses work because you personally feel that its not worth working on seems contrary to the initial intent of WP:AFD. User:Smith Jones 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BOLD (and SOFIXIT which redirects to BOLD) are editing guidelines. BLP is a core policy. Do you want to wade through this mess piecemeal and find all the entries that are unsourced, then check each one to determine whether that person is alive or not? Because I sure don't. If they're not removed they'll remain as BLP violations, which is unacceptable. - Burpelson AFB✈ 14:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's exactly what I've been doing! If it's too much for you, it's not for me. I've been wading through this mess and fixing things one by one. Richrakh (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
precisionly!!! - just because you dont to spend your vlualbe time editing this article doesnt mean that NO ONE ELSE should be alloewd to edit it, Burpie. Thats completly unreasonable, deleting an article just because you personally dont want to work to on it. there are hundreds of millions of editors on wikipedia, and you are the only one who doesnt want to work on tihs article. let me and Richrakh and the other editors who work on this article to continue our god faith efforts and you can do whatever it is that you would prefer to do here, and together we can make this an excellent encyclopedia! What do you say? just cancel the AFD and everytthing will be good, okay? User:Smith Jones 17:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Alzarian16. This is a perfectly good list, the sort of thing that WP does best. It can be sourced and fixed with a bit of work. Afd is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment now with 247 citations, regardless of the nominator's false statements. Hmains (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the recentism and the improper organization continue. The article gives the impression that no state politicians ever committed a crime before 1990 – hah! And it gives the impression that federal officials are much more corrupt now than in past decades and centuries. I don't buy that either. If you're going to make a list like this, do the research to get the list right. (Yes, I know this can be an effort. I kept United States Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council in a sandbox for a month while I got as complete a list as I could find for the whole time period – while there may be a name or two still missing, the gaps aren't skewed by time period.) And the organization is by presidential administration is a terrible idea, because the legislative and judicial member crimes generally have absolutely nothing to do with who was president. Even some of the executive branch crimes have little to do with who was president. Just organize by spans of years (decades, scores, whatever). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Potential for POV problems, and I have concerns about the choice of criteria used for list members, but that should be fixed through normal editing. bobrayner (talk) 03:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of unreferenced entries, I just found one, so I added a ref. If anybody finds an entry which can't be referenced, go ahead and delete that entry :-) bobrayner (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article uses as its primary source a blog that has no obviously credible source for its figures. This is a problem in two respects: first, the source sucks; second, the information itself is compiled by the source using methods that require creative effort so is probably copyright anyway. Not definitely or I would have G12'd it but I think on balance this has to go. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can never be definitive due to the nature of what is attempting to calculate. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with Fire: You mean its SOLE source is a blog, Guy ... one which baldly admits "The following top 10 list has been compiled using credible sources and appear here in no certain order." Complete with suspiciously detailed stats like 89% of all youth have been sexually solicited in chatrooms, 8% of all e-mails are pornographic, 42.7% of Internet users view porn and 35.3% of Internet porn users have incomes of over $75,000 a year. Suuuuure. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. Ravenswing 07:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sole source of those numbers is not credible. It would be very difficult to estimate those revenues. (Government economic-statistics offices do tend to estimate revenue in different industries, but I doubt many of them drill down as far as porn, and there would be great inconsistency in definitions). bobrayner (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of lists are unmaintainable and unencyclopedic. Deleted as a result of a 2007 AFD, recreated, and somehow survived another AFD in 2008. --Divebombis not British 19:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a few entries in the list are notable enough for inclusion, and the categories are sufficient in this case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list of a notable topic. EVERY article has the potential to be unmaintainable and prone to OR - AfD is not for cleanup. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked {{cn}} and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete -
the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
Delete - I understand your argument Boing, but this is just a totally unreferenced mess of red links that is going to spawn an equal number of unreferenced one-line stubs sooner or later. This is counter productive to encyclopedia building.--Kudpung (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do accept that this one is particularly poor. But I think that's an argument for improvement rather than deletion - there seem to be decent amount of bluelinked entries to me. I would have thought a better approach would be to remove the red links (thus reducing the chance of someone making lots of stubs) and look for some sources - any unverifiable entries can be removed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in order to help develop the articles. In a part of the world we find difficult to work with, a list with a good many red links like this can be justified. (fwiw, I'm a deletionist in term of shopping malls; most of my arguments for deletion of individual malls have been delete, and I've tried to help get consensus for tighter guidelines.) Note that I am not giving the same comment for all the lists, but evaluating each one of them & saying what applies. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, leaning towards keep. The argument for deletion, to the extent it depends on WP:NOTGUIDE and unmaintainability, has been implicitly refuted by DGG's argument, i.e., that this is actually supposed to be a list of notable malls ("I expect some will be found non-notable and deleted"). The prone to OR argument has also been rebutted. While this article is not in good shape currently, there is not nearly enough support for a "delete and start from scratch" close to be justified. T. Canens (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are many similar lists - can you provide some policy-based reason to support deletion? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is my original rationale not sufficient? Also be aware that I have begun PRODding the "many similar lists" you speak of. ----Divebombis not British 19:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think so - see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. But you may still get a consensus here, so we'll wait and see. Thanks for letting me know about the other PRODs, but as some such articles have been taken to AfD before and have been kept, I don't think PROD is appropriate now, so I hope you won't be offended if I contest your PRODs and suggest AfD - though perhaps it would be better to wait for this one to conclude so we can get a feel for community consensus before nominating the others? Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The "unmaintainable" argument, however, still stands. ----Divebombis not British 19:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be advised, I have begun sending the de-PRODded lists to AFD. If anyone else wants to help, please do. ----Divebombis not British 19:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Unmaintainable" is somewhat subjective. If you see a whole category of articles that have been around for a long time, and a number of them have already survived AfD (Lists in particular have been controversial over the years), it's usually better to just nominate one or two of them to gauge consensus rather than do a mass PROD/AfD on all of them - if the consensus is to keep them, it'll save an awful lot of work. So I'd really recommend you don't AfD them all until we've seen the result for one or two first. But if you do, you should really cross-reference them all with each other, so people commenting on one can see them all -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how "it is impossible to ever list all the shopping malls in Country X" is subjective. ----Divebombis not British 20:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not actually what you said, but I see now that's what you meant. One problem is that any comment along the lines of "Impossible to always keep this article up to date" would apply to most articles. Anyway, I respect your opinion - I just think your argument would be stronger if you had some policy-based reasoning behind it, especially as these list articles seem to be kept whenever they're taken to AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs cross-referenced. Phew. Suddenly my intense dislike of centralized xFDs seems ridiculous. ----Divebombis not British 20:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe :-) That's kinda why its usually best to start with just a small handful of them. By the way, I haven't offered my opinion here yet because I'm never sure with these list articles - I did do a lot of work improving this one after its last AfD resulted in its being kept, but if the consensus this time is to delete it then that'll be fine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Not a travel guide" applies, as there's nothing in these articles that is specifically travel-related - they apply just as much to the inhabitants of the countries/districts in question. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the list is in a rather sorry state, it is not unmaintainable in principle. Many of Thailand's malls are individually notable; I thus also fail to see why such a list would be unencyclopedic. It seems to serve several of the purposes laid out in WP:LIST, namely navigation and development. While, as The Bushranger notes, OR is a problem, that would be a reason for cleanup, not an indication that the list should be deleted wholesale. Huon (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If so many of them are individually notable, then why are there so few links? I don't buy your rationale for a second. ----Divebombis not British 16:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many notable things in the world that Wikipedia does not yet have articles for, so the absence of a linked article does not imply non-notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of an assertion of notability, I am forced to assume non-notability. Simple. As. That. ----Divebombis not British 17:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly this article has fewer blue links than its daughter, List of shopping malls in Bangkok. If I lived in Thailand and could read Thai, I could probably write a few stubs right now to make the notability more obvious. But I'd assume that in general, significant news coverage should be rather easy to come by for a structure the size of a mall. Huon (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't live in Thailand and I can't read Thai. I can't verify any of the information. How do I know, for example, that the "Fairyland Plaza" mall in Nakhon Sawan even exists, let alone if it is notable? Hence my assumption of non-notability. ----Divebombis not British 17:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I checked last, our guidelines allowed non-English sources if no English ones were available. I'm pretty sure malls in Australia aren't inherently more notable than malls in Thailand just because you can read the sources about the former, but not the latter. Anyway, I'm not claiming that every single entry on that list could be turned into an article, and Fairyland Plaza indeed seems non-notable, even non-verifiable. But that's a matter for cleanup, not AfD. Huon (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am perfectly aware of the non-English source allowance and I'm not even sure why you said that. ----Divebombis not British 19:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard list, "unmaintainable" would only apply if the list was infinite. But if time is infinite then even List of Popes and List of Presidents of the United States will be "unmaintainable" by that standard. And of course every article and every list is prone to OR. If it weren't we wouldn't need the revert button. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Popes are elected when the old one dies. US Presidents are elected when the old President's term ends. Shopping malls are built all the time. ----Divebombis not British 17:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list of a notable topic. EVERY article has the potential to be unmaintainable and prone to OR - AfD is not for cleanup. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked {{cn}} and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -
the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
I think "hotel or venue, etc". should include any type of commercial centre or tourist spot. Thus, I'm sure we shouldn't have these kinds of lists. NotARealWord (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What has "hotel or venue", "commercial centre", or "tourist spot" got to do with it? It's a list of shopping malls. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in order to help develop the articles. In a part of the world we find difficult to work with, a list with a considerable number of unlinked malls or redlinks like this can be justified I expect some will be found non-notable and deleted--& fwiw, most of my opinions at AfD for individual malls have been delete. I think commercial establishments are meant to be included among the etc.-- it's a restatement of the principle of NOT INDISCRIMINATE, an important requirement to be an encyclopedia rather than a mere web directory. But this list when developed will not be indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Declined PROD. Notability. No reliable, secondary sources (etc.) on which to establish the notability of this voice actor under WP:GNG. Article has been tagged as an unsourced BLP since 2008, save for a brief period when that tag was removed after the PROD. j⚛e deckertalk 18:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of his roles, Genji Ronoue in Umineko no Naku Koro ni, has any real significance. The rest are minor roles that last for just an episode, maybe two. Even if the roles can be sourced, it will still fail WP:NACTOR. —Farix (t | c) 19:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question (not an opinion, just a question)-- is that role significant/unique enough you'd suggest making a redirect to Umineko no Naku Koro ni rather than delete? --j⚛e deckertalk 19:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance or usefulness of a redirect from an actor to a television series. —Farix (t | c) 19:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually X5 from Atomic Betty was an important character who was in most if not all the episodes. It may not be enough but that character was not a one or two episode character.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for his work. You don't get chosen for that many notable things, from anime to video games, if you weren't considered a capable and notable person by the industry. DreamFocus 20:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one potentially significant role in his entirely body of work. The rest are minor or background characters. One doesn't become notable for being an extra in a lot of things. —Farix (t | c) 21:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to meet minimum inclusions guidelines in terms of body of work and availability of secondary sources. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 06:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sourcing or indication that any of the roles are sufficient to establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all standard chart for navigation to existing articles. How is this a travel guide? A travel guide would have the products and prices. The sources are in the articles themselves, not in the list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator of list. Only a few entries in the list are notable enough for inclusion, and the categories are sufficient in this case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list of a notable topic. EVERY article has the potential to be unmaintainable and prone to OR - AfD is not for cleanup. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked {{cn}} and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all First and foremost, the way these AFDs were bundled is an absolute mess, and I'm only going to vote once rather than trawling every single AFD with the same rationale. Now, moving on, deletion is not The First Option for imperfect lists. These are capable of being improved, they are generally not so unwieldy as to be unmanageable, and categories and lists can - in fact, often should - co-exist.Townlake (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- These AfDs are not "bundled together". Divebomb created separate discussions for each list.NotARealWord (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -
the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
I think "hotel or venue, etc". should include any type of commercial centre or tourist spot. Thus, T'm sure we shouldn't have these kinds of lists. NotARealWord (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What has "hotel or venue", "commercial centre", or "tourist spot" got to do with it? It's a list of shopping malls. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think commercial establishments are meant to be included among the etc.-- it's a restatement of the principle of NOT INDISCRIMINATE, an important requirement to be an encyclopedia rather than a mere web directory. But this list does not " include every tourist attraction, etc. " Rather, it contains ones notable enough for Wikipedia articles. The few red links need to be checked to see if they are also. (fwiw, most of my arguments for deletion of individual malls have been delete, and I've tried to help get consensus for tighter guidelines. this is not an area where I favor broad inclusion. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This coatrack-like article currently stands at 571 kB and continues to grow every day. I have been deleting a large number of unsourced BLP violating entries, but the article is so huge that going through it is a time sink. The current article does have a number of sourced entries, but I've also found a lot of unsourced ones, as well as entries on people who were "suspected by never found guilty of any wrongdoing". Article as it stands would be a nightmare to clean up and/or bring into compliance with BLP. - Burpelson AFB✈ 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: what the hell... way too long and yet probably uncompleteable. The criteria alone take up an entire screen. This is better suited to a category. Hairhorn (talk) 18:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reason to keep like this. perhaps somebody should create a category to replace this as suggested above. NotARealWord (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Perfectly good article about a subject of interest to many people. If it were a category, then it would be attacked it as lacking a place to to put explanatory comments that an article can, and this article does, contain. Most of the entries are sourced either directly or though their linked WP articles--the comments above are misleading. 'Too long' is not a reason to destroy WP content; at most, it is a reason to split up the article. Incomplete is also not a reason to delete a list; most lists are 'incomplete'; WP is a place for improvement, not deletion. By the way, BLP only applies to living people, not dead ones. Hmains (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of which way this goes, please do not restore the blatant BLP-violating material. We cannot have unsourced allegations against people remain in a Wikipedia article, such as the charming "was once accused of having sex with a 14 yr old" entry for a city mayor. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an inherently unworkable nightmare of an article premise. If there are notable scandals that can be reliably sourced, then the info can be added to the relevant articles if not there already. There's nothing to justify a grouping of every bad thing that every public figure has ever done, and all that is happening now is that every whiff of controversy that hits the front of Google News becomes and entry here. Utterly retarded. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very good article and inherently notable. --Monterey Bay (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Good" and "notable" aren't reasons to keep BLP violations. - Burpelson AFB✈ 14:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and encyclopedic list, the fundamental strength of the Wikipedia system will bring this article into balance eventually. jengod (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been working my way down the article adding references and removing unsourced entries as I go. The few unreferenced BLP issues you discovered and didn’t bother to look up, are older entries. Sorry if I’m not going fast enough. An attempt to shorten the article led to Political Sex scandals and Convicted Politicians which are well researched. But you want to delete those too. This important article is neither “huge” nor a “nightmare.” Your efforts to delete only hamstring efforts at improvement. Richrakh (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - A good article on a difficult subject. Lots of info not available elsewhere I hope it gets even bigger.Leeroy10 (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Struck out vote by obvious sockpuppet[reply]
Delete Contains people only vaguely or marginally culpable, not objective criterion has been followed. Much is unsourced. And much is clearly POV (calling Joe Wilson;s outburst a "scandal" is likely POV, especially since his is nthe only "scandal" of the Obama admin. Also note that BLP is violated in a few places to boot. Best to simply delete at this point. Collect (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the classic example where there are no BLP problems. It is an accepted principle of BLP that the restrictions do not not apply when there are reliable sources for public figures and the material are relevant to their notability. For people whose notability is positions of public trust, such as politicians, this is always relevant content Anyone who thinks this is a bLP problem should propose a different standard of BLP than the one we are using. This is one area where we should have stable policy, for inclusion as well as exclusion. If where is unsourced material it should be sourced--this is rather trivial, as it just means copying the source from the main article. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not a violation of BLP to say "so and so was accused/convicted of a crime" and to not provide a reference for it? That's news to me. - Burpelson AFB✈ 18:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessarily a BLP problem (although there are currently a few), but horribly indiscriminate. Wide-ranging with poorly-defined inclusion guidelines (what constitutes a scandal?). If any of these are worth mentioning they'll already be in the biographical articles. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If any individual "scandal" is notable or important, they should be covered in other articles. Really seems unencyclopedic to keep all this information together in one place. (I already wrote "delete" earlier. See above)NotARealWord (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont see how you could possibly do an article like this without having unverifiable sourcing and dont see how you could lump them all together without violating [[43]]. If there are sources to include and have indexed then the figure involved would be notable enough for a separate page. Good suggestion with creating the category, instead of the article. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very first entry in the article, Joe Wilson's "You lie!", violates the article's own guidelines for inclusion. What Wilson did was not illegal, only led to a reprimand, was not exceptional (there's been harsher language in Congress over the years) and did not lead to expulsion. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clinton's blowjob was trivial and also not illegal (there's been far worse actions over the years), but does anyone contend it was not a "scandal?"Richrakh (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment The article now has 391 citations. None of which would be possible with a category, which for that reason would be quickly deleted. Is anyone reading it? Hmains (talk) 03:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT There are currently NO unreferenced citations, living or dead. The issue now becomes, "Should the article exist at all?" (it's been here for years) and "Is it too long?" (A recent attempt to split off state scandals was blocked.)Richrakh (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole reason Monica Lewinsky doing some peter puffing was a scandal was that Clinton lied, not only to the press and officials, but to the American public on live national TV and then later said, oops , yeah, I was walking across the room and tripped and oopsy. it fell right in. Then to add insult to injury we have the whole Linda Tripp action. You could almost do a whole article on the entire scandal, including Clinton being impeached and all the rules and laws he and others broke, just in that one scandal. It would be way too much to do all of the even verifiable scandals in one article. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete anything. if something isnt true they have nothing to fear —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.224.122 (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep, I can tell which way the WP:SNOW is blowing. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Film that's still in production, mentioned in a single news article. Doesn't seem notable enough; also, see WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And since opining above, I have expanded and sourced the article.[44] More to do yes... but no longer quite the stub that was first nominated. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 10:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFILM. Film has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and principal photography has begun. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Film has reliable sources. --Monterey Bay (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be reliably sourced. --nsaum75¡שיחת! 08:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Film has drawn international media coverage, hence is notable. Since the articles expansion and referencing by User:MichaelQSchmidt its content appears to be reliable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No indication of importance, no third-party sources, and most of this is written as a an essay article. — Timneu22 ·talk 18:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication of notability, seems like a combination of advertising and a game guide. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independent, reliable sources provided to establish notability of this website based game, and much of the text appears to be a copyright violation from the game's website. Cullen328 (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NawlinWiki, no third-party sources and no notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2(Contact) 17:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Isn't that per nom? :) — Timneu22 ·talk 17:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Perhaps when there are more than the 1000 current users of the game, it will be considered "notable". Is the threshold for article entry 10k? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.18.60 (talk) 08:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This has been speedied and de-speedied, PRODded and de-PRODded, but more than two years on remains completely unsourced, and I cannot find any confirmation. Either it is a hoax, or the band was simply not notable - I note that the notoriety claimed is for wild behaviour rather than for any actual achievement, and there is nothing to suggest that they met the standard of WP:BAND. The one relevant Ghit, dbrec.net, is evidently a Wikipedia mirror. At best, fails WP:V and WP:N. JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no refs, no ghits, no sources, no known recordings and but 4 years in alleged existence. Fails WP:BAND totally. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; appears to fall short of WP:BAND. It looks nicer than most stubs but there's just no sources. bobrayner (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an original research list of people that don't actually have wikipedia pages. ceranthor 17:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not. Many of the entries have Wikipedia entries, just haven't got to linking them yet. Am currently in the process of fleshing out the entry which will take time as I just started the article. Gimme a break, it's 2am over here and I need sleep. I'll flesh it out over the next few weeks with reference citation links & all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Object404 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 November 2010
I'm neutral right now, but I have a question, Object404: these people are notable in whose opinion? Yours? Erpert(let's talk about it) 18:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability -> these entries are not my opinion. These people & the institutions they are affiliated with are known in the Philippines. Wait for the article to be in a more finished state, with citings, etc. Will take about a couple or so weeks to get it looking more presentable. -Object404 (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. This is just an expansion of the current set of problems which started with an article similarly up for deletion. This page essentially duplicates (in a less informative fashion) the page List of Ateneo de Manila University people, which is more representative of members of this particular community. It also seems to be incompatible with WP:NOT and WP:OR. And while we're on that subject, Object404 has tried to explain what he feels is a need to distinguish between Ateneo students and alumni and the rest of the members of the community, and then to include as many other students and alumni of other Jesuit institutions in the Philippines in an article. The reasons for these need have not been substantiated. But what can clearly be seen here is that this is really an Ateneo de Manila University alumni list, with a handful of non-Ateneo de Manila graduates being listed, and whose notability have not been established either. What can be done, however, is to modify the Ateneo de Manila University people to include the individuals listed here (provided all of them meet WP:N), and find proper citations to add their academic credentials. Rmcsamson (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the list has just been started and will be fleshed out with notable graduates from the other Ateneo schools. It is not a simple duplicate of List of Ateneo de Manila University people as this contains differing entries. Again, the term "Ateneo de Manila University people" is extremely awkward and by is not equivalent to the term Atenean. On as side note, some of the entries here will have to be pruned too as notability will have to be established. -Object404 (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the way this has been going, there appears to be no development that shows that this article is on its way to meeting the Wikipedia standards raised, nor addressing the objections raised. "Awkwardness," especially that felt by one user (no demonstration to the contrary has been made), is hardly a standard for saying that something is notable or is encyclopedic. Object404 has yet to establish the distinction or justify this kind of non-inclusive nitpicking. By this standard, Bienvenido Nebres, S.J., who is arguably responsible for much of the university's development over almost 20 years, will not fall within this list, since he was never an "Atenean" according to his definition, regardless of the fact that Nebres is arguably more notable than most of the people in this list. Rmcsamson (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again, it doesn't matter if the list has just been started or was in here a millennium ago: the topic per se doesn't satisfy Wikipedia standards -- this time as per WP:LIST and redundancy in other Ateneo-related lists, such as List of Ateneo de Manila University people -- which this is basically a re-hash of that article. For example, Ateneo de Cagayan's Senate President, Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., isn't here. So yes you can add him here but what does he have in common with the "Ateneans" in Manila/Quezon City aside from being in a university run by Jesuits? Is he (and I'm lifting from the Atenean article now) possess the "Ateneo accent"? We don't have "List of Notable Hoosiers, we have them at List of Indiana University (Bloomington) people, the standard for such articles. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:56, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are these ideals, what makes them distinct (from every other positive ideal any human being should aspire for), and what is the definition of "Atenean" in relation to all these? And more importantly, what is the reliable source that supports this, and which does not constitute original research? An interview with a member of the university administration (to be more precise, just ONE university's administration, which again militates against the point the proponent's argument) is original research and has no place here, as per the standards. Again, Object404 is interjecting matters of his opinion to form the basis for his edits. Rmcsamson (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Ateneo = Atenean : Indiana = Hoosier. That's how they're called. Being a Hoosier also means something, just like being an Atenean. How will you call people from U.P.? "Taga-UP?" Asking "a member of the Ateneo administration" is WP:OR so, no thanks for waiting. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That's because the standard relied upon here is an unnecessary, nebulous distinction. Rmcsamson (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. Please follow the discussion here at the entry for Atenean. So far it's just HTD and Rmcsamson who've been making all the *delete* arguments and the discussion is unbalanced. -Object404 (talk) 10:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, you're the only one who's saying keep, and you're the creator of the article. The arguments presented by those two are sound and I feel I outlined what they're saying in my statement to initiate this discussion. ceranthor 01:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is simply not an encyclopedic topic and Wikipedia is not intended to be a publisher of organizational charts and detailed directory information ElKevbo (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, directory entry of doubtful relevance. Hairhorn (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - info can be accessed easily from links in main article, info is subject to change (which raises a maintenance issue) and the subject is just not encyclopaedic. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is not for a list of clubs, departments, spam, or free webspace. If you want to advertise your college for free, there are many social networking websites for that purpose, including MySpace, LinkedIn, FaceBook, etc. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Also, the table's a mess - terrible waste of pixels - if some of that content is going to be copied into a parent article, it could be done in a much more readable fashion. bobrayner (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Very obscure non-notable Transformers character. Not even very well-defined (we don't even know if he is an Autobot). Very little verifiable information exists on this subject. A lot of things about this character are unclear. Some information on this character was part of a presentation at a convention, and that's not really verifiable. NotARealWord (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the sake of building a consensus. Article lacks third-party sources to WP:verify notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Not notable. Is there much point in having a redirect? That string is not a likely search term, I think. bobrayner (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation. It does not require citing a source to show that the lyrics of a song released two years ago are copyright. JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant copyright violation as per Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry, but unfortunately I don't have a source which I would need for a speedy nomination and the user removed my prod. I'm not familiar with how else to get these things removed, hence the afd. roleplayer 14:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a straight-up case of copyright violation. Tabercil (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete No evidence of notability. No sources cited in the article, and a web search failed to produce any independent coverage. (Article was created by COI editor.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not established notability.--KorruskiTalk 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources => no notability. --Crusio (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to have any substantial coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn, with no "delete" recommendations left outstanding. Thanks to the editors who sourced and expanded the article. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 13:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not remotely significant enough to justify an encyclopaedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)Withdrawn - see below. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wtf? If it actually included info such as the invention of the stuff, its development over time and the impact of banana powder on the milk industry then it would be a different story. But this is "banana powder exists, the end" (I paraphrase). -- roleplayer 15:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do indeed paraphrase, and somewhat erroneously to boot. We call such things stubs, and they develop over time. Many articles have started as stubs. Uncle G (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do RC patrol, and I am constantly telling new users, "just because your film/band/website exists, doesn't mean it's automatically article-worthy". Notability has not been established in the article, therefore it should be deleted. If we can't be consistent with our policies why have policies in the first place? -- roleplayer 18:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have consistent policies here. You simply don't understand them properly. The speedy deletion criterion, as mentioned below, is specific, and does not apply to all articles in general. Go and read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 again. There's a reason, including a number of high-profile polls and discussions, that the various words are in boldface.
Notability is the existence of multiple independent published works by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy providing in depth coverage of a subject. If you're going to opine at AFD in any meaningful way, you have to put in the effort to determine that for each case, as Cullen328 has below. That's what the proper application of Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires. Dealing with notability correctly at AFD is not simply a case of reading the article alone and providing a subjective "It seems notable/not-notable to me." opinion. One must do the legwork and determine whether a subject actually is or is not objectively notable. This is the way that it's been all along. This is why our banana article wasn't deleted.
So use the handy little tool ⇗ and do that legwork. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decision changed to keep following rewrite. -- roleplayer 15:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many book references, for example: The newer nutrition in pediatric practice, Isaac Newton Kugelmass, J.B. Lippincott company, 1940. This book describes banana powder in some detail on page 336, and mentions it many times throughout the text. Also, Handbook of Food Products Manufacturing: Principles, Bakery, Beverages, by Yiu H. Hui, Stephanie Clark, Wiley Interscience, 2007. Detailed description of banana powder on page 873, and several other mentions in the book. There are many more book and journal references easily available online. Cullen328 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You say stub, I say that notability isn't demonstrated. As it stands, nothing more than the existence is demonstrated.Keep: In light of the improvements, changing my !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC) Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not being demonstrated is a speedy deletion criterion that is specific to people, organizations, and WWW sites. It's not a reason for deletion via AFD in deletion policy, nor does it apply even as a speedy deletion criterion to a foodstuff. Your application of deletion policy is erroneous, and your understanding of article development is flawed. I suggest a quick look at how our "banana" article itself first started out to help remedy the latter. And when you've done that, go and re-read what Cullen328 cites above. Xe has even helpfully given the exact page numbers. Uncle G (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read it how you want G. I can't remember the last time I saw you think an article needed deleted. We have different views about what should be deleted and what amount of responsibility some lazy ass author should exercise before putting an article into live space. So save your breath with me. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of different views. You have an understanding of deletion policy that is wrong, and you apply it wrongly. Uncle G (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, IMHO your statements there border very closely on assuming bad faith. When it comes to questions of notability, look it up and, if need be, improve the article instead of slapping delete tags on it. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 04:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I didn't slap any tag on anything. Second, you can call it bad faith all you want. I frankly don't give a damn. Uncle G tends to think everything is notable. And I disagree frequently. Since the comment wasn't directed to you, your opinion of what I said to him really doesn't matter to me. Lastly, I shouldn't have to go look for stuff to see that a topic is notable. The author should do a little work and do that themselves. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshift, please note that the original article was the first contribution by a new editor. To call that person a "lazy ass author" seems to go against assuming good faith, and comes pretty darn close to biting the newcomer. Why not welcome a new editor who identified a notable topic, and kicked it off? As the editor who first recommended "Keep" and produced a couple of references, I am amazed at the depth and passion of the debate that's followed. Thanks to all. Cullen328 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about BITE, it's about the general practice, by both new and established editors) of throwing up some unsourced/undersourced sentences, calling it an article and then expecting other to source and expand it for you. There are plenty of prompts and links to policies to tell people, first-timer or not, to have sources and to demonstrate notability. If they choose to ignore them, then I feel perfectly fine with calling them lazy. In this case, I didn't even bother to see if the author was a first-timer or not because it really didn't matter. But you say "why not welcome the notable topic". You missed the point. The onus to demonstrate notability should be on the author. I shouldn't have to go looking around to see if it is or not. Yes, I've read WP:BEFORE, so don't give me a useless link to it. It's a policy that is being abused by....wait for it....lazy-ass editors far too often. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the 7th point down on the deletion policy under reasons to delete an article is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". You must have missed it. SnottyWongspout 20:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand policy, either. Failing to satisfy the notability criteria is not the same as "notability is not demonstrated". If you've been thinking like that all of this time, you've been getting AFD wrong, too, and not putting deletion policy into practice as intended. Please learn what deletion policy actually is, and the difference between speedy deletion of articles on people, organizations and WWW sites that fail to make a credible assertion of notability and deletion (of articles on subjects that are not people, organizations, nor WWW sites) for not actually being notable. Uncle G (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references to the article, along with expanding it a significant amount. I feel that the subject is extremely notable and useful in the medical world, as noted in the article. SilverserenC 20:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not an article which fails to meet the relevant notability guideline as there are hundreds of scholarly sources which discuss it in detail. The article should be kept in accordance with our editing policy and the nominator should please observe the deletion process more carefully. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search alone would've shown it was a notable topic. Many new articles start off as stubs, and trying to delete a one day old article is always the wrong thing to do. DreamFocus 05:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I love wikipedia, a new editor comes along and with one edit inspires a bit of collaboration. This article had a rocky start but is clearly notable. Plenty of sources now in place, editors !voting delete may wish to reconsider. Bigger digger (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References now in place demonstrate notability. What a fun little article! Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any specific reason? SilverserenC 01:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I find it difficult to believe the nom followed WP:BEFORE and even did a cursory search of this topic as it took me only a few seconds to find non-trivial secondary coverage.[45][46][47]. I know from starting AfDs that setting them up takes longer than my search on this topic. Go ahead the throw the "you're assuming bad faith!" charge at me. I would be happy if this AfD was investigated and perhaps used as an example of why WP:BEFORE needs to be an absolute rule.--Oakshade (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle makes starting an AFD quite simple - much easier than searching for sources, reviewing the article's history or starting a discussion on the talk page. Naive editors naturally follow the path of least resistance and do what seems easiest when they encounter a difficulty or problem. AFDs should now perhaps require a second editor to validate the need for formal discussion. This might be done in a similar way to prod endorsement which is done using the {{prod-2}} template. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been hearing more and more bad things about Twinkle lately. Usually, it is more established users that utilize it, for the most part, but it just seems to bring a lot of them trouble because they end up doing bad things with it (whether they happen to be mistakes or not). I can understand the use of it for vandalism, but I feel that having people do things manually would work a lot better. Mechanizing things to a button click, in any situation, whether it be Wikipedia or anything in real life, just seems to be asking for trouble in my opinion. SilverserenC 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per the massive improvements made since nomination, and delete voters changing their opinions. What was once three meager sentences[48] has become a well-sourced, informative, and encyclopedic article. Special kudos to User:Silver seren and to those others who contributed to this article's expansion and improvement since the nomination... User:Pablo X, User:Uncle G, User:Bongomatic, and User:Bigger digger. Great job! Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 00:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am bewildered by the reasoning which Uncle G has repeatedly used in slightly different forms, but is summed up clearly in his statement "Notability not being demonstrated is a speedy deletion criterion that is specific to people, organizations, and WWW sites. It's not a reason for deletion via AFD in deletion policy..." This is a total misunderstanding. All subjects require notability to be demonstrated in order to justify the existence of an article on them. The speedy deletion criterion which Uncle G no doubt has in mind (A7) is a different matter. It says that certain classes of articles (e.g. those on people, organisations...) can be speedily deleted if they do not indicate "importance or significance", which the criterion explicitly states is not the same as "notability". Colonel Warden says that I should "observe the deletion process more carefully", but does not state in what way I failed to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Articles do indeed require notability, but just because it is not demonstrated does not mean the article should be deleted. That's why there's {{notability}}. That's the point of WP:IMPROVE, and why WP:BEFORE, at point 9, states Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. If that step had been followed sources could have been found. Without meaning to put words in Uncle G's mouth, the speedy discussion refers to User:Roleplayer stating "Notability has not been established in the article, therefore it should be deleted", which is only relevant in A7 cases. Bigger digger (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retraction Personally I still do not think that this topic warrants a whole article to itself, but the article has been substantially improved, "delete" people have changed their minds, and there are now many references in the article, so clearly it is going to be kept. Consequently I am willing to withdraw my nomination. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources at all. PROD was contested. (By a strange error the PROD reason was given as "Not student project with no independent sources", but this was meant to say "Non-notable student project with no independent sources.") JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No claim or evidence of notability. --Pnm (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nominator. Doesn't appear to be notable. Alas, we can't have an article for every project on github. bobrayner (talk) 04:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. The nominator has ceded the point, and the still-continuing discussion is not likely to be constructive. Non-admin close. bahamut0013 13:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawal: I'm withdrawing my nomination for deletion. Consensus so far is clearly keep, and I don't see a need to continue this debate. At the same time, I am now confident the article can be improved, based on this deletion debate. There is a clear consensus to tidy up the article, and trim down the puff. User DinDraithou has contributed some interesting insights here, based on his knowledge of Irish history. User Buckshot06 used the v-word in this debate. I would like to point out that usage of this word is strongly discouraged for legal reasons, and for reasons of political correctness. I won't oppose his general point of view though. Imho the article in it's current form is a WP:Coatrack for the subjects genealogical aspirations and claim to notability (A coatrack in the sense that contents of this article may be superficially true, however, the mere excessive volume of positive bias creates an article that, as a whole, is less than truthful). My concern that this article is at least partly autobiographical remains, yet, as stated, I am now confident that these issued can be cleaned up to an acceptable level, to create an article conforming with WP:AB and WP:NPOV. I'd like to thank everyone who contributed to this debate. ReidarM (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Un-notable, does not meet WP:BIO. Few people have edited the article, leaving a whiff of sockpuppetry and WP:AB. The article includes numerous unreferenced statements. Being a retired civil servant with the United Nations, of whom there are tens of thousands if not more, hardly qualifies for notability. While the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) itself may meet the guidelines for notability, it is nevertheless a minor and somewhat obscure entity in world politics. Simply being an ambassador for SMOM hardly merits notabilty. Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. References to alleged notability here seem to be of a rather trivial nature, such as drinking coffee with the wife of the president of Slovakia, rather than any substanstial accomplishments or honors. I see no evidence of well-known and significant awards or honors. On the contrary, awards and honors mentioned in the article seem to be rather dubious. Eg, there is no such thing as "territorial Baron" or a "title of Hereditary Lord Steward/Seneschal for an ancient Irish county" in present day Ireland. The title of "Seneschal" bears a striking resemblance to the wikipedia username who created the article (seneschally). Listing all unrefenced honors in this article (such as "Cross of Honour of Jerusalem, bestowed on him by the Custodia Franciscalis Terra Sanctae") and all factual misconceptions ("Excellency" is not a title, but a style) would make for a very long list. Whoever wrote this article and contributed to it, seems to have been exceptionally eager to establish notability. This article is either a poorly written autobiography (I won't mention the v-word), or simply some kind of hoax. ReidarM (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The nominator seems to be conflating a number of issues here: suspected hoax, notability, verifiability, or just poor writing. There is a certain amount of puff in the article (see WP:PEACOCK) the extent to which it is properly sourced requires examination, but if we assume that the bulk of this is true then it does just about pass notability. Whether Excellency is a title or a style is nitpicking. I am not sure about the Irish titles issue, some Irish titles are still extant, see Peerage of Ireland, although it is suspicious that the earliest Irish barony still extant was created in 1397, well after King John. I have seen some very complicated discussions on Wikipedia about whether titles are still current in present-day republics. At present I am inclinded to keep, although I am open to persuasion if you manage to show that this is a hoax or manage to strip away a large amount of unsourced or dubious content. PatGallacher (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Fair point on nitpicking - but confusing styles with titles is often a giveaway for an impostor of some sort. As for the the Irish titles issue; the barony which is claimed here is not and was never part of the peerage of Ireland. indeed, even the article only claims that it is a "territorial barony", a construction which is often used by bogus title merchants. While I may not be not in a position to state that there are absolutely no authentic Irish "territorial baronies", many if not most of those are fabrications of varying degrees of sophistication which usually require hours of work to expose. Same goes for honors such as "the Cross of Honour of Jerusalem" etc. I agree with you, if we assume the bulk of this is true it might just about pass notability, however I don't see any references of evidence for this "territorial barony", the "Cross of Honour of Jerusalem" or the "title of Hereditary Seneschal", even after several google searches. I only see that the title of "Seneschal" bears a striking resemblance to the username of the user who created the article, and that it indeed contains a fair amount of peacocking, which again is very typical for autobiographical articles.ReidarM (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Cross of Jerusalem granted by the Franciscan Custody of the Holy Land (Custodia Franciscalis Terrae Sanctae) is described in Italian here:[49]Max Kaertner (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just looking into this further, here is mention of him on the Order of Malta's website.[50] Looking at Wikipedia and Debrett's, it looks as if Irish territorial baronies do retain some shadowy existence, although they do not form part of the Irish peerage, and there are bogus or cheap ones floating about, similarly with seneschals. I don't think this article is a hoax although it might do with cleanup. PatGallacher (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the link. I agree, do not think the article is a hoax entirely. I do believe that Francis Martin O'Donnell is a real person, who 1) worked for the UN and 2) is a member of SMOM, currently representing SMOM in Slovakia. Imho the question is, are these two facts enough to establish notability? As for much of the rest, I think it is still rather dubious, hoaxical or irrelevant autobiographical peacockery. Eg, Take the claim to a "title of Hereditary Lord Steward/Seneschal for an ancient Irish county", there is a wikipedia article mentioning such a "County-seneschal": Vice_Great_Seneschal_of_Ireland - written by the exact same user (seneschally). Confusingly, this article states "Seneschal [...] is not a formal title", and then somehow seems to leap from an obscure 18th century "functional role" to the father of Francis Martin O'Donnell. Rather suspicious. There seems to be a whole little network of articles surrounding the honors and awards of Francis Martin O'Donnell which will need a cleanup if this article is to be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReidarM (talk • contribs) 19:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baronies originally by writ, and subsequently by letters patent of the Crown (Peerage baronies);
Administrative baronies, which are territorial in scope; these are to some extent based on old feudal baronies, but are really only geographical units, often found on maps;
Feudal baronies, of which only a very few survive, now held in gross, if they were duly registered under the Registration of Deeds and Titles Act 2006, prior to the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act (No. 27 of 2009).
In regard to the latter, the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2006 was passed by Seanad (Irish Senate) on 23 November 2006, following debate (accessible on www.oireachtas.ie) in the Report and Final stages, and a proposal (amendment no.8) by a member in the Seanad to prevent people from conveying feudal baronies and manorial lordships, and in fact to abolish the same by including a provision in the Bill that “in so far as they survive, titles of honour or dignity arising from feudal baronies and manorial lordships are abolished”, was rejected by the Government on the grounds that the Law Reform Commission had “examined the issue and come to the conclusion that whatever their origin in the feudal era, titles of honour had evolved over the centuries into personal rights now rather than interests in land and should not, therefore, be dealt with in this bill”, as stated by the then Minister for Justice, Equality, and Law Reform, Mr. M. McDowell. The proposed amendment was thereupon withdrawn, and the Bill was subsequently duly enacted as the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act (No. 27 of 2009) ([51]) on 21 July 2009. The new Act accordingly abolished feudal tenure (five years after Scotland had), but preserved estates in land, including customary rights and incorporeal hereditaments, and as indicated by the previously-mentioned Minister of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, titles arising from feudal baronies have evolved to be now held in gross as personal rights, and are not abolished, and in so far as they were classified as incorporeal hereditaments, their registration in the Registry of Deeds prior to 2009 survives (assuming the documentation submitted is authentic and without fraud).
Hence, in Ireland, most originally-feudal titular baronies have long disappeared through obsolescence or dis-use. They were never statutorily abolished, contrary to much recent popular internet critique – otherwise the parliamentary debates would have been absurd. Those few that thus survive at all have been traditionally considered to be "incorporeal hereditaments", and were considered as interests or estates in land, registrable as such upon conveyance or inheritance under the Registry of Deeds of the Government of Ireland, although increasingly these are seen today as titles held in gross as personal rights, and not as real interests in land, as observed by the Minister. However, the obsolete or unregistered feudal titles, and those that lapsed into desuetude after 1662, after the abolition of tenures act was passed by the old Irish Parliament, no longer exist as incorporeal hereditaments, nor as personal rights, and cannot be revived.
Such titles as were registered as incorporeal hereditaments before the Act of 2009, are in the public domain. Copies of the relevant registrations (“Memorial”) under the Registration of Deeds and Titles Act 2006, can be obtained on payment of a fee from the Irish Property Registration Authority. The registration of such titles in the Registry of Deeds serves to govern priorities between competing claims, and nothing currently in Irish law would prevent persons claiming to hold such titles and honours from continuing to claim them (exception made for cases of fraud, which under the legislation in force incur criminal prosecution), although given the Minister’s view that they no longer constitute interests in land, the new Property Registration Authority could decide to no longer register them.
If it can be proven that a title is bogus and the registration is fraudulent, the law does provide for prosecution and penalty. Amongst those artistocrats who have alienated (authentic) Irish baronial and/or manorial titles to others during the past few decades are the following:
The Marquess of Ormond
The Marquess of Bristol
The Earl of Shrewsbury, Waterford, and Wexford, Premier Earl of Ireland
The Earl of Cork and Orrery
The Earl of Kilmorey
The Earl of Lanesborough
The Earl of Rosse
The Earl of Shannon
Viscount Gormanston, Premier Viscount of Ireland
Viscount Bangor
Baron De Freyne
It is most improbable that such persons would have compromised their dignity by attempting to sell bogus titles. Unlike these, bogus titles have been sold by unscrupulous persons (e.g. google the so-called “British Feudal Investments”), who have been successfully prosecuted, mainly in the UK. Max Kaertner (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: On ReidarM's issue of "Excellency", I see no problem amending the text to reflect it as a style, but then please resolve the contrary view expressed in the wikipedia article on "Style (manner of address)", which says: "A style of office, or honorific, is a legal, official, or recognized title"; so a style is a title? Or not? Max Kaertner (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep once the vanity stuff has been trimmed down and all the photos are tidied up. This is good detailed diplomatic/political history, useful for future writers of various histories of UN, countries etc. But we should pare it down so that it is not a vanity article anymore. Buckshot06(talk) 17:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: though I have near-total ignorance of European peerage titles and styles, it does seem that this individual is notable (and not a hoax). The remaining concerns can be resolved with cleanup, and deletion is not necessary. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 21:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now very, very suspicious. I initially reverted the nominator because it seemed bizarre to me, for which I'm sorry. Now I've looked at Ardfert#History_and_heritage and think we might have a genuine problem. I've checked both the Annals of the Four Masters entry (1601.40),[52] and the Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell,[53] and found that neither source says quite what our author would like. Possibly or probably Wikipedia has been featuring a certain family's genealogical aspirations. Without the support of a pedigree virtually all of this will have to be removed from these articles. You would think Burke's or O'Hart or O'Donovan would be referenced, but none of them are. The most thorough pedigree of the O'Donnells ever compiled and composed was done by my own cousin John O'Donovan and features in his appendix (pp. 2377 ff) in the back of his Volume VI of the AFM,[54] and in it I find no mention of these alleged O'Donnells of Ardfert. There is nothing in O'Hart either.[55] So we have a problem. DinDraithou (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pedigree not an issue - irrelevant to notability, and not claimed in article. We do not know that you are related to John O’Donovan (pedigree?;), however, he was a great historian. Nonetheless the AFM came out in 1856, and most of his sourcing, apart from GO/NLI was probably from Charles Joseph O’Donel of Castlebar who at the time was the most knowledgeable on the clan's genealogy. Since then, far more information has come forth to augment the various linked family trees, mainly as a result of the work of Rupert Coughlan who spent 40 years researching the O’Donnells (of Donegal/Tyrconnell). Much of his vast archive of over 400 dossiers is in the Old Courthouse in Lifford. Have you checked there? Have you checked the multiple O’Donnell genealogies in the GO/NLI in Dublin, with vastly more information than O’Donovan’s partial account. For example O’Donovan entirely ignores Sir Hugh Dubh O’Donnell’s first family (from whom, e.g. Sir Winston Spencer Churchill descends through a female line). You can find reference to the Ardfert-Lixnaw expedition sent by Hugh Roe O’Donnell in both the AFM, and the Life of Hugh Roe O’Donnell, as no doubt you have. However, note that the AFM was written around 1630, and the Life of Hugh Roe was written in the first decade of 1600, and is the more detailed and authoritative account, indicating that O’Donnell’s people (as distinct from just FitzMaurice’s) “plundered and preyed many of Fitzmaurice’s [Thomas, 18th Baron of Kerry and Lixnaw] enemies who were the cause of his having come into exile and banishment to O’Donnell, and three of the chief castles of the territory were captured by them , i.e. Lixnaw, Caislen Gearr of Ardfert, and Ballykealy, and they [i.e. “O’Donnell’s people”] left some of their people to hold them” (p.307). Logistically, Ardfert is the further of the line of projection of these O’Donnells from Hugh Roe’s camp in Connello. Now, Fitzmaurice fled to the hills after the defeat at Kinsale, and was eventually captured, along with his entourage by Blois. See CSP. Have you checked the pardons by James I/VI? They list the entourage pardoned, and include an O’Donnell (with typo error). Furthermore, Thomas O’Donnell (of Aghanacrinna, between Ardfert and Lixnaw) was a Jacobite lieutenant listed in 1699. By the way, O’Donovan ignored a line of French Counts, les Comtes O’Donnell, who claimed origin from Donegal, and bore the same arms with a cross-crosslet in gold held by an arm embowed on azure escutcheon. Their line went extinct in 1879, but had Kerry connections as well. Information on these is in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France, and the Archives Nationales (Wendel collection). Anyway, yes you do have a problem, because it was yourself and no-one else who listed Francis Martin O’Donnell into the “O’Donnell Dynasty” article as descendant nobility (on 2 December 2009), whereas no other wiki editor had claimed any such nobility for him. The Ardfert article indicates descent from “an O’Donnell” and does not indicate who, or that such persons were noble (they might have just been soldiers of Hugh Roe, but O’Donnells they were). Lastly, it is a known folklore that the O’Donnells of Ardfert long claimed descent from those of Donegal, since the period of 1600s, and that there were none in the entire Clanmaurice swath of north Kerry before that time. Concerning this article’s O’Donnell’s pedigree, have you checked the article’s heraldic reference in the Genealogical Office in Dublin (Office of the Chief Herald of Ireland, Register of Arms, Volume Z, folio 87)? Max Kaertner (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have reasons to believe that Max Kaertner is a sockpuppet account for Seneschally aka Francis Martin O'Donnell. Max Kaertner is currently editing the article in question, and just removed some of the more blatant examples of peacockery such as this (self?) portrait. Francis Martin O'Donnell Anyway, this discussion is clearly getting somewhere, DinDraithou contributions will be very helpful to clean up this and other articles related to Francis Martin O'Donnell and his family. ReidarM (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Well, "I wish", but no. This discussion (and wikiedia policies) supported at least, any effort to tidy-up the article, and indeed, as Buckshot06 said, to tidy up the photos. Well, I don't think you can then attack the persons who follow-up accordingly. As for DinDraithou, he has an excellent record in correcting other articles, and sharing knowledge in the process has obviously benefitted his prior work too. I wonder why your own comments are so vitriolic? And how you jumped into this after your own account was dormant for almost 6 months. Can you perhaps explain the derogatory comment by 113.190.132.229 a couple of hours before? Why would someone geolocated in Vietnam do that? Let's try to keep this discussion factual and not personal. Max Kaertner (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI absolutely appreciate your efforts to tidy up the article (seriously:). I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination for deletion of this article when I am confident that it can be tidied up sufficiently and without violations of Wikipedia:AB. I am not aware of any derogatory comment by 113.190.132.229. Please accept my apologies for any vitriolic comments, I'll do my best to improve. As for why my account was dormant for 6 months...well I come and go on wikipedia, I contribute somewhat randomly, I believe there is nothing unusual about this pattern. I am not sure why you think this question is relevant for the deletion discussion here, but since you brought up the subject, it seems your account was dormant for 10 months before you suddenly joined this debate. I still believe you and seneschally are identical, and that you are indeed Francis Martin O'Donnell. I'd appreciate if you can address my concern here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReidarM (talk • contribs) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (forgot to vote before) Reply to ReidarM: Same story: intermittent interest in Wikipedia. Max Kaertner is a pseudonym (like you and others, I’m diehard anonymous), but I am Austro-American, living in Vienna, and attended an organ concert in the Votivkirche three years ago. When I delved into it’s history, I was fascinated by the 1853 assassination attempt on Franz Josef, and learnt about the O’Donell von Tyrconnells, and their Irish roots. I toured Ireland two years ago, scouting out new takes on their story. The interest continued into wider O’Donnell origins, heraldry, history, and their own internal rivalries often cleaning up non-sourced claims about other O’Donnells, and only latterly, Francis Martin O’Donnell, where I came across more on him by googling variations of his name. I met him once in mid-2009. My main interest is music, and I tour a lot. If you check my edit history, you’ll see my edits on his article have been very minor, with no substantive inclusions other than when I learnt of his retirement from UNO. Now, since you think he and I are the same, I’ll refrain from further editing on his article, but please do go ahead yourself – radically if you wish, or delete for that matter, tho’ I do think there’s meat enough on him to justify retention of a slimmer bio. Max Kaertner (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a weird story. Obviously they're at the very least closely related. Don't apologize to him again, ReidarM. He's just trying to confuse everyone by bravely citing the AFM and Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell again. Seeing how this isn't done properly we shouldn't trust his reference to this alleged vast collection. As far as I understand it the pedigree of the family done by O'Donovan (a maternal cousin of mine and thousands of other people, an easy thing to be, like half the people in southern Ireland, hence the joke) is still the one used to determine who the princes are. Surely there are many other pedigrees out there which are the products only of aspiration and speculation. "Family tradition" is what it's kindly called. The O'Donovans, a very minor family compared to the O'Donnells, have accumulated their fair share of these too, one or two even making it into Burke's believe it or not. Back to Francis Martin, I included him in the category only because his is a Knight of Malta and we find him posing with Hugo O'Donnell, 7th Duke of Tetuan in a picture in the prince's article. Then we have Francis Martin's father Patrick Denis O'Donnell and grandfather Denis O'Donnell. The claims are repeated. Local barons and of fine reputation or not they could be of any ultimate ancestry, for example like the famous O'Connell family. The pedigrees and traditions often magically appear after a family becomes established. That these are genuine O'Donnells of Tyrconnell, and thus collateral kin of some kind to the princely family, appears unsupported to me. DinDraithou (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Informed comment -- DinDraithou: How can you claim your “cousin” O’Donovan is “the one used to determine who the princes are”? (POV?) The Chief Herald’s office would have more say on genealogical claims. Neither Francis Martin O’Donnell nor the contributors to his bio article ever claimed nobility for him – except yourself. Own up to your own mistakes (which you have just corrected), and stop attributing them to others. Tyrconnell is Donegal. O’Donnells of Donegal/Tyrconnell number in the thousands in Donegal to this day, and have a clan association in which the Austrian and Spanish nobles participate. Straight to the point: [56] See page 7, under Rose O’Donel, viz Rupert Coughlan, who was widely published in scholarly journals, and well-respected by the Duke of Tetuan and the Graf O'Donell von Tyrconnell, who shared information, and never questioned his scholarship or intellectual honesty. Call Gillian Graham of the Lifford Seat or Power heritage center to confirm the existence of the Coughlan collection on the O'Donnells: +353 (0) 74 41733. It is vastly more detailed than O'Donovan's paltry few pages in Vol VI of AFM, incomplete as they were. The persons listed in the FitzMaurice pardon (who were survivors of the Ardfert-Lixnaw expedition, including O’Donnell) are listed in Irish Patent Rolls of James I, Irish Manuscripts Commission, 1966, references LX (page 46) and LI (page 56). You’ll find plenty on the French counts on Gallica.BNF.fr, and further references on JSTOR. They ran several generations at least from 1690s when they left Ireland, through Edmond and his son Comte Sean/Jean, his son Comte Colomban-Hyacinth, his son Comte Jean-Louis Barthelemy, to Comte Sigismond Anatole O’Donnell, who died 1879. They were known through Madam de Stael to the Austrian O’Donnells, with one of whom she had an affair. She died in the house of the mother-in-law of Jean-Louis Barthelemy Comte O’Donnell. Sigismond corresponded with Charles Joseph O’D of Castlebar, and with the Austrian O’Donells. Max Kaertner (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like my comments have proven pretty useful. Our editor, who now appears to be doing this and that from several IPs in addition to his probably two active accounts, was presented with a target and is firing at it. I don't know what to say about his last post here except that it has confused me. Since this is not so easy to do I believe this is deliberate and incredible. He can attack the O'Donnell pedigree done by the greatest Irish scholar of the 19th century, who didn't need to compile it, all he wants. It was done as a kindness to the princely house, so our editor is obviously not familiar with it or its purpose. Back to Francis Martin, he may very well lack the lineage he might have claimed to become a Knight of Malta. This all seems so elaborate I'm guessing the serious research began with his father or before. Descent from the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell should be easy to prove, but this is evidently not the case for them. Even a minor discard sept left behind in Kerry would have at least a partial pedigree recorded by someone somewhere. This claim probably has its roots in the 19th century when Gaelic lineage was becoming important again. DinDraithou (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
QED (quod erat demonstratum): you should be disqualified from this, as you have (a) failed to recognize references I gave you in the public domain, indeed in some cases on the internet; (b) your pretence as a so-called "cousin" of John O'Donovan puts you in a situation of flagrant conflict of interest; (c) I did not attack O'Donovan whose work I greatly appreciate (Vol., VI, pp. 2377-2420 is before me right now), nonetheless his pedigree of O'Donnell has been amply challenged both in GO/NLI and scholarly journals, and not least by the late Rupert Coughlan) - admit at least that he could not have got everything right in 1856; (d) you are advancing an unnecessary conspiracy theory on the basis of two geographically quite separated IPs, one in Serbia, one in Austria; (e) the edits made are not unreasonable; (f) you are the one who conflated this O'Donnell as a noble by linking his bio to the O'Donnell dynasty article which you got many elements wrong it until corrected by others, and you listed him as descendant nobility, not anyone else (you owe an apology at least for own errors, and not least for the withering defamation that you now foist on him - you would be fully liable in a court of law if your real identity was known, instead you hide behind a wiki-pseudo id and at the same time claim reflected glory and authority in the shadow of your (unproven) "cousin",John O'Donovan; (g) F.M. O'Donnell needed no falsification to become a knight of malta, and stood on his own merits, invested by invitation; just as he was knighted by Pope Benedict without any reference to any genealogy, and moreover at an unusually high grade. Get real and admit you were profoundly wrong. Max Kaertner (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got it now. So you're some sort of groupie cousin, or maybe his girlfriend, and you probably know someone in Serbia. Nice. Shame you've made this little mess here for him at Wikipedia. He I might now be willing to give some benefit of the doubt but you seriously need to get banned for all this misleading and this business with your various accounts and so on. DinDraithou (talk) 22:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid polemics: You are usually well-intentioned and objective. On this O'Donovan thing, I am not so sure - put it aside - you can stand on your own merits, not his. On my side, nothing I have ever posted on Wikipedia is false or POV: check it out for yourself. It is all sourced, and authentic (and if proven incorrect, I would be the first to want to correct it - wikipedia is no use if not truthful). How you (mistakenly, perhaps, as we all might) interpret things, is another matter, my friend. Now, why not deal with the issues on a factual basis? You need to be neither defensive nor offensive, but you could comment on the facts, and leave prejudice and opinions behind. Be substantive. You know a lot about a little, and a little about more. Most of us are like that. Mistakes are OK, as long as we learn. Deepen your knowledge - try to learn. You will gain much more insight from the many other sources I have given you. They are in the public domain, tho' not all on the internet. Call Lifford tomorrow - they can confirm the O'D archive, the manager is Gillian Graham. Max Kaertner (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. I'm not that interested since I don't have a drop of O'Donnell in me and have never met one. And maybe you'll answer that phone? Concerning O'Donovan, you've made it about him in the queerest way possible. I presented him as the most authoritative source of the three I listed, on the princely family. He is that, and he happens to be a distant cousin of mine. Oh wow, and it's not like I knew you were the other person when I said that. The problem is that any attack you might make won't make Francis Martin or you an O'Donnell of Tyrconnell. If there is a pedigree at the NLI/GO you should be able to link me to it. So far we haven't even seen the names of any of these alleged first O'Donnells left at Ardfert and elsewhere. Not one. Find me names. Not those of some later counts in Europe you allege were their descendants. This all looks like bullshit so far. DinDraithou (talk) 23:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finale: No, I am not in Ireland to answer a phone in Lifford! Now why should I give you genealogical data? I told you where to find it, in the Patent Roles of James I, and in the Register of Arms, Volume Z, folio 87. The O'Donnell behind in Ardfert (but only for a few years; named in the Pardons) died later on the Continent on 5 September 1620, after injuries sustained in Ambrogio Spinola's crossing of the Rhine. He had a son, who had the same first name, who had a three sons, one called Sean who was outlawed as a Tory (rebel) in 1674 (along with his 66 year old father), another being Thomas who served first as an ensign then as a lieutenant in Jacobite forces adjudged in 1699, and Edmond who founded the line of O'Donnell counts in France. The rest is abundant....and Francis Martin does not claim this and would NOT be the first in line of them, but rather a second cousin of his would. That's it. Max Kaertner (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
withdrawal: I'm withdrawing my nomination for deletion, as explained on top of this page ReidarM (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the withdrawal, although I notice you are continuing a campaign with other editors. For all, let me therefore summarise each one of your principle complaints about this article, and the doubts you cast on its veracity, as well as on the integrity of the awards mentioned. Here are the ensuing facts, which ought categorically eliminate any doubt or lingering suspicion of hoax or falsification:
ReidarM: “Being a retired civil servant with the United Nations, of whom there are tens of thousands if not more, hardly qualifies for notability”.
Response: O’Donnell was in his last two UN assignments, the Resident Coordinator, i.e. the top UN official in Ukraine and previously Serbia-Montenegro. These are senior appointments, of representatives of the Secretary-General, of which there are probably no more than 100 or so at a time. More senior ones would be SRSGs, in charge of peacekeeping missions, who rank as Under-Secretaries-General.
ReidarM: “the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (SMOM) itself may meet the guidelines for notability, it is nevertheless a minor and somewhat obscure entity in world politics. Simply being an ambassador for SMOM hardly merits notability”.
Response: The SMOM has diplomatic relations with 104 countries and spends over €2 billion a year on humanitarian aid and social programmes; it has Permanent Observer status at the UN – hardly an obscure entity, albeit small compared to OECD’s major DAC donors.
ReidarM: “Awards and honors mentioned in the article seem to be rather dubious”.
Response: The three knighthoods are authentic, and references for each were given. All three are recognized by the Holy See/Vatican, and many others. The Ukrainian award from the Parliamentary Ombudsman, for O’Donnell’s work in defence of human rights there, is now referenced: [57]
The Cross of Jerusalem award is an authentic Papal decoration, not a hoax: [58]
The genealogical issue is not germaine, as no individualized claim of descent was made, other than from the O’Donnells of Ardfert, whose presence in the area dates from the 1600s, and not before, and who therefore came from elsewhere, for which the available evidence indicates Donegal (Tir Chonaill). It was DinDrathiou who ‘mistakenly’ categorized this O’Donnell as “descendant nobility” of the O’Donnell Dynasty, a point he fails to admit (although he has corrected it now).
Lastly, the "excellency" issue is semantic, whether a style is a title or not; it is a indeed style, usually referred in diplomatic terms as a courtesy title, as it is in pp. 18-22 of Protocol – The Complete Handbook of Diplomatic, Official and Social Usage, by Mary Jane McCaffree and Pauline Innis, published by Hepburn Books, Dallas, Texas, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1997; revised by Devon Publishing Company, Inc. Washington [ISBN0-941402-04-5] (www.usaprotocol.com). This is the standard reference used at the White House and State Department.
I hope that you will now participate in objective editing of the article. Max Kaertner (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am posting this following exchange here as DinDraithou deleted it from his talk page – with an unwarranted expletive.Max Kaertner (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering also if I shouldn't alert whatever commission or association that this family is out there. He confessed that a second cousin wants to be a comte and might make some claim in France. Sounds like fraud having seen what we've seen, or not seen. DinDraithou (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are WAY overboard. To the best of my knowledge, none of the O'Donnells of Ardfert make ANY genealogical claims to any French or other noble titles. What I said, and meant, is that a second cousin of Francis Martin is senior to him in descent, and is the senior O'Donnell from Ardfert, and this on the basis of BMD information for Ardfert parish. So, please: stop the witchhunt, and stop the hyperbole. You are slandering people you don't even know, and you are ignoring the multiple corrections I make to your hyphotheses, and the sources I provide you - probably because you are in the USA (or the far east), and unable to physically access Irish records. I gave you verbatim the extract from the Life of Hugh Roe O'Donnell (LHROD), exactly as translated by Denis Murphy, SJ, MRIA in his 1893 issue of that book by Lughaidh O'Clery. The text differs from the AFM in the following manner: LHROD says O'Donnell (Hugh Roe/Red Hugh) "ordered FitzMaurice to remain with him until he knew the result of sending away the party" (to Lixnaw-Ardfert). It says O'Donnell's people (not just FitzMaurice's) "left some of their people to hold them". The AFM, written about 30 years later, only says "Mac Maurice (FitzMaurice) was permitted by O'Donnell to go with a party fo his army to visit and see Clanmaurice.......in these they placed warders of their own". This contradicts the earlier version, which I would regard as the more authoritative, given its contemporaneity with the events, and by a more directly informed person. Most likely, the AFM confuses a first expedition (without FitzMaurice), and then the fact that after that was successful, Fitzmaurice was allowed to go back with his own people to guard them. FitzMaurice, and his cousin/nephew, Gerald, had been up in Donegal already for a year, in refuge under Hugh Roe. BTW, just because O'Hart, O'Donovan, and others ignored this, and just because all the plethora of publications surrounding the anniversaries of the battle of Kinsale and later Flight of the Earls ignored it (all the maps of the route south to Kinsale by Hugh Roe ignore his stopover in Connelloe - Ui Conaill Gabhra -, and ignore the Ardfert expedition. But LHROD and AFM both describe it (varyingly). On the Feast of Saint Andrew, i.e. today 30 November, exactly, Hugh Roe visited Holy Cross Abbey to venerate a relic of the True Cross before his fateful battle. I urge you to pray to have the humility to accept that you CAN learn, and to retain an open mind on things until you can decide on the basis of objective proofs. I have no problem whatsoever to remove puffery from those articles, and pics as well. This discussion should remain dignified and objective, and you (and ReidarM) do a great disservice to the community of wikipedia editors by prejudicial comments and intellectually dishonest assessments. I see your pretended cousin JOD also had genealogical pretensions that he could not prove. In the case of the O'Donnells of Ardfert, they don't have any such. They just have a tradition of descent from the soldiers of Hugh Roe (as do the Castlegregory O'Donnells, a fact observed by J. Anthony Gaughan in his biography of Thomas O'Donnell, MP). And that's enough for them. Max Kaertner (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Max, I'm letting this go. No commissions or nobiliary associations will be notified and I will soon be forgetting this discussion. Hopefully this has all been a misunderstanding. Please understand that you have said some confusing things, even appearing to contradict yourself, and your approach has been very defensive/confrontational. So I responded as anyone might. Generally I'm very supportive of septs trying to reconstruct their histories, but you lost me when you went after me. Understand that in my heart I hope you really do belong to the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell, and remember that at first I supported you. What I'll do now is unwatch this and related pages. DinDraithou (talk) 02:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The only source cited for this article is another language Wikipedia. Although the article is short it is, apparently, still inaccurate, though I can't yet discern the nature of the inaccuracy or verify that due to a paucity of reliable sources. notability is open to question, there are plenty of toher holders of this office for whom we do not have articles. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong speedy keep. If article is short and need more source than another language wikipedia, then there are suitable tags for marking the article which may inspire users to pay attention to this article, especially on the WikiProjekt page connected with this article (Serbia, Kosovo...). Maybe there were other people on the same position that would fail notability test on wikipedia, but in her case, she played very important role in very important period of history of the region. There are of course reliable sources that can support text of the article, but author failed to present them because author made mistake and estimated that she is well known.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the obvious notability demonstrated by the sources found by the Google Books search spoon-fed in the nomination. Is it really too much to expect any editor, let alone an administrator, to make such a basic check before nominating an article for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just because we don't yet have articles on all other holders of this office doesn't mean we should delete the articles we already have. If you don't agree with the policy that such Politicians are notable then I suggest trying to change the policy, not trying to delete articles that meet current notability requirements ϢereSpielChequers 21:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major Kosovar political figure. RayTalk 15:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability should be beyond question; but the article needs much better sourcing. I added a couple of refs; more would be welcome. I would remind the nominator that if nobody's written articles on other politicians, that doesn't mean this politician must be non-notable. bobrayner (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested Prod. Largely non-notable plane crash with no significant coverage that goes beyond simply reporting on the story. Suggest deletion per WP:NOTNEWSKorruskiTalk 09:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I doubt WP:NOTNEWS applies to a crash that happened in 1972 - but WP:AIRCRASH does - and this crash could possibly qualify under L3: Country, nation, etc - the deadliest or most significant accident to take place in a country, nation, or major (typically 1st-level) sub-national area. If it is the deadliest airline crash in Yemen ever, make it a strong keep. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 10:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point on WP:NOTNEWS - but there's no source to suggest that it is the deadliest crash and, indeed, even the article only claims that it is 'one of the' deadliest. I just don't see any evidence of notability.--KorruskiTalk 10:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was one of several created by User:Ryan kirkpatrick in Jaunary 2010, and the user was blocked in June 2010 as a sockpuppet of an abusive user, and has operated other sock accounts into Novemeber 2010. Several of the other articles are of this type - very short, with no sources beyond the Air Safety Network database. While the events appear to be genuine, We probaly ought to investigate all of the article this user and his socks have created, and see if any of them are genuinely notable. - BilCat (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone can find sources with significantly more detail than in the article at the moment, then Merge to Egyptair or Inex Adria (from whom the aircraft was chartered.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was the second worst accident in Yemen to date, and worst civil airliner crash in Yemen. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've turned up some more sources, but nothing extensive yet. It's quite plausible that the best sources on this are not in English. Has anyone checked for sources from Egypt, Yemen, or Yugoslavia? Despite being a US-built a/c, there's no record of an investigation at the FAA or the NTSB databases. Perhaps Yemen wasn't a Chicago signatory in 1972? It seems improbable in the extreme that there is no substantive record on an accident with 30 fatalities. LeadSongDogcome howl! 20:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's going to be harder to find sources for something that happened in 1972, however I can't see how a plane crash where everyone dies is not going to be notable in some way. Especially a plane crash which is the #1 or #2 deadliest crash in a particular country. SnottyWongspill the beans 16:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited in the article include two books published decades after the event, so lasting notability beyond news reports has been demonstrated. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that one of the book sources (the SAS one) appears to be used to cite that the mountain that the aircraft hit was a volcano, while the other book source isn't actually cited, so it isn't clear what depth of coverage it gives to the accident.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe that a book about the SAS can have much to contribute in terms of demonstrating the notability of this crash but it would be interested to see in what respect it is mentioned. I shall see if I can find a copy.--KorruskiTalk 10:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the addition of Encyclopedia of African Airlines, which would seem to be a relevant source. Mjroots (talk) 13:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you were, I apologise. It was just that the comment you responded to was about the SAS book. It's hard to be sure without a copy, but to me it seems highly probable that the Encyclopedia of African Airlines will just have an article about EgyptAir, which would mention this event as part of it. In my view, that would not be enough to establish notability. Actually, it might suggest that we ought to treat the event in a similar fashion, with a merge.--KorruskiTalk 16:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think that's straightened out now. The SAS was just one possible choice to support the statement that Krater is an extinct volcano. I could have used Sir Richard Burton too, but that's a bit dated:-) The Encyclopedia of African Airlines ref is now linked to the source page. It supports many of the details. Now then, can anybody clarify who was the responisible body for leading an investigation back then? LeadSongDogcome howl! 00:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current authority is the Yemen Civil Aviation Authority, so maybe it was the South Yemen Civil Aviation Authority back then. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is quite a bit of coverage. It was a major plane crash in 1972. --Alpha Quadranttalk 05:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't this where WP:NOTNEWS comes in? Something that was a major event in 1972 and attracted coverage at the time is not necessarily still notable. It does seem that the community disagrees with me on this one, so perhaps I'm wrong.--KorruskiTalk 10:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keyword being 'if'. Considering this happened in 1972, the accepted way to prove it 'was notable then' in 2010, is to show it meets WP:EVENT, not to claim that the news coverage it probably got at the time would theoretically have passed an Afd had Wikipedia existed back then. MickMacNee (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless or until sources are added to show how this aircrash article definitively meets WP:EVENT. While I am sympathetic to the fact that CSB issues arise due to the location, I am also acutely aware of how many people are blindly asserting at Afd right now that more recent crashes will 'obviously'/'clearly' be notable given the passage of time. Well, we have a test case here. Is all that just hot air, or can they actually back up their assertions with some real evidence? Time passing or not being able to access sources is no excuse - if that is all that is holding up the process, then per standard Wikipedia development practices, the article should be deleted/userfied, unless or until such time as they can be located and a proper article can be written, establishing notability from the moment it enters the article space. MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty clearly wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. While in 2010 few publications truly become obscured by time, that cannot be said about 1972. As South Yemen was on the other side during the Cold War, they likely were not cooperative with western (particularly US) aviation safety agencies. We shouldn't be surprised that we have a little more digging to do to build an article. Keep in mind that "Hard cases make bad law". This shouldn't be taken as any kind of precedent.LeadSongDogcome howl! 00:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I would normally be sympathetic to CSB issues, if it wasn't for the total hypocrisy that has surrounded aircrash Afd's recently about what is and isn't 'clearly notable', such that no unbiased observer can be sure any more if these articles are being properly measured against actual evidence, or just being waved through Afd because they were aircrashes, and of course, in the view of the people doing the waving, all fatal aircrashes are always notable irrespective of size, location, plane, lasting impact, or anything else, making assertions like 'biggest in Yemen' in Afd's like this, completely and utterly meaningless. The fact this happened behind the Iron Curtain is irrelevant, we have terrabytes of material on incidents behind the curtain, because they actualy meet EVENT, because they actualy were notable, in the true sense, not the vague wave GNG sense being used for all the Western crashes (which is the real source of most SB issues on the pedia - elevating articles based on routine news junk in the Western world to the level of importance of what would make the standard of the encyclopoedic record elsewhere in the world). You want more time to do more digging on this article? Fine. Just don't use the Main Space as a development area. I'll vote on any article you might come up with after digging, using EVENT, as is perfeclty normal Wikipedia article develpopment practice. MickMacNee (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say, "making assertions of notability like 'biggest in Yemen'." MickMacNee (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 30 dead people, crashed airliner & the worst crash in Yemen. though I am not surprised that the english language coverage of this crash is less than what would have been the case had this happened in US. that is the origin of systemic bias on wp.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems like a notable event in a country... good sources... consider merging if there's nothing to add... Arskwad (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep would want to see better sources but I think we've got enough coverage by independent sources to establish notability. Something more in the same vein as the Flight article, rather than just an entry from some aviation incident database, would be very helpful. bobrayner (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable school group--all or almost all the references are from the local paper & similar sources. It's written like copyvio, but I did not find the source. I've tried editing it to make it less promotional and give it a chance, but they reverted me, saying , when I removed a list of their two dozen founders and officers, "no reason for removal of helpful list. Next time, please do it correctly". DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Is this article too local to be considered independent? Bongomatic 01:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an international group. It has chapters in the US and in other countries. It has built over five clinics in Africa and participated in global conferences. It is no meager school group. I will make the article less promotional. Once that is done, the article should stay. Thanks.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. Any more objections? Thanks.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 03:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK 08:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
relist rationale. There have been substantial changes made to the article that may or may not address the nominators concerns. The community needs to have another chance to look at a substantially different article before this can be closed. GedUK 09:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think the sources are a bit borderline but they do establish notability. This is an area where sourcing can be difficult - Kids Doing Something Worthy is local newspaper fodder but a lot of charitable work in Africa has very little web presence. bobrayner (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable company. Speedy deletion tags removed repeatedly, lastly by a new editor. Both editors are SPAs and only have edited this article, leaving a whiff of sockpuppetry, but I AGF for the moment. No indication of notability, no relibale third-party sources. Hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 08:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Crusio. I think need to involve South Africans in this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thapelomaloka (talk • contribs) 09:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence at all of notability, and somewhat promotional too. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More than a whiff of COI and self-promotion. Regardless, does not satisfy the notability requirements.--KorruskiTalk 14:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; doesn't seem to be notable. bobrayner (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ray William Johnson is a phenomenon on Wikipedia, no doubt about it. His article has been deleted as A7 and at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ray William Johnson) and subsequently as G4 so often, that it was salted. So now we are dealing with an article about his show and although I personally am more of an inclusionist, I fear there is no policy-based reason to keep this article as well. While his show might have a lot of subscribers, there is a lack of any substantial coverage in reliable sources. I found only: two short paragraphs in a German newspaper, one article in Norsk and a bunch of "YouTube's most watched videos of the week" links on The Independent, which just lists most viewed videos. Most of those trivial mentions don't even mention the name of the show, as you can see by this and this GNews searches that include the show's name in the search. We may reconsider Johnson himself as notable enough to warrant an article but I cannot find any coverage that would make his show be notable enough to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (web). Regards SoWhy 08:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems to me that you have only been redeleting Ray William Johnson only because previous administrators did. Well now, he is second most-subscribed on YouTube, and that enough should warrant an article. Why would you have a page on anyone on this list and not the second most popular person on the site? At Wikipedia:Notability (people) , under "Entertainers" it lists these requirements: (1) Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Ray has been in several different videos with other YouTube members, such as The Annoying Orange, Michael Buckley, etc, and of course you have articles for him; I'm not mentioning the show he does on his own. (2) Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 2 million + subscribers. (3) Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Ray's viral video reviewing has led to multiple Internet memes, some even listed on the page; such as Double Rainbow and the Scarface as a School Play. Now tell me, how does Merton have a large cult following? How has Kip Kay contributed to the field of entertainment? It seems quite obvious to me how Ray has influenced YouTube, much more so than the Laughing Baby.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 05:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am proposing this article for deletion, because there is insufficient coverage in reliable, third-party sources. To answer your objections: 1.) This discussion is about his show, not about him. 2.) See WP:BIG. 3.) Again, sources? Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Or, to sum it up: This discussion is not about Mr. Johnson nor is it relevant whether other subjects have articles. What is relevant is that this subject has not received any significant coverage at all which is what is required by our notability guidelines. If you can show us that such coverage exists, I would be happy to change my opinion. Regards SoWhy 16:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think it meets the criteria for deletion regarding notability, although it might be written like an advertisement. mechamind90 08:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article should NOT be deleted. As stated above, =3 is an important part of modern society. With more than 1.5 million followers on facebook, he is obviously significant. And yes the page is about the show, and not him, but nigahiga is not the name of the individuals, but rather their group, so it seems only natural that we keep this page. I can do significant work on it and and ad source if I really have to, but this article should definitely be kept. And also would somebody please remove the thing about it being like an advertisement. I really want to but I know I'll get in trouble. Skyeliam (Talk | Contributions) 15:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Skyeliam, the numbers of fans on Facebook is irrelevant. If you can't prove his notability with third party references, then you are certainly are not going to prove his notability with the number of fans he has on Facebook. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks extensive coverage by reliable sources, having a number of subscribers/ watchers is neither reliable nor notable.--Terrillja talk 14:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Strong Delete What makes this show notable? This article needs to be dumped. Once an article is deleted, it shouldn't respawn like it has. This article used to be called RayWilliamJohnson, but the article was deleted. Now it's come back! Just to remind you, Delete immediately and make it a strong one.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.79.52 (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)—Edited by 82.13.79.52 (talk) 08:40, 01 December 2010 (GMT)[reply]
Strong Delete May be popular on YouTube but outside of that there is little coverage of this show. Like above views and subs on YouTube does not equal notability. Kyle1278 20:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just want to say, yes, maybe on your policy it doesn't, but in real life, having two million plus subscribers does equal notability.--Architeuthidae (Talk | Contributions) 22:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If he is so notable in "real life" there should be no problem finding reliable source covering him. Kyle1278 02:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Both are not suitable references. If he or his show doesn't get coverage in third party reliable sources to show his or the shows notability, then that right there proves Ray William Johnson or "Equals Three" isn't notable. Seriously, what impact has he or his show made to make him notable? He just talks about videos that have something in common. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted. TNXMan 19:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax; cannot find any cartoon series by this title in the Hanna-Barbera library, or even for the supposed comic book (see this and this). Didn't tag as speedy because it isn't blatant (I do predict snowy conditions, however). Erpert(let's talk about it) 06:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, apparently a hoax. NotARealWord (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus for deletion on notability grounds, so default to keep. Several sources have been cited and could be integrated into the article. The disambiguation with respect to the mountain pass can be done editorially. Sandstein 06:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article I originally created a good while ago, before I really had much experience of WP:RS etc (and a new search finds pretty much the same sources as were available back then). It has been tagged for {{Notability}} since November 2008, so I think it is probably time for it to be reviewed so we can see what the consensus says. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about a klezmer band. Note that the article says that the head nomination band is named after the mountain pass through which Magyar tribes crossed into the Carpathian basin. I am unable to find that we have an article about this geographical feature, which probably merits one; and I tried all the variant spellings I could think of (Veretski, Veretsky, Verecki, Vereczi, Vereczy). If we have one somewhere, redirect. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to your comment, Smerdis: Yes, there is an article, it is Verecke Pass, where the "c" is used to stand for a "ts" sound, as is the case in Slovac and certain other Slavic languages that use a Latin-based alphabet.--Cata-girl (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I need a few more monkeys to do my typing for me. Since you'd assume that an article about "Veretski Pass" would be about a pass rather than a band, I'd suggest redirect to Verecke Pass then. If this band is notable enough for an article, that article should be at Veretski Pass (band), if only on account of historical priority; about that I have no strong opinion. I did find a number of reviews and such while googling, but I was distracted by the alphageographical mystery and did not check to see whether any of them looked like good sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the coverage they have recieved:
"Klezmer band to lead dance workshop at UI", 17 August 2008, The News-Gazette
"Where do they get those instruments?" by MELISSA MERLI, 18 February 2007, The News-Gazette
"'Music with a Jewish accent' ; Conservatory-trained trio to play Old World repertoire in Urbana" by MELISSA MERLI, 18 February 2007, The News-Gazette
"Making Music That Speaks to the Past" By LARY BLOOM, 4 March 2007, The New York Times
Some others I can't read but look all right:
"Weltklasse- Klezmer im Toggenburg" 11 March 2010, St. Galler Tagblatt
"Klezmermuziek tussen innovatie en traditie.", 27 November 2003, De Tijd
"«Wir lassen einfach weg, was uns nicht gefällt»", 8 March 2005, Fürther Nachrichten duffbeerforme (talk) 11:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to add any of those as references at appropriate places in the article? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 06:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article proves only that the person exists and was once a coach of a college level team. The one source verifies only that the person coached the team, and only in a table along with all other coaches from this school. Per WP:ATHLETE, a college athlete/coach must have one a national award, been inducted into a relevant hall of fame, or gained national media attention as an individual. Given that this person coached in 1897, it is highly unlikely we will be able to verify any of that and establish notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have bundled in 5 more recently created coach articles. Each of these stubs relies upon 1 and only 1 source, and that source is a single line (3 lines in the case of one of them) in a table. That includes no biographical information other than name. These are for seasons as short as 4 games, and no longer than 6. Previous stuck as I don't want anyone to think it's the number of games that is the issue Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC) This will not by itself qualify them under WP:GNG. And, as stated above, they don't meet any of the special circumstances of WP:ATHLETE. I can see that the creator of the articles is trying to build a "full history" of this college's coaches, but that simply isn't our purpose here. WP:NOT makes it clear that our purpose is to provide encyclopedic information, not to catalog every fact that ever listed. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extremely premautre nomination. These are head coaches of college football at the highest level. Professional football either did not exist at the time or was in its infancy. The guideline quoted above is not policy and is inclusionary, not exclusionary (see WP:ABELINCOLN). Head coaches of college football programs are considered notable by the college football project (WP:CFBN) and are normally found to be so when time-tested (WP:CFBWEST). Content provided is encyclopedic (albiet short) and articles are all valid stubs. Multitudes of other articles are repeatedly found to be notable under WP:GNG. There is a tremendous history of consensus here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting essay, that WP:CFBWEST (and the associated WP:CFBN), and one that I was not aware of. If those decisions established precedent in 2008, it is high time that such precedent be overturned. The subjects of these articles are not encyclopedic--the are about people who coached 4-6 games of a sport. Then articles provides no information other than the year they coached, their win/loss record, and derived rankings. That's the sports equivalent of WP:FANCRUFT. WP:ATHLETE is already very generous in carving out a wide exception to WP:GNG for many athletes under the presumption that "if the person meets one or more of these special, then they probably meet WP:GNG, even though we can't actually prove that they do." While that's more generous than I would like, I bow to the community's consensus on this issue. Why should the College Football Wikiproject be allowed to carve out a further exception, that, as far as I can tell, now says "all college football coaches are automatically notable?" Obviously, if one or more of these articles were to get further sourcing and evidence that the subjects did something unusual, were covered in national newspapers, are now regarded as important for historical reasons, etc., then they could stay. But the idea that the articles as written now deserve to be included in the encyclopedia seems to fly in the face of WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quesiton 1 If coaching 4-6 games is not "enough" to be notable, what number would be the threshhold? Please review WP:NOTBIGENOUGH before answering.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:NOTBIGENOUGH itself points out, the question is irrelevant. The only question that matters is whether they meet WP:GNG and/or WP:ATHLETE. Note that for college athletes/coaches, no exception is carved out based on number of games played. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response my point exactly. Please strike your comments on the number of games coached becasue those comments are irrelevant.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I will strike them. I didn't intend for them to be a reason, but I don't want to confuse anyone. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question 2 Rather than calling this "fancruft" (which is another way of saying "WP:IDONTLIKEIT"), what specifically about the article do you believe is unencyclopedic?--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is about a non-notable person, about whom we have verified a name, a win/loss record, and year(s) of coaching. WP:NOT (discussed in more detail below) and WP:N point out, in general terms, that inclusion in this encyclopedia requires some level of importance (usually, we use the term Notability). Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response Verification of the name is a good thing and not a reason to delete. Having statistics and years of active involvement in coaching in the article is a good thing and also not a reason to delete. What is left? As I understand your statement: your position is that the individuals are not notable because you believe college football coaches are not important--or at least not important enough for inclusion here. Am I correct on that?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am stating that my opinion is irrelevant--our notability policies, both WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE, state that being a college football coach is, by itself, not enough to establish notability. This is not to state that many college football coaches will not meet notability--many have and will continue to have multiple, non-trivial instances of coverage in reliable sources. What I think is notable is not relevant--just as what WP:CFBN thinks is notable is irrelevant. What matters is what the community has established as the mandatory minimum for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question 3 You admit that the articles have at least one source. How then do they not meet WP:V and/or how would that apply here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess pointing to WP:V is not perhaps as clear as pointing to WP:N and WP:NOT. It is correct that the information currently included is verified, presuming that the reference is a reliable source (I was AGF'ing that it was). What I was implying/thinking is that we will be fundamentally unable to verify anything more about these people, and thus we'll not be able to verify that these people are notable enough for inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response There are much more than likely many additional references available to verify. Many will be offline sources that will come together through colloaboration. In a matter of 20 minutes, I found a lot more information on one of the articles (noted in this discussion somewhere). It's not that other information isn't available, it's that the articles are so new that it hasn't been added yet.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question 4 There are ten specific points on content under WP:NOT. Rather than members of the community discussing all of them, would you please explain which point or points are violated by these articles and in what way?--Paul McDonald (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick glance, depending on how you interpret the exact words, either WP:NOTMEMORIAL or point 2 of WP:NOTDIR. Quoting from the first, "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements." Quoting from the second, "Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." As I have asserted above, these people do not meet notability requirements. Furthermore, they have not been, as far as is currently demonstrated, featured in several external sources. In fact, so far as we know now, they haven't been featured in any external sources--occupying a line or two on a large table does not qualify as being featured. Again, to be clear, should there be evidence that these people do meet the notability guidelines, then the articles that do can stay. If they don't now, but others in good faith claim they will in the future, then userfy them or move them to the Article Incubator unt
Response A/NOTMEMORIAL The pages in question are clearly not memorials of the coaches but the beginnings of articles about the coaches. You're using "NOTMEMORIAL" here in an attempt to artificially bolster a notability argument. You think the subjects are not notabale, I think they are. NOTMEMORIAL has nothing to do with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response B/NOTDIR #2 These articles are clearly not "Genealogical entries" either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I believe that we interpret policy by the whole of the document, in context; yes they're not specifically memorials or genealogical entries, but both parts, along with WP:N, tell us that article subjects must be notable. And your personal opinion on notability does not absolve you of the need to demonstrate that they are notable. Again, I mean no disrespect to your chosen editing field. As an outsider, I know nearly nothing about it. That's why we have notability guidelines to help determine when a subject is or isn't notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response again, my point exactly. This is a plain and simple notability issue and the discussion should be limited to that. The other arguments (NOTDIR, NOTMEMORIAL, V, and NOT) have no place here. On a separate note, I can appreciate your civility on this issue and find the discussion pleasant: we all want what's best for Wikipedia, and I enjoy your enthusiasm even if it differes from mine.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in about 20 minutes, I was able to find a good deal more information on Edward Fauver, including a photo. He coached for at least 8 seasons at three colleges/universities for at least 57 games. Nominator attempted to speedy the first article within two minutes of its creation, and this is evidince that such a move is premature. Wikipedia is far from complete and I'm going to bed. Cheers!--Paul McDonald (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize again (as I already did on your talk page) for the speedy nomination. It was wrong of me to do so. Nonetheless, I hold firm in the belief that notability requires immediate verification. This is no different than how we delete articles about random companies with no verification that they are notable. I agree that Wikipedia is far from complete--and I further believe that creating stubs like these is a step away from completion, not towards it. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On Edward Fauver--Great! I've struck that from the list above. I'm not sure if I should remove the AfD tag from the article or not (this is only the second or third time I've bundled Afds). Now you still have almost 7 days to source the rest or let them be incubated/userfied until such time as they can be sourced. Again, football coaches are not one of the small, special category of subjects that are automatically presumed notable (I'm thinking of settlements and taxa here that have that exception)--they, like any other article, the subject must be demonstrated notable to have an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First off, let me say that I think WP:NSPORTS is not that limiting regarding coaches; just about any coach of a top-level team nowadays (and in the past) is going to have sufficient coverage. The award and hall of fame criteria almost make it sound like a lot fewer coaches are notable than is actually the case. With my little rant over, I must say that I'm unsure that coaches from a Division III team (which Alma is) should be considered notable unless there's strong evidence of sources discussing them, though I don't know if they were competing at the top level in the early 1900s. My gut says to delete most and keep C. E. Woodruff, since he coached for a season at major-conference program Iowa State. The chances of finding sources for a coach of a big program are much greater than for one of a minor team; the media tends to focus on the big programs, and the coach probably did something notable for the big program to notice him and give him the job. Of course, if sources are found discussing the other coaches I would be more than happy to reconsider. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we're talking pre-1900's college football here: the NCAA didn't even exist until 1906.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all of these articles. Let's review a few facts. Between 1896 and 1932, Alma played Michigan State 31 times in football. They also played a number of other teams currently competing in NCAA Division I including Notre Dame (four times between 1913 and 1916). The current NCAA divisions were not created until 1973 and the NCAA had no class distinctions until at least 1937. The NFL was not founded until 1920. Thus, coaches like John H. Rice (American football) were effectively coaching at the highest level of play for the sport of American football. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all (and request that nominator withdraw C. E. Woodruff, as he coached Iowa State, which is a current highest division program). As for the others: Alma played Michigan State five times and Central Michigan three times in the five years covered by these coaches—both of which are currently highest level Division I FBS programs. There were no divisions at this time, and the NCAA predecessor, the IAAUS, was not created until 1906. The NFL did not form until 1922 (and even then was seriously small-time until the 1970s). During this early period, all college teams were in contention to be named national champions and have players named All-Americans by the prominent selectors of the era. Therefore, they were playing at the highest level of the sport. Strikehold (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of these fully sourced articles. College football during this era was the highest level of the sport and including these early coaches provides historical content that would otherwise be lost to antiquity. —J04n(talk page) 14:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Duffy was the starting fullback for the 1896 Michigan team that was one of the top teams in college football at that time. There was no NFL, and the top collegiate teams like Michigan, Wisconsin, Chicago, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton were the highest level of play. The article is also well-sourced, particularly for a player/coach of this era. And Woodruff was a head coach at a Division I school, Iowa State. Cbl62 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the entire nomination, given that the articles now appear to have sufficient sources to establish notability. I could make a full closing statement about my position, but I guess it doesn't really matter now and I'll just go on my way. If anyone wants to raise the issue of the nomination, feel free to do so on my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked Media Access Control, IEEE 802.11 and Mac address and found no mention of the term Lower MAC. Googling "Lower Mac networking" provides a four or five networking results before showing search results for cheap Macintosh computers. This seems like a pretty intricate detail that may not be notable in and of itself. At the very least, this article could use a lot more context, or perhaps belongs in one of those broader articles. D O N D E groovilyTalk to me 05:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom. Shadowjams (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyrighted, its a copy and paste job from it's reference: freepatentsonline.com Also as it is patented, it is probably a proprietary add-on to the IEEE 802.11 standard. Finally there are no sources available to correctly explain what this is. Mattg82 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as incomprehensible, and, before anyone accuses me of ignorance of the subject, I knew what a MAC address was before many Wikipedia editors were born. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, non-notable "internet sensation". Nakon 05:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know if the recent edtis by the IP are vandalism or not, but s/he removed alot of unreliable sources, fails notability of a person and recently is an unsourced BLP. TbhotchTalkC. 05:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite her numerous youtube productions, these themselves look to fail WP:N so the individual fails WP:ENT. Did find ONE mention of her in an article. And while she is quite active on the social forums, such activity does not equate to notability. Biggest issue, is that while the body of youtube work might itsellf be confirmed to the works themselves, there are no independent sources speaking aboutthe individual that could be used to source the article. This may well change in the future... but at the moment, I don't find it. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 11:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I don't know anything about adding comments to Wikipedia, nor much about JohnnyBoyXo. In fact I only came across her for her video for the "It Gets Better" campaign, where it's currently in the top 5 videos alongside John Berry, Justin Bieber and Pixar. This suggests to me that the article is worth keeping, even if it would benefit from a rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.24.216.19 (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable orphaned page, inadequately referenced BLP, appears to be advertising, loaded with peacock terms. No edits by creator since creation, appears to not be addressing tags Montanabw(talk) 05:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can back up this claim about him being an internationally-recognised authority in health care. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no evidence that he is notable. Google, Google Scholar, and Google News all bring up other people named Philip A. White, but not this physician. --MelanieN (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No real notability asserted for this British lieutenant. Most of the already brief article is about an evacuation, not him. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Every single mention of him I can find on Google is a direct copy of the WP article. It is even quoted verbatim in Convicting: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases. As far as I can see, the whole thing is based on one single mention of Thomas Crane in the book referenced in the article. In the absence of any other sources, it fails WP:BIO. As an aside, the comment at the bottom of the article about his alias seems highly dubious to me...--KorruskiTalk 14:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it smells hoaxy (although it is probably just a whiff of vandalism from the nickname) and fails WP:BIO. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The google books view of the mention in the one reference attests to his existence, but it is insufficient to tell whether this one reference supports any notability or draws on any other sources. Trove and the Australian Dictionary of Biography turn up pretty much nothing (which is usually a sign of a non-notable person). I'll check the copy of Punishment short of death: a history of the penal settlement at Norfolk Island in the Barr Smith Library the next time I have a chance (probably Monday) just to be sure, but at this point this looks like a comfortable delete. -- Lear'sFool 04:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the source, and the only mention of Crane in the entire book is a single sentence: "Lieutenant Thomas Crane of the 73rd Regiment was appointed 'caretaker' Commandant of Norfolk Island during its last year or two." This is attributed to a primary source in Australia's historical archives. This is the only mention to be found in a reliable source, and in no way indicates notability. -- Lear'sFoolsock 06:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While subject appears to have existed, sources show no more than that, with no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This seems to be a neologism, and a fringe view as well. Fails notability and not a dictionary requirements. Also merge discussion has been open for 3 years. Jaque Hammer (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Extropy was copied or moved into Extropianism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
It appears that the page was already merged to Extropianism. Redirect and speedy close of this AfD seems appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a likely hoax. Only online mentions of a highwayman of that name are on Wikipedia mirrors. On Google Books, there are references to a religious author of that name active about 100 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was immediately tagged as a possible hoax when it was created nearly five years ago. Perhaps an editor more experienced than I am can explain why it has taken so long to deal with this? Cullen328 (talk)
I only spotted it as an issue recently, oddly enough as a spin-off from some disputes which arose when Dick Turpin was the FA a few days ago. I prodded it but was turned down on the grounds that there was already a contested prod in the history, but stuck to my guns. PatGallacher (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into this further. The person who created this article only ever made 2 edits, the other was to the article's talk page, which also has a hoaxy look to it. The person who contested the prod back in 2006, Karatloz, appears to have a record of controversial editing, and was briefly blocked at one time, but has not made any edits since 2008, and there is no important page where his pages are the latest edit. PatGallacher (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Massively WP:UNDUE, there is no Reason to have a list of episodes when the main article cannot sufficiently cover it. The Main Article barely scrapes WP:FILM and WP:WEB thus this does not need a stand alone list. Not to mention the "Seasons" delineation is 100% OR cant find anything on the Channel or the Few RS that exist that make the distinction. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons, plus the article is completely unsourced. Bob A (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but edit. The division into seasons admittedly can't be specifically shown (because there was never a specific season finale). However, that's the only major problem with the page. If this isn't notable, then why does Fred Figglehorn have its own episode page? More importantly, how does any television series have its own episode page? Keep, remove the season delineations, and better patrol the page. --173.54.210.91 (talk) 10:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Personally I think that those pages should be deleted as well. See wp:other stuff exists. Bob A (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me add this. It might seem non-notable, but if you notice what's happened over the years here, it seems that the Wiki has episode lists (and of course, in some cases pages on specific episodes such as Family Guy, The Simpsons, Seinfeld) for shows/webseries that have become so popular it becomes at least quasi-necessary for it to have at least a list. In the case of Annoying Orange, IMO it falls in the above category. As far as the episodes being tracked and counted, I've taken on the large responsibility of cataloging said episodes so there's not a lot of need to worry on that front (the only worry is from the people who continually add false information to the page). If there was an Annoying Orange related page that needed to be deleted, it would be this one. The unencyclopedic content issues that some are claiming to plague the episode page are definitely a problem here, as it keeps an unnecessary running tally of characters that made one appearance before being killed off. --173.54.210.91 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. I regard that as regrettable, but others will think differently. Bob A (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in general, not in the context of this discussion. Bob A (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yes I have seen them, no this is not notable enough for an encyclopedia. The only references that can be found are from youtube which is an unreliable source on wiki. Merge to The Annoying Orange After reading Ckatz's comment youtube looks to be okay here, the problem is secondary sources there and I do not feel that this is ready for it's own article yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, but edit It's important to have a list of Annoying Orange episodes, especially those who never watched the series before, but it needs editing. 82.13.79.52 (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC) (I made sure I didn't forget to sign this message)[reply]
Keep, possibly merge to main article. Sufficient notability, not sure why we're questioning YouTube as a reference source in this particular case as it is being used to confirm the content of a YouTube-based series. --Ckatzchatspy
Maybe we should keep the article but attach some sources to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.26.118 (talk) 18:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A chain of fast-food restaurants limited to a single town. Article makes no assertion of notability. All three secondary sources are from a local newspaper; two of them are puff pieces, and the third doesn't establish notability. Bob A (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSnow keep - if the chain has indeed been existiant since 1923, that is slightly notable in the (pun fully intended) dog-eat-dog restauraunt world. - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 04:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - this is a major chain of restaurants in the fourth-largest city in America. Houston's population exceeds many entire states. It is notable in the fact that it is one of the first major hot dog vendors in the city, and is still the case. It would be like eliminating Grandy's. Although the Houston Chronicle is a local paper, it has the 9th-largest circulation in the United States. More notability can be established I'm sure. Brian Reading (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep in mind that the fact that other articles exist does not establish notability for this article. Bob A (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet looked into the notability of James Coney Island, but I would point out that this is a world-wide project, so to the vast majority of editors the statement that deleting this "would be like eliminating Grandy's" is pretty meaningless, as we haven't heard of either Grandy's or James Coney Island. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Major chain restaurant.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are enough 3d party, reliable references to establish notability of this 87+ year old restaurant. Being confined to one city is itself no bar to inclusion in the encyclopedia. GeoffWho, me? 17:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most of article is sourced, even if to primary sources. Would otherwise rather redirect to Dragonlance than delete, as any independent sources found in the future could be added. BOZ (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is not just a matter of finding the right sources. The problem is this is a WP:CONTENTFORK of the plot already covered at the main Dragonlance article. Which sources about the franchise belong at the main article and which sources belong here? The answer is the exact same sources, indicating we shouldn't have two articles about the same thing here. And this article should be the one to go, since it's exclusively about the plot, which is what wikipedia is WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is essentially the same thing as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors. The main differences in the articles are that this one uses a list, not table, format, and that this one only includes Jewish-American entries under the broader "entertainers" category, rather than just actors.
The arguments here are slightly different than those made in the other AfD. The main concern raised here was that the intersection of Jewish Americans and entertainers is not notable. Several sources were presented to show that there has indeed been coverage about Jews and their role(s) in the entertainment industry, but it was not conclusively shown the the sources do more than identify Jewish actors/entertainers rather than show the notability of the actual intersection (i.e., the importance of Jewish American entertainers to the entertainment industry). In addition, this did not address other concerns.
The article is not organized well, with poorly-defined criteria for inclusion. While AfD is not for cleanup, and the article was fairly well-sourced, legitimate concerns were raised about the definition of "Jewish American" (as a strictly religious term, or one that also has ethnic/nationality/cultural connotations) as well as the scope of "entertainer". The former definition would deal with WP:BLPCAT, which does (as Mkativerata explains here) apply to lists and other forms of categorization, whether in the category namespace or not. As in that AfD, there is no consensus here on whether Judaism should be judged as more than just a religion and therefore whether it should be subject to BLPCAT. However, this alone does not warrant deletion.
The issue of maintaining the list and its potential for BLP issues is a relatively minor one considering the scope of this AfD. The issues surrounding the sourcing and organization of the article are not significant enough for deletion based on them alone (which would be a rare occasion at any rate).
Given the lack of a conclusive establishment of why this intersection is notable, as well as considering the very relevant decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors, it seems like consensus leans more to delete than not existing. Due to the canvassing allegations, it took a fairly long examination of this debate for me to reach this conclusion, and I apologize if I missed an argument someone felt was significant. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable intersection, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, where the intersection is addressed by many reliable secondary sources. By its very nature, this list is a never-ending WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V-violation magnet. I'm also trying to address the larger, systemic issue here; Wikipedia is littered with dozens of these lists, most of which suffer from the same issues; so why do the least problematic of them create such angst, while the most problematic are not seen as a concern? This needs to be addressed in a broad, not narrow, way. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Delete - Comment: Not that I disagree with this nomination but... aren't we cherry-picking here? These pages are not unlike the Nobel Prize list at all. You can probably find more external reading about Jewish American entertainers than Jewish Nobel Prize laureates by a mile. I don't understand why you're using it as an example of a "good list" when all these lists have the same inherent problem -- they synthesize relationships where there are none. It's passive original research. Unless everybody on this list is somehow related to Yiddish theatre or Jewish comedy... their Judaism has no bearing on their careers as entertainers (though conspiracy theorists will have us believe otherwise). Simply because "Look Who's Jewish!" cites somebody as a Jew, doesn't mean we are encyclopedically BOUND to report that, and that applies equally to the Nobel Prize list. Bulldog123 02:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused; if this list is "not unlike the Nobel Prize list at all", then why aren't you !voting to delete here, but are there? Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am here, but I'm just stressing that I don't agree with your particular nomination rationale for this one. A "lack of secondary sources" is not the problem if this list were actually about Jewish forms of entertainment (i.e., Yiddish theatre). I say delete for the reasons listed above, and because this list (as well as List of Jewish actors) ends up being little more than a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Bulldog123 02:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Violation WP:POINT "When one becomes frustrated with the way a policy or guideline is being applied, it may be tempting to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof by, in one's view, enforcing it consistently... Such tactics are highly disruptive and can lead to a block (possibly indefinite) or ban. Wikipedia is not perfectly consistent, and its rules are not a code of law. Issues with rules or practices should be addressed through plain discussion, not through irony or making a game of it." There is no serious suggestion here that WP editors should debate the article mentioned, the nominator is merely trying to make a point about a different AfD he does not like.betsythedevine (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC) As Jayiq asserts that this is a sincere nomination, I am redacting what was my original belief, that he created it to make a WP:POINT.betsythedevine (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to have to say that that's utter nonsense. This AfD is in perfectly good faith, about an article that obviously discusses a non-notable intersection. And I notice that you didn't make the same claim when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was also discussed on the other AfD page, and subsequently nominated for deletion. Please redact your untrue comment, discuss whether you think List of Jewish American entertainers should exist, and please act with more personal consistency in the future. Jayjg (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in this nomination pro or con. From my limited knowledge, religious intolerance once segregated Jewish from "mainstream" entertainers--so being Jewish could well have impacted the entertainment careers of many. I would hope that the article uses some sensible rule about who is Jewish and who is not. I would hope the article shows respect for the wishes of living people at least by making self-identification a test for whether someone is Jewish. But this article is far outside my interests and experience. betsythedevine (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd how you have such a detailed knowledge of, interest in, and vehement opinions about Jewish Nobel Prize winners, but none whatsoever about Jewish American entertainers. One would have thought your lengthy assertions about policy regarding the Jewish Nobel Prize winner list, particularly in relation to BLP, would be equally of concern to you here. Isn't everyone deserving of the same BLP protection? These continuing inconsistencies are troubling. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd how you consider my invocation of policy about WP:POINT as a personal attack, but don't consider it a personal attack to throw around speculative comments about my motivation and the shocking inconsistency that I fail to edit many articles that might have BLP issues. You can see from my contribution list that I often edit articles of scientists, rarely those of entertainers. My interest in List of Jewish Nobel laureates originated in the repeated efforts by some to use it to tag Andre Geim as unmodifiedly "Jewish." To clear up another matter that seems to trouble you, I remembered reading a Feynman statement that seemed apropos and was gratified to find it today as the first google hit for "Feynman Judaism." betsythedevine (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've neither made any comments about your motivation, nor claimed that it is a "schocking inconsistency that [you] fail to edit many articles that might have BLP issues". I've also never felt nor expressed any "trouble" about the "matter" of Feynman's statement. I read your comments with increasing dismay, because it almost seems as if you've just skimmed my comments, picking out individual words, without actually trying to understand what I've actually written. Falsely claiming I made this nomination as a WP:POINT is a violation of three policies, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. For what I'm really hoping is the last time, please redact that claim. Jayjg (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These lists are a headache. This one is huge, badly organised, dozens or even hundreds of entries are unreferenced ... and which reliable source would compile a list along those principles? Where is the notability of this list concept; how many lists like this exist out there in published sources? It's cruft. --JN466 12:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates BLPCAT, EGRS, and per Jayjg.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator's arguments. This is yet another dreadful list that should not exist - even if it could somehow be salvaged in part (and I don't think it can), we'd have to have people monitoring it all the time or admit that we can't enforce our BLP policy, let alont NOR, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this were a list of red-linked non-notables, I might agree with the nominator. But the shear number of blue-links would seem indicative of this list being A) properly sourced and sourcable and B) specifically encouraged by the caveats at WP:LIST. Not wishing to list such notables for our reader's easy navigation does not improve the encyclopedia. And no, I am not Jewish. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 22:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Would be more viable if there were an independent article on the topic. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete long and ungainly list that's just as non-notable an intersection as List of Jewish actors. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the wind on this one. Is there a category "Jewish-American entertainers" ? Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to single out Jewish notables in this recent spat of various list deletions. Per established precedent for such lists of notable individuals, as clarified in WP:SAL, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTPEOPLE, this list is specifically per applicable policies and guidelines and serves the project and its readers. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with the exception that I do think that the Nobel Laureates list ought to be deleted as well and see no difference between the two lists. I'm not sure why an ongoing different AfD is mentioned in this one.Griswaldo (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Non-trivial intersection and perfectly allowable under WP:SALAT. What on earth is happening here? Did everyone drink the kool-aid? The criteria for allowable lists are immensely broad, and this one has a clearly defined scope and addresses an area of significant academic interest, namely the role of people of Jewish extraction in the American entertainment industry. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong Keep There are sufficient sources both for individuals and for the general concept. In addition to the ones in the article, there is Jews and American popular culture. / Vol. 1, Movies, radio, and television and Jews and American popular culture. / Vol. 2, Music, theater, popular art, and literature both by Paul Buhle; (Praeger, 2006.) , from a a major social science publisher, There are varying definitions of Jewishness , and the article should therefore being inclusive of sll of them, either self identification, or multiple RSs, not all of which can be Jewish. But that is the reason why the can be a list of notabler entertainers who are jewish--either by religion, ethnicitity, on otherwise, according to their own self-definition or the definitions of other reliable sources . It is every bit as justifiable a list as List of French entertainers or List of French canadian entertainers--two articles that seem to be missing. . The proof of importance othe intersection is that books are written about it. (I think binary intersections for ethnicities and professions do not need proof-- List of Jewish entertainers no more needs proof than List of American Entertainers, but this is a triple intersextion, and we have to show its distinction in the real world. I find it exceedingly strange that we do not have these articles either. there is a great reluctance here to use ethic or national categories for people--and I am at a loss to account for it. Is this a sort of hyper-political correctness, which hopes that all such distinctions should not be talked about, in the presumed hope they will disappear. That's a very narrow view of the world, and, I would say, a biased one. Ethnic and national differences are a very real part of the world and a matter in which we can all take considerable satisfaction, not something we need be ashamed of or avoid. This sort of list is a traditional component of encyclopedias , and we would look very strange without them. I see two editors above arguing about which ethnic group deserves and article here and which does not, One wants Chinese but not Jewish, one just the opposite. These are expressions not of reasoned positions, but of conscious or unconscious bias . This is the most multicultural of all projects,and we should have learnt by now to rise above this sort of old-fadhioned quarrel, and to include every such combination of which there are sufficient people and decent sources. ~comment by:DGG (talk | contribs) 04:07, November 30, 2010
Keep, per previous user. JackJud (talk) 09:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, criteria #6, which states that: "Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." This article is an almost exact fit for "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", where religious group X = American Jews and organization Y = entertainers. This is not the same as List of French entertainers, because that is a list organized by nationality, not religion. Judaism is not a nationality. SnottyWongconverse 17:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly covered in in Secular Jewish culture though that article could do with some extension on influences on and from western culture. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia should not be placing people into subjective and potentially contentious ethnic or religious categories. Doing so is against the spirit of WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument". Also, I am particularly interested in Nick's view.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Broccoli (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Jews as an ethnicity and nation. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3]
Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. In addition to the other points presented above, this is one that militates in favor or a !keep.
Keep. Per above keeps, and my above comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Israel is a country. Judaism is a religion. Judaism is not a country. There is no country called Judaism on the map. You cannot obtain citizenship in the country of Judaism. There may have been a Jewish nation 2,000 years ago, but there isn't one today. This is why we don't have a List of Czechoslovakian entertainers, because Czechoslovakia no longer exists. The Jewish diaspora is not a sovereign nation with a government. It is a way of describing Jews who live outside of Israel. Let's not get bogged down with semantics. List of French entertainers is not the same as List of Jewish American entertainers. SnottyWongyak 18:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you want to argue that there is a "Jewish nation", there is certainly not a "Jewish American" nation, which is what would have to exist in order for your argument to be relevant to the discussion about this particular article. SnottyWongspill the beans 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It is perfectly standard to have such intersections -- no reasearch is needed; see even some of the lists reflected earlier on this page.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs a lot of work particularly in sourcing and I don't see the point of duplicating the work of List of Jewish Actors it would make more sense to add a nationality column to that article and hatnote it from here. Comedians and Singer/Songwriters could be forked into their own article and similarly hatnoted. Per Epeefleche and JackJudDGG, Jewish cultural subjects behave a lot more like national cultural subjects rather than comparative religious or ethnic subjects, we allow national groupings for cultural groupings so Jewish grouping should be Equally acceptable. per my references on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors most media/Jewish cultural intersections are notable for their connection with Jewish culture and worth having an article listing. Jewish culture acts as a head article though it may need some work it's self. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who has been canvassed by Epeefleche to participate in this AfD should come forward to quell suspicion. Bulldog123 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
he asked me on my user talk p., as anyone can see. I think I am taking a different and much stronger position than he probably expected. I am doing so not in response to him, but to what I think of the arguments and pointyness of those trying to delete a large group of encyclopedic content. This accusation seems a red herring--I do not think any oif the people listed above have commented here. The people who have commented here are noted mainly for their participation in topics about Judaism , or about lists, taking various positions, just as is desirable at a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I heard from him on my talk page and I had already weighed in here - frankly I was a little annoyed to see his message this am...Modernist (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche has a long history of canvassing attempts. He targeted you specifically because he knew your position on these types of AfDs. Whether you would have found this AfD with or without his help is irrelevant. The point is... he did canvass you in bad faith - and there's a strong likelihood he canvassed others (especially long-dormant editors who seem to be popping up and !voting). Bulldog123 04:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've not canvassed. Your uncivil accusations are a violation of wp:agf and wp:civil. And, of course, it is noteworthy that the only editors other than me to have commented at all the Jewish-list-AfDs are you, Snotty, and Jayjg--with 17 delete !votes and 1 keep !vote among the three of you. And of course, when it comes to notifying delete !voters of these AfDs, apparently Bull has been active -- somewhat curiously, precisely the sort of activity he accuses me of. But I'll be happy to leave all editors editing/who edited related AfDs a note about related on-going AfDs so that that is clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Bulldog123, you'd better re-read WP:CANVAS. Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates you wrote "User DGG is an example of active canvassing. User:DGG is notorious for being an inclusionist." Epeefleche's question to that editor was appropriate in its being limited, nueutral, non-partisan, and open... no matter how you personally might wish to declare it. But yes, DGG is certainly "notorious" alright... but for being respected, reasonable, and neutral... even if seen as inclusionist. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epeefleche, I think Bulldog 123 behavior speak volumes for itself-from my point of view it's not only uncivil or matter of not assuming good faith, it also consist personal attack. --Gilisa (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - Epeefleche actually notified 65 editors on their talk pages about all of these jewish-list-related AfD's. I have posted a notice on his talk page asking for an explanation. This AfD is hopelessly tainted (as are all of the other ones), and should be automatically relisted at a later date in the hopes that an unbiased consensus can be determined. SnottyWongverbalize 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A neutral notification sent out for balance only after the notice and accusation by Bulldog123 had been placed in all those same related discussions... and only to those who had opined in other related "List of Jewish" discussions. It is clear that for the sake of neutrality the notice was not "targeted" to any one mindset, nor was it accusatory or inflamatory, but was sent to editors equally, no matter their likelyness to !vote delete or keep. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list is at over 230k long. This is an obvious case of very poorly defined scope of an article. Even ignoring the problems with correctly identifying each entry as having Jewish ethnicity, then with listing the entries where not just the grandfather was Jewish (but also the person listed actively cares and/or is aware of his ancestry), there would still be the problem of having a 1000+ entries long, essentially infinite list. Nergaal (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the normal course, Wikipedia has an approach for addressing the issue of long pages, outlined in Wikipedia:Article size, which is to split the article into two or more smaller pages. Page size issues are not generally fixed by deleting the page.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entertainment does not have a separate category for Jewish people and who should be considered Jewish is unclear. TFD (talk) 10:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't believe most of the reasons counted for why deleting such categories is more than POV. I do however suggest not to list in this categories people of partial Jewish ancestry in order to avoid disputes-though the criteria is self identification. I also think there is problem of listing in this category people who are not Jewish by the Jewish law.--Gilisa (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me share something from AussieLegend's user page:
Racial and Religious categories are A Bad Thing. After seeing disputes and arguments over whether certain chess players really are Jewish or not (especially when said players don't make a big deal of their religion or ethnicity themselves), I've come to the conclusion that racial and religious categories (like "Jewish chess players") are A Bad Thing. And the same goes for ethnic categories. For the purposes of Wikipedia, I don't care what race or religion a person is(*), unless it directly relates to their field (a Jewish theologians category, for instance, is quite appropriate). The categories seem to only exist for racial and religious point scoring ("See how many eminent people in field X belong to my race/religion!")
Well, you used the magic words "racial" and "religious" and of-course added "categories" and now surely it's bad thing. Well, I think generalizations like you did are bad thing, I think it's somewhat and without intention demagogic and avoid any real and in depth argument. You are right that there are those who say "well there are more people in certain category of ethnicity X than of ethnicity Y. But the purpose of the categories as I see it is not to tell who have more. It's informative categories after all, like categories of people from certain city. Also, please keep in mind that more than 90% of the ethnic categories get to AfD regard Jew. Not English, Germans or anything else-Jews almost only, and that's really strange and bad thing.--Gilisa (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please keep in mind that more than 90% of the ethnic categories get to AfD regard Jew. Not English, Germans or anything else-Jews almost only, and that's really strange and bad thing. That's because 90% of Jewish lists on wikipedia get transformed into POV-pushing ethnic-pride-and-Jewish-cultural-promotion pages by over-zealous users. Also because Jewish lists appear to be the only ones that exist: List of German American entertainers, List of English American entertainersBulldog123 08:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have concrete evidence of this? --Confession0791talk 21:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, this functions both as a navigational sublist (i.e., index) of notable Jewish Americans by occupation, and also furthers the topic of Jewish Americans in American culture; their distinct contributions have been recognized at length (see, e.g., DGG's comment above for sources), so the claim that this is an "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" is unfounded and has been rebutted. That a prose article has not yet been written is irrelevant, both because it could be and because it doesn't have to be for the list to be permissible; instead the list could be viewed as an aid to writing such an article. So I see no valid reason to delete this at all. postdlf (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard Feynman and both the impossibility and unimportance of defining who is and isn't Jewish.--KorruskiTalk 14:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the Feynman red herring, and Bobby Fischer. I believe the entire Feynman discussion is a red herring. Bobby Fischerrenounced his American citizenship. He is listed and categorized as an American on Wikipedia. As well he should be under wiki guidelines, because at one point he was American. We don't in knee-jerk fashion say to ourselves: "Gosh, Fischer would if he were alive be upset to be called American -- let's therefore delete all American lists from Wikipedia! That is tantamount to some of what has been suggested on this page. The way we handle such issues is on a case-by-case, individual fashion. We don't kill the patient to stop the pain of it's hangnail.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can actually buy the idea of a list of Jewish entertainers, as that has often been discussed. But a triple intersection of religion/ethnicity, nationality and occupation? That might well be pushing it too far. Resolute 15:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would arguably be indiscriminate if it lumped together all Jewish entertainers from all cultures and countries, juxtaposing a Jewish American comedian with a French Jewish actor or whatever. But Jewish Americans are a distinctive cultural group, and their contributions to the American entertainment industry (and the relevance of those contributions to the Jewish American experience) are well recognized. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
!Vote.
"List of African Americans" between quotes on Wikipedia search finds 281 articles.[80] 281
"List of Jewish" between quotes on Wikipedia search, shows 431 results.[81]
Listing people by nation gives thousands of results in some cases. Not sure why people feel the need to put themselves or others into any such categories at all, but it is covered in books and the news media, so I say Keep. DreamFocus 15:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, they also have awards ceremonies just for various ethnic groups, and these are considered notable awards, and covered in the mainstream media even. DreamFocus 15:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and WP:SPLIT), per WP:GNG which states 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 or stand-alone list, and per DGG, who has shown that this topic has received said coverage. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fail to see how a list of entertainers can be regarded a BLP violation. Yes, it is sourced. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they had notable awards for that, and the news media covered it, then that'd be fine. Remember, articles exist on subjects covered by the media or which people agree are notable. You only need one of those, not both. DreamFocus 22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- WP:ListPeople; application to nationality/ethnicity; 556 references. As WP:LISTPEOPLE indicates with regard to "nationality/ethnicity" -- "List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania. The criteria for identifying as an Albanian does not solely depend upon the official citizenship laws of that country – a person could be related to the place by birth, residency, parentage, or by his or her personal admission, considers himself or herself to be an Albanian at heart."
I would also note that this article has an astonishing 556 references. It is one of the best-sourced lists we have at the Project, both in number of references and in terms of references demonstrating amply the focus of RSs on this intersection, and consequently its inherent notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... we don't need to list them anywhere. If their Judaism is known, they will simply have a category. If their Judaism has a bearing on their careers, then they will have a list. What point am I missing here? Bulldog123 08:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will find many of the points you seem to be missing within the guideline Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. "Wikipedia offers several ways to group articles: categories, lists (including embedded lists, like lists included in See also sections), and navigation templates (of which article series boxes are one type). The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages ... these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. ... Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap. ... arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your sole argument for retention of this list is "Do it because it doesn't say we can't." The list has been around for over three years with nobody there to clean-up or change it. That's really all I need to point out. Bulldog123 18:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I can speak for all of the many hundreds of editors of this list over the past six years when I wish you all the very best in your post-Wikipedia endeavors now that you have finally pointed out all that you really need to point out. Perhaps you will find other uses for your great talent of putting falsehoods in boldface. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is also interesting and informative. Davshul (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments of nominator, Jayjg. Yworo (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator! The AFD stats thing at the top of the AFD isn't working right. [84] Some people are listed as both Delete and Keep, even though they only say keep in the article. I see two names that stand out right away. No way anyone is going to read through all of this anyway, so I assume the AFD stats at the top will be used to judge consensus. DreamFocus 18:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see any point repeating myself, even if this nomination appears to be a cut-and-paste from a related nomination of Jewish actors. But in short, this is notable subject in its own right because of the relationship between Judaism and the American entertainment industry, and entertainment and Jewish culture. There are plenty of sources for that, including books on the subject.[85][86][87] So it is hardly a meaningless or random intersection. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a reasonably narrow and notable topic, well suited for a list treatment. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this "semi-retired user" had just recently been introduced to this AfD by User:Epeefleche's massive WP:CANVASSing campaign: [88]Bulldog123 19:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you check my contrib record, you'll see that I have been fairly actively editing in the last several months - but even if I had not, what's wrong with being semi-retired anyway? Yes, Epeefleche left a message at my talk page, which I did think was a case of canvassing and I wish he hadn't done that. But with the amount of drama at ANI surrounding Epeefleche's block, it would have been hard not to notice this topic anyway. Plus, as Stuart Jamieson noted below, even before Epeefleche's misguided canvassing campaign started, I had already participated in the Jewish Nobel Laureates AfD so this bru-ha-ha was already on my radar screen. By the way, just earlier today, I !voted "delete" in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors, so I am not beholden to any single position on the matters of these lists AfDs. I have been on Wikipedia for quite a while, wrote quite a few articles and have more than four times as many total edits than you. I should think that my opinion counts here as much as anyone else's. Nsk92 (talk)
Please take any further comments about Epeefleche's messages to ANI or start a RFC/U. "Semi-Retired" is not retired Nsk92 had already !voted on Jewish Nobel Laureates [89] before Epeefleche sent his messages and also !voted on chinese nobel laureates mentioned there (as are actors and entertainers) and not in Epeefleche's message. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flagrantly canvassed users should be pointed out. Just because he visited the Nobel Prize list, doesn't mean he'd visit this list, Stuart. Not saying your opinion isn't valid either, Nsk, but your reason for deleting Jewish actors (QUOTE: too broad in scope, better suited to be treated as a category rather than a list. - Nsk92[90]) is completely incongruoent with your reason for keeping this list. This list is even more broad and actually CONTAINS a huge swatch of Jewish actors. Basically, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever -- which should be pointed out too -- as it appears disingenuous. Bulldog123 07:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Entertainer" is simply far too broad and generic a label IMO. We're pretty much in a List of things territory here. Tarc (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This group of people have great notability. For example, see the Encyclopedia of American Jewish History which has dozens of pages in its chapter on American Jews in Entertainment and Popular Culture. This contains numerous sub-sections such as American Jewish Women Entertainers, American Jews and Science Fiction, American Jewish Comedians, &c. The contention that such categories are improper and lacking in notability is thus shown to be false. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing in accordance with our editing policy and so there is no case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let's take a few quotes from your sources... shall we? From the latter, we have material like: "...George Jessel retained a Jewish persona on radio, they were less successful than those like Jack Benny, who did not. Jessel spoke rapidly in a recognizably Jewish accent and talked about urban subjects. Despite his table marriage to a Jew and his ongoing relationship with the Jewish community, Benny managed to avoid being widely perceived as Jewish by carefully eschewing Jewish accents or jokes..." and "...Chaplin, was not, however, the first actor to portray Hitler on film. That honor belongs to Moe Howard of the Three Stooges. The three Jewish comedians who made up the Stooges starred in three anti-Nazi films, beginning with You Nazty Spy in 1940. The Stooges smuggled Yiddish into their films..." Please explain what that has to do with Scarlett Johansson, David Blaine, Katie Couric, and the band Anthrax (band). Bulldog123 00:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The claim that Jews dominate Hollywood is a notable conspiracy theory. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let that one speak for itself. Bulldog123 07:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
The headcount here seems to lean slightly to keep, but when all the bolded "keeps" and "deletes" are set aside and the arguments examined from an objective standpoint, there is a consensus to delete. As I said in the other AfD, examining the arguments is particularly important here given the partisanship of the debate and the evidence of large scale canvassing (whether the canvassing was policy compliant or not).
The primary argument raised for deletion by the nominator was that the list was based on a non-notable intersection between Jews and acting. The notability argument was responded to in the following ways:
The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles. This was pointed out to be a bare assertion without any reference to reliable sources.
The large number of references to the article demonstrated notability. This was pointed out to be misleading because the sources merely confirm the Judaism of individual entrants on the list; they do not cover the actual intersection between Judaism and acting.
Accordingly, the claim that this intersection is notable was refuted.
The non-notability arguments were supported by a number of editors who raised the similar WP:NOTDIR argument, which talks about an intersection between two categories being a "culturally significant phenomenon". No-one addressed this. The only response from the keep side was that the fact of having a wikipedia article overcomes NOTDIR. I could not find support for this view in policy: no reliable sources were presented to demonstrate that Jews in the acting profession was a culturally significant phenomenon and thus not a non-encylopaedic or non-notable cross-categorisation.
I should point out that concerns about the maintenance of the list and the definition of "Jew" carried less weight. These weren't shown to be irresolvable problems requiring deletion of the list.
Accordingly, by reference to the views and arguments of the participants in this debate and relevant policies and guidelines, the consensus was to delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I made this edit shortly after to the closing statement to correct a counting error and provide an additional explanation.
Non-notable intersection, unlike Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, where the intersection is addressed by many reliable secondary sources. By its very nature, this list is a never-ending WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V-violation magnet. I'm also trying to address the larger, systemic issue here; Wikipedia is littered with dozens of these lists, most of which suffer from the same issues; so why do the least problematic of them create such angst, while the most problematic are not seen as a concern? This needs to be addressed in a broad, not narrow, way. Jayjg (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Jayjg (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Delete 1) This list is a constantly escalating WP:BATTLEGROUND and suffers from numerous WP:BLP issues. 2) I disagree that lists should be treated separate from categories in regard to this policy: "Inclusion must be specifically relevant to at least one of the subject's notable activities and an essential part of that activity, but is not required to be an exclusive interest. Moreover, inclusion is not transitive to any other activity. (For example: a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances.)" i.e., Unless this list is about individuals who participated in Yiddish theatre or some form of Jewish comedy, it is not a RELEVANT intersection. Bulldog123 02:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD is a clear violation of WP:POINT, the nominator is merely trying to make a point about a different AfD he does not like. Posting this AfD notice on the article in question will also serve to canvass supporters of List of Jewish actors to come and !vote against the AfD for List of Jewish Nobel laureates. betsythedevine (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Redacting, in the interests of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF my earlier claim that this article was created to make a point; the nominator asserts that it is sincere. betsythedevine (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to have to say that that's utter nonsense. This AfD is in perfectly good faith, about an article that obviously discusses a non-notable intersection. And I notice that you didn't make the same claim when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates was also discussed on the other AfD page, and subsequently nominated for deletion. Please redact your untrue comment, discuss whether you think List of Jewish actors should exist, and please act with more personal consistency in the future. Jayjg (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already explained to you, this AfD is entirely sincere. Falsely claiming I made this nomination as a WP:POINT or WP:CANVASS is a violation of three policies, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. In addition, it's a violation of common sense; why on earth could this nomination "canvass" people to !vote in another AfD? If you read through my lengthy comments on the List of Jewish actors Talk: page and archive, you'll see that I have been expressing the same concerns about this list for months now; and, in fact, have been promoting the exact same inclusion criteria there that I promoted on the List of Jewish Nobel Laureates. Unlike those who are trying to delete Jewish lists because they're annoyed one specific individual is included on them, I'm trying to solve systemic issues, and I really do want this article to be deleted. I wouldn't have nominated it otherwise. Now, for what I'm really hoping is the last time, please redact your claims, and actually assume good faith. Jayjg (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Whilst I understand the nominators reasons, he has been the biggest contributor to cleaning up the article and appears to have come to the conclusion that the job is too big to manage; however I have to disagree with the nomination.1) compared to other Jewish categories this hardly a WP:Battleground only two heated debates in the 4 years the article has existed both were resolved in good faith and neither formed a revert war. 2) This is not a non-notable intersection The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles, this is the definition of a notable intersection. Some editors would like to make this more specific limiting entry to those who have performed in Jewish Theatre for instance, however WP:EGRS says "a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances." note it does attempt to limit this to LGBT cabaret musical compositions but any LGBT composition or performance which could exist within a non-LGBT concerto or Show, this should be the same for any Jewish acting performance of Jewish relevance even within an non-Jewish centric film or play. I'd also add that the list is a better place to deal with WP:V, and WP:BLP issues where we can explain any conflict rather than these people ending up in a Category where the criteria for inclusion can't be explained. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles" Where on earth are you getting this? The VAST majority of the people on this list have absolutely no connection to any type of Jewish performance art at all. 90% of the American population could not even identify half of this list as Jewish. Take a look at the born in the 1980s section. Perhaps with the very loose association of Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill to Jewish comedy, not a single person on that list has participated or had any association with anything making them a "Jewish actor" -- unless you consider playing a Jewish role somehow makes you a "Jewish actor." In which case we should add a lot of gentiles to the list too. Bulldog123 12:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those born in the 80's and 90's are less likely to have a portfolio of work that includes specifically Jewish Roles however there are some standouts there "Jason Fuchs" is cited as appearing in Holy Rollers a film about hassidic Jews, as is "Ari Graynor", There's also a few from Inglorious Basterds which again is about Jewish Soldiers during WWII. I'm sure if I go through the list with fine toothcomb I can throw up roles for a significant proportion of the whole list although as you say the further back you go the more overt some of the roles are. The difference between a Gentile playing Jewish and an actual Jew playing a Jew is that the Jewish person has the ability to challenge or reinforce stereotypes in their connection with the culture that represents them, a Gentile just plays the character with no investment in the culture he or she represents. Generally if a gentile is playing the character put the character in a list of Jewish characters if a Jew is playing the character and particularly if the role speaks heavily into Jewish life or culture then they should be on this list. Yes the list needs cleaned - no-one doubts that and JayJG has done more that anyone to achieve that improvement, there are even people in here who aren't actors but that doesn't mean that the article itsself has to be deleted. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and Talk:List_of_Jewish_actors#Why_this_is_such_a_bad_article. The topic of Jewish actors may well be notable and a potentially valid subject of a standalone article, but the concept of a bare list of Jewish actors as has been created here does not have similar notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. --JN466 07:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm concerned about the size, and notability requirements of this article, but the general topic appears to be notable by the current criteria. This is a discussed and distinguishable criteria. The scope needs to be clearly defined, but as a general rule I think it's notable. Shadowjams (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to post what you consider the "distinguishable criteria" being used for this list to be? I see someone has made a good-faith effort to make the criteria more precise, and in the process of adding lots of words has shown how undefinable the criteria really are. Townlake (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's arguments, and policy mismatch.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion, and establishing such criteria would be inherently controversial. If anything, the link to "Who is a Jew?" only drives this point home. Townlake (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear non-contravertial criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Span (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable intersection, as evidenced amply by the 600-plus refs. Ample coverage of the intersection in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even understand how little sense that made? This is a direct translation of your argument: This is a notable intersection because people exist in this world who are Jewish and who are actors. Please show me how the fact that Gwenyth Paltrow's great-grandfather was a rabbi has a bearing on her career as an actress. Bulldog123 15:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We measure notability of an intersection by whether RSs cover it. Here, that is clearly the case. There is no need for there to be a showing that one aspect of the intersection bears on the other, though there is fodder for that as well. Any more than with American actors, for example, or Black actors.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all nice to say "that is clearly the case." Unfortunately, you need to WP:PROVEIT. By the way, we don't even have a list of Black actors. Bulldog123 16:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Per Stuart's mentioned improvements below which show that this is an intersection which has reliable sources talking specifically about the intersection. That should be enough to make an intersection notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. Also, simply WAY too broad a topic. Would make more sense if it were, for example, a "List of Jewish American actors" with a corresponding article on the subject. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Basicly, per Stuart.Jamieson. JackJud (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that JackJud seems to only emerge from hibernation when a Jewish-themed topic arrives on CfD or Afd. — JackJud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Bulldog123 17:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeefleche. Broccoli (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Jews as an ethnicity and nation. The Jewish ethnicity, nation, and religion of Judaism are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[1][2][3]
Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, a nation that was largely dispersed 2,000 years ago from its homeland and geographic borders, it is not appropriate to delete. The Jewish nation lives largely, though now not wholly, in the Jewish diaspora. Under Israel's Law of Return, all members of the Jewish nation are automatically entitled, by virtue of being members of the Jewish nation, to return to the geographic borders of Israel, and become Israeli citizens. Other religions are, in the "normal case," distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, or Atheist nation per se. Those who are members of these religions are not members of a nation or "people." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion, but are also a nation. In addition to the other points presented above, this is one that militates in favor or a !keep.
Comment--WP:ListPeople; application to nationality/ethnicity. As WP:LISTPEOPLE indicates with regard to "nationality/ethnicity" -- "List of Albanians includes persons who are famous in any category and who belong to Albania. The criteria for identifying as an Albanian does not solely depend upon the official citizenship laws of that country – a person could be related to the place by birth, residency, parentage, or by his or her personal admission, considers himself or herself to be an Albanian at heart."--Epeefleche (talk)
Keep per Schmidt--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per a number of comments above. It is an interesting list to read. Davshul (talk) 10:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too broad in scope, better suited to be treated as a category rather than a list. Nsk92 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the lead with clear uncontroversial inclusion criteria and removing the ambiguous use of Who is a Jew?
There is substantial coverage of the subject such as
Acting Jewish: negotiating ethnicity on the American stage & screen By Henry Bial
In Search of American Jewish Culture by Stephen J. Whitfield
From the Lower East Side to Hollywood: Jews in American popular culture by Paul Buhle
Over the top Judaism:precedents and trends in the depiction of Jewish beliefs and observances in film and television by Elliot Gertel
Making Americans: Jews and the Broadway musical by Andrea Most
The list needs cleaning to remove entries that do not fit the new inclusion criteria and it would be helpful if a prose article on the subject using the above references amongst others could be written but hopefully this move in the right direction might help some of those asking for a delete to reconsider. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since AllHallowsWraith insists on removing the content from the article I reproduce it here for consideration
This is an Article listing Actors who are notable for being Jewish. Note, not all actors who are Jewish may be considered notable for it. When adding an entry consider the following:
Is the person associated with Jewish Cultural performance style such as Yiddish Theatre?
Is the person associated with performing in a production with Jewish cultural themes, or concerning Jewish history recent or distant?
Is the person associated with a prominent Jewish character in a production that is not specifically Jewish themed?
Is the person associated with a production which fulfils the above criteria but in some other capacity such as writer, director, or producer?
All entries should be accompanied by a reliable source identifying the individual as Jewish, For more on why reliable sources may consider a person Jewish, please see Who is a Jew? Ideally the best source of this information is a self-identification by the person themselves, however in some cases sources may identify the person as Jewish by virtue of one or more parents being Jewish or by conversion to Judaism - ideally these should be recorded in the list along with the source.
While I applaud your efforts, I still consider the criteria ambiguous. Further, it is somewhat telling that one person is attempting to declare a new set of criteria he just created "uncontroversial." (Nothing personal, just assessing the situation.) My concerns remain. Townlake (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then please expand your concern so that any further ambiguity can be removed from the criteria, I've discussed the criteria as reason for retaining&improving the article in several locations and the criteria have never been disputed. However no-one until this AFD ever requested that they be included at the top of the list, since they have not been controversial in the past adding them to the article as uncontroversial seemed reasonable. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Circling back to my original rationale, "Establishing such criteria would be inherently controversial." I'm not going to pretend I can tell you how to fix this. My point is that the criteria cannot be unambiguously fixed, mostly because the definition of "Jewish" is often different for different Wikipedia users. Townlake (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I've worded the the criteria to be based on definitions made by reliable sources and not those made by individual editors. This is basic WP:V and WP:N . I should add that this is the same policy implemented by the nominator in many Jewish articles including this one and though it took me a short while to see superiority of it, I do believe that it is the only policy compliant way to do it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to reject the nominator's argument that list of Jewish nobel lauriates is notable but list of Jewish actors is not. If anything, it's the other way around. Patricia Erens's book "The Jew in American Cinema" is entirely about this subject! Shooterwalker (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you actually checked the book you mentioned. But if you're referring to: [91] - you should know it isn't at all about the subject of Jewish actors but rather - mostly - about the depiction of Jews in cinema. Those two are not equivalent subjects. Bulldog123 20:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable intersection. And the new "criteria" ("notable for being Jewish"?), aside from not matching the list title, are original research that could never properly pass WP:V. The fact is, the majority of (caucasian) actors have played a Jewish role - so the criteria that someone had to have played a Jewish role to be included is pretty odd, aside from, again, being original research (and what constitutes a "Jewish role"? That could be argued about for far longer than is worth). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please review WP:EGRS#General point 4 a notable LGBT activist is not automatically included in a corresponding LGBT musician category, unless also notable for one or more LGBT-related music compositions or performances. replace "LGBT" with "Jewish" and "Musician" with "Actor" for comparison (obviously "activist" and "music composition" would have to be changed as well) . The name and context are in line with this, representations of Jewish culture by those associated with it are a notable intersection per the above sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EGRS#General point 4 refers to categories, not lists. It was also added in by a single user after no discussion (in July 2009), so I don't exactly take it as gospel. A "List of Jewish actors" would contain people who are both Jewish and actors. If you wanted to create a "List of actors notable for being Jewish", that would be a different story, although, if you think "Who is a Jew" is a contentious issue, I don't know how you would ever start defining "Who is notable for being a Jew". The criteria you put forth are original research (if you want to make it "List of Jewish actors who have played a Jewish role", change the title to that, but it seems useless). BTW, I didn't delete the part you added that started with "All entries should be accompanied by a reliable source identifying the individual as Jewish..." This part does help support WP:V and WP:NOR. But the other criteria don't. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not "List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article". Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. In general, words likenotable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. should not be included in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like Xs and list of all Xs.
If you disagree with the guideline then change the guideline, it is in place and has not been reverted it is a sensible rule of thumbrule for categorising any individual whether within a category, list, infobox or any other way that. I have shown RS in this AfD that it is however also compliant withWP:LISTPEOPLE.
For example, lists of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud.
Not all Jewish Actors are notable for being Jewish Actors, however those that are should be listed. You want to delete as non-notable intersection yet are deliberately resisting moves to clarifying the specifically notable intersection contained within. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you could never define which Jewish actors are notable for being Jewish (and I don't know why you'd want to try, considering the already high level of debate over "Who is a Jew"). The criteria that someone has to have played a Jewish role once are completely arbitrary and are original research, especially considering that, as I said, most caucasian actors have played a Jewish character at some point (I'm not exaggerating). Not to mention that what constitutes a "Jewish character" is also going to be up for debate - and the fact that you would then need additional sources to support that part (and how big should this role have been? Would a school play suffice?) Aside from all that, I don't think you've reached consensus to make such a big and contentious change, especially not during a deletion process. As for the guideline, if you're referring to WP:EGRS#General, then it doesn't even apply to lists. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, "List of Atheists" does include everyone who just happens to be an atheist. See for example List of atheists (film, radio, television and theater). As for List of people from the Isle of Wight - it lists everybody who has a Wikipedia article and is "from the Isle of Wight". The sub-heading "notable people born in or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight" doesn't change the meaning of the article's title. If we changed it to "List of people whose careers have had some association with the Isle of Wight, and who are also from there", it would be equivalent to your change, and I wouldn't support that, either. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem is that you could never define which Jewish actors are notable for being Jewish" - True which is why the criteria does not require but asks editors to consider examples of why a Jewish actor may be notable for being Jewish. There could be further reasonable consideration, an Actor could also be a Rabbi (hypothetically), or be the spokesperson for a notable Jewish entertainment society reliable sourcing would have to be key here. Although she has never (to my knowledge) met any of the three suggested considerations, Rachel Stevens has notably taken action through Jewish courts in relation to an attempt to make her break Halakhic law in regard to a show she was performing on; if sourcing to that effect was cited I was have no problems with allowing her entry. You then choose to try and discredit the considerations with laughable suggestions, no a school play would usually not be acceptable as it is unlikely to receive significant coverage about the role's jewishness in reliable sources; however something like Grace Adler in Will and Grace or Rachel Berry in Glee might be covered well enough to support the inclusion. A number of calls for delete have cited the lack of a set of Criteria, Setting the Criteria is therefore a key factor in resolving the article's issues. If I WP:BOLDly add criteria then either this Afd will close with a Delete despite the addition and who cares what I added it will be gone, or it will close with a Keep and the debate to reach a consensus on the criteria wording can begin. The Guide to Deletion certainly doesn't prohibit this, nor does any list policy - in fact List policy is clear that a criteria is preferable. Also I quote policy and you come back with WP:Otherstuff trying to prove what exactly? Just because "List of Atheists" does contain everyone does not mean it should and should certainly not be used to justify retaining material in an article that is under AFD for being out of control, particularly when retaining that material inevitably leads to a Delete outcome. Policy suggests that that list should be cleared out, yet retained and that should be the case here as well. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The actress who plays Rachel Berry, Lea Michele, isn't even listed here (but her co-star, Dianna Agron, is, and should be). What you're talking about is really a "List of notable Jewish characters" - what difference does it make if the actor who played them was Jewish or not? There's an abundance of very famous Jewish characters played by non-Jews. Why exclude them? Aside from that, under this criterion you're proposing, I suspect Yaphet Kotto, an African-American who is a devout Jew, wouldn't be listed here (nor would Sammy Davis, Jr.). That's just not right. Anything calling itself a "List of Jewish actors" that doesn't include Kotto and Davis, Jr. isn't doing its job - regardless of what User:William Allen Simpson managed to sneak into WP:EGRS#General when nobody was looking. And what you're also calling for is loads of work where apparently editors have to "demonstrate" that a character an actor played once was Jewish, and that this therefore qualifies them to be on this list - all of which amounts to original research. Or that this actor is a spokeperson for a Jewish organization - is that right? Non-Jews do that too, quite often. Just take a look at how ungainly and impractical this all is to actually execute. Looking at 1980s actors - Jake Gyllenhaal played a Jew in Moonlight Mile - so that means he's in? (Susan Sarandon played his mother in the same movie, I guess she can't be included because she's not Jewish?) Scarlett Johansson played a Jewish character in Scoop (would editors also need to provide sources that this character was Jewish? How many? Does that mean we're going to have 1800 references?) Adam Lambert appeared in The Ten Commandments on stage. Alex D. Linz played a Jewish boy in Full-Court Miracle, B.J. Novak (who's listed under the wrong decade) played a Jew for five minutes in Inglourious Basterds. Sara Paxton played "Tracey Richburg" in a movie - is that sufficient? And then you have somebody like Raviv Ullman, who's a practicing Jew (much more so than anyone I just named) but probably hasn't played a Jewish character in his relatively short list of credits. So he's not going to be listed? Does that make any sense? The end results of this proposal would be a handful of actors being fairly randomly excluded from being listed, while at the same time there would be endless debates about who could qualify and why. None of this makes any sense whatsoever on an article calling itself "List of Jewish actors" (and these criteria you're talking about have to be agreed upon before they're added to the article, and right now, they seem like an extreme case of original research to me - criteria that would frankly be fairly incomprehensible to the average editor, including me. Wikipedia needs less regulations, rules, and beaurocracy, not more). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lea Michele should be included because she self-identifies as Jewish [92], I can't explain her not being there but I guess if this is a keep she can be added. We already have a list of Jewish characters so no, I'm not trying to create one of those. Davis Jr has a notable public conversion, as has Isla Fisher and probably others on the list. In fact I would justify Kotto on his role in the film Raid on Entebbe, In fact any Jewish Actor playing an Anti-Semitic Character (Like Kotto playing Amin) whether real Henry Goodman playing Degas on stage, or fictional Sacha Baron Cohen playing Borat is also notable. We don't list white actors playing in Black or Yellowface in amongst actors from Africa or Asia so why would you even consider including non-Jewish actors who have played Jewish.
There is notable intersection here is in Jewish Portrayals of Jewish Culture as recognised in the above sources whilst that notable intersection is grounds for the existence of a list, it is already represented within this list and with a clean up this notable intersection can be drawn from a wider list. What I'm also calling for is loads of work where editors have to "demonstrate" that a actor is notable for being Jewish (part of WP:BLPCAT which does apply to lists as well but only to the living persons listed), I suggested some quick ways that can be considered but did not limit inclusion to just these ways which is why it's not original research. You're trying to discredit me, but this wouldn't change the sources much as many sources discuss an individual's Jewishness in relation to roles they are currently or have previously performed they would need checked but that needs to happen anyway. BTW Raviv Ullman is notable for his award nomination in Jewish Play A Rosen by Any Other Name.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But now you keep expanding your criteria - Yaphet Kotto would be listed because he played an anti-Semite, Davis, Jr. because he had a public conversion? So what if his conversion was public? That doesn't mean it reflects on his acting work or the material he appeared in. See, that's my point - if new and arbitrary criteria for inclusion keep coming up, that means it's original research. What would be the point of excluding the few Jewish actors "unlucky" enough not to fit any of these criteria? There aren't very many left. Would we exclude Dianna Agron? I can't imagine a list of Jewish actors that includes Lea Michele but not Agron. Michele was born to a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father. Maybe she's referred to herself as Jewish on occasion (she's also referred to herself as Italian), but she wasn't raised specifically in the Jewish religion. She wouldn't be considered Jewish under any denomination but possibly the Reform one (and even then it's unclear). Dianna Agron, on the other hand, was born to a Jewish father and a mother who was a convert to Conservative Judaism. She was raised fully in the Jewish religion and, from what I've seen, appears to be a practicing Jew. Are you telling me that Michele would be listed under your criteria, but not Agron? (unless Agron is notable for appearing on Glee). That's just not intellectually honest. Encyclopedias are supposed to be about facts, and when a "List of Jewish actors" includes Lea Michele but not Dianna Agron, then something has gone wrong on a fact-based level, and the reality of these actresses' actual backgrounds has mixed in with fiction. That's why there should be a separate list for fiction (and as you say, there is one), instead of foisting it upon fact. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope the criteria is already very wide - the individual has to be notable for being a Jewish Actor. Every entry can be considered on it's own merits. Reflecting on an entries acting work or the material they appeared in can be considered in relation to that notability. Arguing that Dianna Agron should be included is a non-point if she is not notable as a Jewish Actress, for a long time notable Jews such as Jack Klugman and Judd Hirsch were excluded because there were no sources that could identify them as Jewish and other Jews are still excluded because this is basic policy. We do have a category Jewish actors which accepts indiscriminate inclusion, so it's not too much to ask that the list actually include those who are notable for being Jewish Actors and not just those who happen to be Jewish and an Actor. Per your last, Encyclopaedias are about facts but they are about reliably sourced facts not OR, so lets require a source to that effect rather than adding entries indiscriminately. This is not about mixing fact and fiction, its about representing facts which may be based on portfolio of work. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, like I said, if you're saying "no" to Agron but "yes" to Michele, then something is wrong on a basic level if this is called "List of Jewish actors". Looking through this discussion, it would appear that probably 90% of the actors currently listed would remain listed under most of the criteria you're proposing. So my question is, why bother to exclude the remaining 10% under what seems like fairly arbitrary grounds? (i.e. they're excluded not because their background isn't "Jewish enough", but for other reasons). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying no to Argon and perhaps it would be up to someone better acquainted with her work to propose a source suggesting that she's notable for being a Jewish Actor however the sources currently given for her suggest that it's notable she's playing a devoutly Christian character because she is a Jewish Actress. In fact I've even considered that the article should be speedily deleted with the intention of a recreation with better sources for the majority of entries perhaps culling 50%-75% of entries initially and then gradually allowing them to be debated and inserted based on a clear notability for inclusion in this list, which currently hasn't been properly established for many entries. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are we even arguing about? If Agron is in it too, then I don't think there is going to be any difference between the article as is now and the article under these criteria. That's another reason I just don't see the need for them. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far two delete nominations have been based on the lack of any written criteria at the top, it would help any accusations of POV or Battleground in the article since it would be clear that the source has to make a clear identification of Jewishness and notability as a Jewish Actor.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criteria they mean are "Who is a Jew", something you added in yesterday that I didn't delete. But this "the source has to make a clear identification of... notability as a Jewish Actor" is a whole new part that doesn't even fit in with some of the things you said. A source might say "notable for playing Jewish character xyz", but they could say that about a non-Jewish actor, so that's not the same as the source saying "notable as a Jewish actor". All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'm not going to revert further on the page. It seems to me that this list of criteria will have no real effect on the page anyway. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the no further reverts, but I will wait until after the Afd is closed before re-adding. I believe the criteria also needs to be who is notable for being an Actor as well; for instance Paula Abdul is listed but she's not significantly notable for her acting - remove appearances where she plays herself or a variation of herself or has a cameo and you have 4 non-notable TV movies and a couple of TV episodes which would struggle to justify the inclusion of the actor in WP if they weren't notable for something outwith acting. Again I feel she's someone who could go in the Jewish Actors category but shouldn't be in a list of people who are notable for being Jewish Actors. On sourcing a lot of sources already talk about the actor's childhood and Jewish upbringing in regards to what they take to the role, which is where the intersection occurs tidying up so that sources that simply say "notable for playing Jewish character xyz" are removed is key in the future of the article (and entries related to those sources if no replacement can be found)- it was a source similar to that which sparked the "Why this is a bad article debate". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let's delete, and we can all go home and contribute something of worth to wikipedia. Unless of course adding that Beck's "matrilineal great-grandmother was Jewish" is considered something worthy to everybody. Bulldog123 02:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Span (talk) 04:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, criteria #6, which states that: "Wikipedia articles are not non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y" or "Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." This article is an almost exact fit for "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", where religious group X = Jews and organization Y = actors. SnottyWongchatter 20:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
as usual, if they hacve a Wikipediaarticle, including them isn't a violation of NOT DIR. A violation would be including every such actor, whether or not notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial improvements above...Modernist (talk) 12:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? Nothing has been improved. Those were suggestions of unmaintainable criteria. Bulldog123 16:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia should not be placing people into subjective and potentially contentious ethnic or religious categories. Doing so is against the spirit of WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for the others. The principle should be that every defined binary ethnic or religious or national intersection with occupations or professions or prizes or anything else ought to be kept, both as a list and a category--the only ones that should require evidence of the intersection itself being significant are tertiary intersections, and the standard of proof for that should not be very onerous. The only difficulty with these in particular is whether to regard "Jewish" as ethnic or religious or genetically related population group--this debate is not going to be settled at Wikipedia, so all we can do is go by the broadest sense, including any one of these, using the criterion of either self-identification or be generally recognized by multiple reliable sources including those from outside the group involved--i.e., a Ruritanian source is likely to over identify people as being Ruritanian in dubious cases. People come to encyclopedias for this sort of collected information, and in case of doubt, that should be our criterion--because of our own identity as Wikipedians : free, and open, and uncensored, however important, are just adjectives qualifying the truly basic concept, that we are an encyclopedia. This is not promotional, but informative. the proof that it is merely informative, is that it could be used equally to show the true importance or the unfair over-represenbtation of the Jewish winners--this is purely neutral information. I see no reason why people interested in promoting Jewish culture would be the only ones interested. I'd like to see a similar list for Buddhist , or Irish--and I have no conceivable special interest in them DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Epeefleche sent me the following email through Wikipedia last night. "Hi. I saw that you commented on a similar AfD, so in the event that it interest you I'm letting you know of the existence of this AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Jewish_actors". Thank you, Epeefleche, for the notice, which I assume was sent to all commentors in the other Jewish list AfDs. However, in the interests of avoiding accusations of canvassing would you mind leaving messages like that on my talk page in future? Thank you. -[REDACTED] 22:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Oops, the above comment is me. Forgot to log in. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. No -- only limited commentators on both sides of the issue who commented on the entertainers, but not the actors list, which are of course related. There are, as you point out, a number of other Jewish lists being reviewed, but these are the two that are co-extensive.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have no problem nominating those two for deletion for the exact same reason. Should I? Bulldog123 02:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per established precedents for such lists of notable individuals, as clarified in WP:SAL, WP:LSC, WP:LISTNAME, WP:SALAT, and WP:LISTPEOPLE, this list is specifically per applicable policies and guidelines and serves the project and its readers. And in addressing some delete !votes based upon a misinterpretation of policy, if these actors already have sourced Wikipedia articles, including them in a list with defined parameters is not a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 02:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just suppressed a number of revisions of this page, on request of an editor above who posted while logged out, The only changes made were to the signature [REDACTED] above - Alison❤ 03:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN There's reasonable evidence to suggest that User:Epeefleche is participating in an email-based and wiki-based WP:CANVASSing campaign, targeting users likely to !vote keep on this AfD (and other recent Jewish AfDs). See the following for evidence: ([93] and [94])Note that User:Epeefleche has a long history of WP:CANVASSing keep-friendly individuals to participate in Jews CfDs/AfDs. Here are diffs from one of Epee's canvassing campaigns a few years ago: [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114][115]. He now chooses to do this more surreptitiously by email.
Anybody who has been canvassed by Epeefleche to participate in this AfD should come forward to quell suspicion. Bulldog123 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... not a reasonable conclusion... being based upon one recent edit and then calling up activity from "some years ago". And an AFD discussion is the wrong forum to present your "case". As anyone is allowed to edit, might it not be better to take your allegation to a different and more appropriate forum, and not use it here in an attempt to negatively color a discussion in progress among many editors? I suggest this off-topic comment be moved to the talk page until such time as Bulldog123 wishes to file a formal request at the proper venue... specially as I have seen it repeated at all the Jewish-related AFDs where you and he have disagreed. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 07:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - Epeefleche actually notified 65 editors on their talk pages about all of these jewish-list-related AfD's. I have posted a notice on his talk page asking for an explanation. This AfD is hopelessly tainted (as are all of the other ones), and should be automatically relisted at a later date in the hopes that an unbiased consensus can be determined. SnottyWongchat 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A neutral notification to those who had opined in other related "List of Jewish" discussions, and sent out for balance only after the notice and accusation by Bulldog123 had been placed in all those same related discussions. I note that the notice was not "targeted" to any one mindset, but was sent to editors equally, no matter their likelyness to !vote delete or keep. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are not unfounded accusations as Schmidt is desperately trying to suggest. Epeefleche has a long history of CANVASSing on Jewish AfDs/CfDs. I am no longer required to WP:AGF. Bulldog123 02:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify. I don't care about Jewish arguments of pro/contra voters, but the list is unmanageable. There's just too many of them, they won't fit in one page (even limited to United States) and I cannot see how one can define inclusion/exclusion criteria (notability? tabloids? old wives' opinion?). Disclaimer: Epeefleche pinged me about this AFD, FWIW. East of Borschov 08:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just now got pinged myself... but I had already been involved in these discussions. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 08:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe that "List of actors not linked to any Jewish ancestry" might have a narrower, better defined scope. Nergaal (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not share the nominator's concerns that this article is a "WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V-violation magnet," as this is a wiki where it is equally easy to hit the edit button and insert inappropriate material into any article. If the nominator believes their issue with this type of list "needs to be addressed in a broad, not narrow, way" then they should start a (broad) request for comment, not a (narrow) article for deletion nomination. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and best to ignore comments based on general conceptions of ethnicity and list articles, or generalized opposition to ethnic categorization, that don't consider the subject of this particular article, which is Jewish actors. There are lots of books, papers, and news stories about the intersection of Jewish ethnicity / culture / background and acting.[116][117][118] I'm not going to try digging them up again for yet another attempt to do away with Jewish-X categories, but Jews have had a special relationship with entertainment and acting, and there are particularly Jewish forms of theater and significance in the culture. The intersection of these two is far from an arbitrary categorization, it is a notable subject in its own right. There is indeed a heated issue on Wikipedia about who is a Jew and how to source that, and many of the Jewish-related articles and categories are problematic and treated inconsistently. But the answer to problems on Wikipedia isn't to start deleting things, it's to improve things. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your three sources - FYI: one of which directly states there is no inherent notability between Jews and Hollywood - are all fine for an article on secular Jewish culture in cinema (which we already, ostensibly have). However, purporting that they, in fact, can be used to support a list of any individual who happen to have Jewish heritage and be an actor - which is what they list is, has been, and will always be - is disingenuous. There is no evidence - or references - that 100% of the individuals on this list has any connection to the (for example) "archetypal Jewish big mouth" discussed in one of your references. You are essentially synthesizing secondary source support for what, in reality, is a vanity list - in the likes of www.whosajew.com. Bulldog123 20:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say that at all - it is about Jews and entertainment. What it dismisses is the antisemitic rant that Jews are a cabal that controls Hollywood. Your argument makes no sense - it would seem to be an objection to the very notion of having list articles on supposition that not every notable member of a class of things is emblematic of what makes the class notable. So we can't have a list of American chefs because some of those chefs may not be cooking in the style that makes American cuisine notable? Nobody just happens to be Jewish anymore than they happen to be American, or female, or to have any other trait. It is part of who they are. In the case of Jewishness it is their religion, heritage, culture, ancestry, or upbringing -- factors which, the sources say, are related to acting. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A list of American chefs would include just that... American chefs. American is a nationality. All you have to do to be an American is be a citizen. Chefs is an occupation. All you have to be is be a chef. Wikipedia categorizes individuals by nationality. It's standard policy-approved practice. Jewish on the other hand is an ethnicity/religion/self-identification with a completely indeterminate method of criteria. You are saying there is a "Jewish way of acting/being in the acting business" -- therefore your criteria needs to apply to all the individuals on the list or else be pruned to include only the ones that can legitimately be described as being "Jewish actors" --- in the sense your secondary sources describe. Like I said very clearly in the last comment, you can't synthesize random sources that have the words "Jew" and "Acting" in them and then act like it substantiates a list of all Jewish actors, thereby making the intersection universally relevant. Here's an analogy that's better suited: Christians in the movies does not add support to the intersection of List of Christian American actors. (P.S. I'll faint if I see you type "But Jew are an ethnicity!") Bulldog123 11:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, excluding Jews who don't act like Jews is a silly and suspect exercise - might as well exclude American chefs who don't cook like Americans. In practice any quality source establishing that a notable actor is Jewish would mention both acting and being Jewish. The elephant in the room is that some here would question the validity of Jewishness as a personal ideneity. If the argument is that when a source says someone is American that's a valid categorization to take out of the source, but if a source says someone is Jewish it is not, that's a POV determination and not an encyclopedic one. In my opinion, any deletion attempt based on that is an automatic fail. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That point is irrelevant to the deletion concerns. The discussion has nothing to do with notability. When the list cannot specify exactly who is Jewish, and who isn't, that list is worthless.
If the topic is notable enough as a concept, you can make an article about Jewish contribution to acting, and that would be great. Simply listing people who may or may not be Jews does nothing in describing their contribution and accomplishments.
Is it so hard for people to understand that the deletion is not about saying that there is no Jewish contribution to acting, but about making sure the list has a purpose and content that does not violate BLPCAT, and other policies/guidelines.--Therexbanner (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As with any information on wikipedia, if you are concerned that something may be incorrect you should ask for a source. If you strongly believe it is incorrect, you should remove it while sources are looked for. That some editor might some time add incorrect information is not a problem unique to this article, nor is it a reason for deletion. It is instead a characteristic of everything on Wikipedia. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not irrelevant because the nomination starts by claiming that the topic is "non-notable". That claim is false - it seems quite easy to find reliable sources which discuss the topic in detail. The rest of the argument then collapses because, using these sources, we can improve the article to address concerns such as WP:V and WP:NOR. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is not false. There is no universal, inherited notability between having a Jewish father/mother and being an actor. Your sources don't suggest that either. No sources do. All your sources provide for is an article on the subject it describes... not a list of any actor that has Jewish heritage. Bulldog123 11:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – "cannot specify exactly who is Jewish" is not a valid criteria for deletion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued; could you please expand on this? What's the encyclopedic value of a list with non-specific criteria for inclusion / exclusion? Does such a list with non-specific criteria and potentially thousands of controversial entries sound like something that's practical for volunteer editors to maintain? Townlake (talk) 16:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with List of actors. Why delineate Jewish, are Jewish actors better, or different in any way? If so then the article should read List of (attribute) actors. Lets move away from this racist and divisive categorisation.Petebutt (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try following the link that you suggest. You will find that it redirects to Lists of actors which is a list of lists of this kind. There are too many articles about actors for them to fit within a single list and so we have created numerous sublists such as List of Muslim actors. Also note that merger and deletion are contrary suggestions - see WP:MAD. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – Interesting and informative list with a huge number of citations and ample evidence of notability of topic. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable software package. Prod removed by author with claims of notability made on the talk page. Those claims have proven to be incorrect. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more independent coverage is provided. Right now there is only one verifiable reference in the article (article "Analyzing (social media) networks with NodeXL" in "Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Communities and technologies"), but as at least one of the authors of the article seems to be affiliated with software, it is IMHO a very weak claim for notability. Ipsign (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a second reference in the article to a review of the book that was written by someone who is not affiliated with the software and added some more press-coverage information to the article discussion page. Vlad43210 16:50, 24 November 2010
Thanks; BTW, you might want to incorporate some of the links into the article; also asking for a help from a rescue squad might be a good idea. Ipsign (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain based on added links (both article and talk page); while they might not comply with WP:RS (at least one of them IMHO looks as a paid ad-like content), now I'm not so sure if the article should be deleted. Ipsign (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only link that has been added is one at the SapDesign user forum, which I am somewhat skeptical about. That review looks more like a paid advertisement for the product than an indepdentent review. And a user review at a user forum does not really count in the reliable sources category. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen links added to the talk page? I agree some of them are questionable, but not sure if all of them are. Ipsign (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added more content (including references to papers and conference presence, plus a more detailed description of the features, plus screenshot) to the page. Please take a look and see if the article is more appropriate for Wikipedia now. I also added a Rescue Squad template link. Vlad43210 (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: most of the citations appear WP:QS, and/or non-significant coverage. Article structure also has the feel of grab-bag WP:IINFO rather than an encyclopaedic article. Wikipedia is not meant to be an index for obscure software and any mention of it on technical websites. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most does not mean all, or all but one. I would be happy to eliminate citations that you think are inappropriate, but (see below) I argue that there are a number of citations that are not WP:QS. I think the article structure does need work, but that should be a matter of editing, not deletion. This software has been downloaded over 30,000 times (as I have mentioned on the article discussion page) a number that is far from obscure for the network analysis community. This software has been continuously supported by funding and research efforts from a number of universities / research labs, as described in the article. This software has been described and used in multiple peer-reviewed publications and not just technical websites. Vlad43210 (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)— Vlad43210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: I disagree that the sources are too weak to pass WP:GNG. The "NodeXL and research" section of the article includes citations to peer-reviewed publications, at least two of which are not by members of the team. I have also added a link to a World Bank Group blog post that a) addresses the subject in detail, b) is reliable, c) is a secondary source, d) is independent of the subject and thus fulfills WP:GNG in my understanding. Vlad43210 (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)— Vlad43210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: I disagree that the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (software). As per the second notability guideline: "The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs." There is a list of these courses on the Article page. I can provide syllabi if necessary to show that the software is the focus of the course and not merely used in the course. Vlad43210 (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)— Vlad43210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Vlad -- you've already expressed your keep opinion. Any other replies to this thread should be marked as comments. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hrafn. Because of the way the references are provided, as bare links instead of via proper {{citation}} templates, their quality is difficult to assess. But I'm not immediately seeing any standout reference to substantial coverage in a reliable source. Sandstein 08:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - author request. — RHaworth(talk·contribs) 09:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this page should not be deleted. It describes a set of rituals that a small group of people has been practicing since 2005. As such, it is as notable as any of the religious sects listed on the List of new religious movements page. Many religious sects are small; this does not make them inherently unnotable. I note the existence of pages for Urantia Foundation, United Lodge of Theosophists, Rama computer cult, Altruria, and many more on that page, which are, in the opinion of this writer, less well-constructed pages which provide less information about less reputable organizations. Compared to a page such as this-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventures_in_Enlightenment,_A_Foundation --the Grounding page is much more conservative and is in no sense self-promotional, only informational.
The Grounding article appears to be most similar to the Reformed Druids of North America article in that both rely on a single source of information which was created by the originating group. I would argue that either both articles should be deleted or neither article should be deleted.
I agree that the article needs wikification, improved references, and a better introduction.
Becauseiamtheman (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is frequently an argument that some other stuff should also be deleted, rather than the article under discussion be kept. Yworo (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no reliable sources, original research, personal essay. Yworo (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Impertinent comment For what it's worth, I find this idea quite interesting, but unencyclopaedic nevertheless. Bob A (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sounds interesting. I have never heard of it, although I often hear the word "grounding" used, meaning something like "connecting with reality." The article as it is without secondary sources does not establish notability for this specialized meaning of the word, it also is not neutral in point of view since the article seems to exist to promote the practice -- being based on primary sources. Jaque Hammer (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to concede. Not trying to promote, just responding to multiple requests for more information. If not notable, so be it--I am totally opposed to self-promotion. Do I delete or is that handled automatically? Becauseiamtheman (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's handled automatically after seven days, though I think you could suggest a Speedy Delete, since no one seems to be opposed to deletion. Bob A (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I'm the author and I'm fine with that--I blanked the page except for the appropriate speedy delete tag. Becauseiamtheman (talk) 23:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Becauseiamtheman (talk • contribs) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dubious notability. Only sources are trivial. #1 is some sort of online blog, #2 and #3 are personal blogs that are clearly unreliable; #4 doesn't mention the band and #5 is trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. A search to find reliable sources ended in failure. Mattg82 (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I found this coverage from BBC Nottingham, but that plus the mention on a 6Music blog isn't what I'd call significant coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re-nominating once again: as 2nd nomination didn't get any feedback, I will try to get more opinions from Wikiproject Computing this time. Rationale for re-nomination: still blatant WP:SYNTHESIS. In addition, comparison of OpenMP (specific implementation) to Stream Processing is arguably comparing "apples to oranges"; on the other hand, if OpenMP is mentioned, it is unclear why other competing "apples-to-apples" technologies (like Intel TBB) are not mentioned. In original AfD nomination author has promised to improve the article, which has never happened. To address concerns of those who commented on first nomination: I wouldn't object to generic article (with name like Comparison of different parallelization techniques), as it was suggested in previous AfD discussion, but it will IMHO need complete rewrite from current article, so current article isn't of much use anyway.
Delete - this article should follow the pattern of other "Comparison of..." articles such as Comparison of operating systems. The title should not specify the three things it's comparing - but rather the broad category of things of this nature in order that other parallelization systems may be included into the article at some future time. If other similar systems exist then they too should be given attention in the article in order to avoid bias against those other systems. If we accepted this kind of pattern then instead of Comparison of operating systems we'd need articles like Comparison of Linux and MacOS and Comparison of DOS and Linux and so on for every permutation and combination of operating system - which would require (in that case) several hundred articles instead of just one. If deletion is not the consensus view, then I'd also support renaming the article to something more along those lines and encouraging a rewrite more in the style of other "Comparison of..." articles. I also agree with the nomination that the article needs to clearly delineate when it's comparing overall techniques for parallelization and when it's talking about competing products that use similar techniques. SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (per reasons, below) for purely procedural grounds: the last failed nomination (by same nominator) closed only yesterday! To allow immediate renomination by the same person gives those with an ax to grind too much leeway to be disruptive. --Karnesky (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Objection Please note that: (a) previous one has been closed without any feedback as no consensus, that is the reason why I've re-nominated it; (b) I've asked closing administrator if it is ok to re-nominate it, see User talk:Courcelles#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing (2nd nomination); if administrator was wrong (or I misunderstood what he said), let's discuss it with both me and him in some suitable place. In addition, I don't really see how procedural grounds can be possibly related to merits of the article. Ipsign (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: probably I should have emphasized that previous nomination has been closed with zero feedback. I certainly wouldn't dare to re-nominate if there was any meaningful discussion (even if it is no consensus), but under the circumstances I felt that re-nominating won't be any different from re-listing it. As this view was (as I see it) supported by closing administrator, I've went for re-nominating it. Ipsign (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems acceptable under Wikipedia:RELIST#No_quorum. I'm unmoved by your arguments, compared to those raised in the very first nomination. SteveBaker's arguments would also be consistent with merely renaming the page. That first nomination was not closed because of the promise for improving the article, but because the article was good enough to be kept then. I'm unconvinced that it has gotten any worse or that our policies have changed to make it less acceptable. --Karnesky (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it mean that you won't object to renaming it if it survives? Actually, I'm fine with renaming to something more generic (per multiple suggestions in original nomination and per SteveBaker above) and removing all WP:OR and WP:SYN, but I'm afraid it will become blank as a result of such cleaning up; I agree that renamed one can be provided with something which is not WP:OR/WP:SYN, but IMHO there is a snowball in hell chance that anybody will do it within reasonable time - unless somebody here on AfD is willing to assume this job. Corrected - see my Comment below. Ipsign (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per original decision. This decision was sufficiently informed. This decision was not contingent on improvements being made. There may be a WP:SYN issue here but that can be tagged and corrected. It is inappropriate to send this to AfD without first tagging. Deletion is not required to fix this. I have added a tag to the article. --Kvng (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure exactly if this comment belongs here, but think it is better to mention it: I've spent some time and found all the papers referenced in the article (see article/talk page for details). As soon as it have been done, it became apparent that "Stream Processing" has not been even mentioned in any of them (and one was completely irrelevant). Therefore, if article survives this AfD, I am going to remove all the mentions of "Stream Processing" per WP:VERIFIABLE (unless somebody provides references for comparing Stream Processing with any of those within reasonable time frame, which I really really doubt). Ipsign (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Pros and Cons sections appear to be a substantial copy of [119] fleshed out with original research. The preceding sections are just copied from their individual articles. Restructuring this page is unfeasible, because compared to other comparisons it would require so much technical detail that it'd need a significant amount of original thought. Wikipedia isn't the place. --Pnm (talk) 08:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Guitar instructor. Released an album that never charted. A little coverage on "shred guitar" blogs, but pretty much unknown outside of that small community. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Cooley (album)Gigs (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough. Several dozen hits at Google News[120] including Newsweek, Dallas Morning News, and assorted guitar magazines. His website's "press" page also has a long list, and while a lot of these are blogs there are at least a few real reliable sources sprinkled in there as well.[121] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's exactly one hit at Google news, and it's just his name in a list of names. The "newsweek mention" is an absolutely passing mention [122], in an article about a slow-motion camera project. Gigs (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get 33 hits in Google News archives (see link above). Thank you for finding the text of that Newsweek reference: to me, the wording of that reference, "Houston-based great Rusty Cooley", is pretty fair evidence of his actual significance.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only get exactly one hit in google news, even using your link. Could you check again? Gigs (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. Yes, I get 33. Some of these are pay sites and a few are from message boards or other non-RS parts of the relevant publication, but here are some examples[123][124][125][126][127]. Based on the search result page, this one in the Idaho Stateman appears to place him at #7 on a list of the top 10 shredders of all time (just ahead of Buckethead!) .[128] (I note that Cooley's press page has a deadlink to a similar page from Guitar One Magazine--I don't know if it's the same list.) It seems to me that there's sufficient indication here that he's sufficiently recognized to justify his article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of those are passing mentions, with the exception of the interview. The fact that Cooley was interviewed by a non-notable site does not give sufficient indication of notability. Goodvac (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:BIO. The Google News search does not show significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Goodvac (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet the music notability for musicians (5,6) and others (1,2,5). Amazon carries at least 3 products associated with him. The Steve 13:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It's notable" votes have no substance. How does Cooley meet WP:COMPOSER criteria 5 and 6? With respect to criteria 5, it would be helpful if you pointed out exactly where it says that Cooley was a "major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria". As for criteria 5, I have already stated above that there is no significant coverage of Cooley, in effect, disproving the claim that he "[a]ppears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music". Your second claim that criteria 1, 2, and 5 are met is faulty. (1) He has not written lyrics for a notable composition. (2) He has not written a composition that appeared in a notable theater. (5) I've already discussed that. In short, it seems as if you have arbitrarily chose numbers in an attempt to demonstrate notability. Goodvac (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will be more specific. MUSICIANS (not composers) Criteria 5: 2 albums, Outworld on Replica Records and Rusty Cooley on Lion Records. Criteria 6, member of Outworld from 1997 to 2009.
Non traditional media criteria 1 Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre, as a guitar instructor, including the book Eight-String Guitarists ISBN-10: 1156833418 and guitar endorsements ie Dean USA Rusty Cooley Guitar, 7 String Graphic by Dean Guitars
criteria 2 Rusty has many successful students, such as Chris Storey (ex All Shall Perish) and Mica Roth, former member of Hybreed.
Criteria 5 Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture - Rusty's website has a "Press" section that shows this. Put all these together and I'm pretty sure he's over the threshhold. Cheers, The Steve 10:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Eight-String Guitarists" was published by Books LLC, so it's just a compilation of Wikipedia articles containing the text of this article and others from Category:Eight-string guitarists. I therefore removed it from the article, as it's no reliable source. Regards, --Kam Solusar (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Gigs (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t)(c) 12:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know a lot about this, but the article is far from an orphan, even discounting the user pages that link to it. I came here because I am working (somewhat) on two articles that link to this page, and the use of the link cannot be substituted with a different example, they deal specifically with him. I'm not sure if that even matters in the discussion, but thought I'd put my two cents in. 198.30.144.21 (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His outworld album was a favorite of John Petrucci of Dream Theater. His band Day Of Reckoning's new songs have been complimented by Karl Sanders of Nile. He's played guest solos for popular core groups All Shall Perish and Austrian Death Machine. He did some work on After The Burial's new album In Dreams. Deleting the article would be an affront to modern metal society, saying that one of our best guitarists is insignificant because his album didn't chart, seriously it's metal it's not meant to chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.112.161.175 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted after a Prod, now recreated. Unverifiable, and at best fails WP:N completely. 6 Google hits[129], most not about this SPSL Cup. No Google Books, News (archive) or Scholar hits.
Stated in a November 15 post game article "when the Southern Premier Soccer League (SPSL) final is contested this spring." Treyvo (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article about an event that is maybe, possibly, potentially happening sometime in the future...methinks not. GiantSnowman 14:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether you think there will be a final. It states there will be a final this spring. Treyvo (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's my tuppence worth:
Strong Delete for the template - the commonly accepted minimum number of links for a template is five, this template only contains two redlinks so it's no use at the moment and is unlikely to be for a while.
Merge the SPSL Cup Playoffs article into Southern Premier Soccer League - I don't think there's any real need for a separate article for semi-pro playoffs, but there's plenty of information that would be useful on the main league article.
Where are the sources to base the SPSL Cup article on? One sentence on a self-published webpage is not quite sufficient to support an article... Fram (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The easy answer to that question is there are none! And there aren't likely to be unless this competition lasts for as long as the Southern League or Isthmian League. Therefore, I'm changing my !vote to Merge with Southern Premier Soccer League. Bettia(talk) 15:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The SPSL will be running by overall table standings (similar to the European leagues) with no playoffs. It was decided to keep league costs down. There is a very likely scenario to be teamed up with other semi-pro leagues to introduce Promotion/Relegation. Treyvo (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP that lacks reliable independent indepth sources. In one of the sources, he is one entry in a table in an appendix. In the last one, he is one of a number of people convicted, without any further coverage of him. Google searches revealed no further useful searches, either at the full name a given here, or searching for Fawaz Al Zahrani plus Guantanamo (to avoid the many hits for other Fawaz Al Zahranis). Fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I accept, at face value, the claim in the nomination that additional references were searched for. Nevertheless, as I believe this edit shows, if that search had been more thorough it would have found more references. The Saudi detention and torture of British-Canadian William Sampson was a high-profile story here in Canada, for years. I wasn't aware of the connection between his release and the repatriation of the first five Saudis in 2003.
Should the release deal be covered in the William Sampson article? I don't think so. Could the release be covered in an article specifically on this particular release of Saudi captives? I would have no objection to that. Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- With regard to blp1e:
capture;
Surviving the Qalia-Jangi prison incident;
Guantanamo detention;
Repatriation as part of a backroom deal;
2 years of Saudi detention;
In camera trial, with no defense lawyers;
Conditional release that includes a gag order;
How many events is that? If it is more than one this article does not lapse from blp1e. Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it meets BLP1E (and since I didn't mention that as an argument for deletion, it looks like a strawman argument to bring it up now) or not, it fails WP:BIO quite clearly. Ignoring the sources from the American military, we have a truly passing mention (Worthington), another truly massing mantion (HRW), and another passing mention (Salon). So, like I stated, Google gave no other useful sources, and neither do you. We don't have a single reliable independent source that has more than a passing mention of Al Zahrani. Fram (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment - I have doubts of the notibility of the individual but as I have oft said before whats notible to someone else (european Footbal(American soccer) players for example) may not be notable to me so I usually abstain from voting for or against deletion but I notice you said ignoring the sources from the military. Although I admit that the credibility of the military source is strained given the nature of the article Im not sure that they should be altogether ignored. --Kumioko (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WRT notability, they should be ignored, as they are definitely not independent sources, but sources by a party in a conflict. If the subject is notable, then it is perfectly appropriate to include such sources: but for the sake of an AfD, they can be ignored. Fram (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a detainee does not itself make one notable. In this case, the subject is not an individual who has attained notabilityt. There are no real reliable sources for the subject, and he has not been subject to wide coverage. As such, this clearly violates WP:BIO. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For the reasons given by the nominator and Metropolitan90, WP:V and WP:NPOV compel the deletion of this article, which is a list of alleged trademarks sourced only to a McDonalds publication. Who owns a certain trademark can be a very contentious question, as trademarks need not always be registered, and McDonalds trademarks in particular have been legally contentious, see McDonald's legal cases#Trademark and copyright. It is out of the question for a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia to present as a fact McDonald's own claims about which trademarks it owns. Any such article would need, for each entry, a reference to the applicable trademark registration or to a reliable third-party source addressing the legal status of the mark in question. The "keep" opinions which disregard or misunderstand the significance of neutrality and verifiability as applied to trademarks are therefore discounted. Sandstein 07:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bare list of trademarks owned by the McDonald's Corporation does not seem to be an appropriate thing for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only source provided for the list is a link to the terms and conditions of the McDonald's Internet site—there are no references to significant coverage by reliable third-party sources, as required by the notability guideline. (There are some third-party sources in the references section, but these are used in the infobox, not in the list itself.) In addition, I know that many dictionaries include a disclaimer such as, "A number of entered words which we have reason to believe constitute trademarks have been designated as such. However, no attempt has been made to designate as trademarks or service marks all terms or words in which proprietary rights might exist. The inclusion, exclusion, or definition of a word or term is not intended to affect, or to express a judgment on, the validity or legal status of the word or term as a trademark, service mark, or other propriety [sic] term" (quoted from the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary). I am not a lawyer, but the existence of such disclaimers suggests to me that there may be some legal issue involved with making claims about whether something is or is not a trademark. If so, Wikipedia is certainly not qualified to make such claims. —Bkell (talk) 16:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really weak keep - it does need sources and I am sure that they can be found with some research. If McDonald's does provide a list of their trademarks, then it is verifiable - even if it is a primary source. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability was not one of the several concerns I raised in my nomination. —Bkell (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into McDonalds: Really, this list is mainly trivial, but for the five people who want to see trademarks licenced to McDonalds, let's merge it into the McDonalds page itself. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided for the main body of this article other than McDonald's own web page. There may be an article to be written about McDonald's trademarks, although the subject is already discussed more substantively at McDonald's legal cases#Trademark and copyright. --Metropolitan90(talk) 03:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see a problem with notability. A quick search for McDonalds trademarks produced 1,800 news stories. Verifiability isn't so easy, but I think using the McDonald's source is OK. --Pnm (talk) 09:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a stretch to me on something we should have an article on; indiscriminate. WizardmanOperation Big Bear 17:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As much as i know, there aren't any secondary sources. I googled and found nothing. I think we can do nothing else but delete the article. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on keeping/deleting, but don't merge to The Annoying Orange. It's just a few brief episodes - I reckon Tom Cruise (the broccolized version) had just as much time on the AO. If the character deserves mention, it's just this: mention, not UNDUE bulk merge. East of Borschov 09:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of independent sources to WP:verify notability. Would support merge in the alternative if it helps to produce a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I removed the obvious spam link that the author has been trying to keep in the article, but the article itself is still fundamentally a how-to. Zetawoof (ζ) 04:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything salvageable here? If so, would someone please merge those bits to Sinus infection and let us know? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A single read of the article will tell you the answer is "no". As nothing is referenced, nothing can be trusted to be reliable and not OR. Ironholds (talk) 11:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
