Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 October 11 October >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Although the current sourcing of the article is a little weak Strikehold has shown that there are many unused articles and the general consensus seems to be that the article thus meets the GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cox (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT, never played or signed with a professional team. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you are referring to the top article here, that link redirects you to ABC News... Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How many times do we have to do this: WP:ATH (i.e. playing professionally) is NOT an exclusionary criterion, and therefore failing to meet it is not a valid reason for deletion. After going through just the first six of 16 pages of results for "'Joe Cox' quarterback" in Google News I found: Atlanta Journal Constitution, WSBTV, New York Times, Scout, Athens Banner-Herald, ESPN, The Oklahoman, Athens Banner-Herald, Ledger-Enquirer, The Athens Exchange, Ledger-Enquirer, The Augusta Chronicle, Savannah Morning News, Charlotte Observer, The Seattle Times. There is no question whatsoever that the subject meets WP:GNG, as will almost every quarterback who has served as a starter for a major college football team. Strikehold (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment when I put together the essay WP:ABELINCOLN I didn't know that it would be more than a fun thing to reference every so often... turns out, we actually need it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was a starting quarterback for a major college football program.--Yankees10 01:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no policy that says that every starting quarterback for a major college football program is inherently notable, and I don't see anything that qualifies as anything but routine news coverage of UGA football. He got a headlined paragraph in the NYT's college football roundup for a very exciting game against Colorado; some press in Oklahoma when the Bulldogs came out there to play OK state; stories from news media in Atlanta, Augusta, Athens, Savannah, etc. The only surprise may be the Seattle Times report directed to both of the Georgia fans in the Pacific Northwest. If an inclusionary policy gets made to say that starting QBs in the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 10, Big East, etc. should all be presumed notable, fine, but that day hasn't yet come. All in all, this is just another fan-created shrine, and Joe Cox is just another talented college athlete who hasn't yet made it to the pro level. Mandsford 02:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one said policy states every starting QB is notable; but as a matter of course, most from a major program will meet WP:GNG because they are the focus of constant media attention. Where in WP:GNG does it say localized or regional news sources do not count toward notability (which your mention of Georgia cities seems to imply)? The AJC has a daily circulation of about a quarter of a million people and is the de facto newspaper of record in the US's 9th largest city. Moreover, Atlanta, Augusta, Savannah, and Athens are geographically dispersed cities throughout the state of Georgia (population 10 million), so to consider it "local" would stretch that word to meaninglessness. The Seattle news item was from the AP wire service, not for "Georgia fans" in Washington state—but for a national audience. Your last line sounds vaguely like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. The article is certainly not GA quality but it is neutrally written, hardly a "shrine". Strikehold (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The GNG is more than met. Not meeting WP:ATHLETE is not a reason for deletion in this case. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Parade high school All-American--thus passes the requirement of substantial coverage of high school career. Blueboy96 03:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak delete per Mosmof and my own search, which also revealed little beyond local coverage here in Charlotte. Blueboy96 20:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While just being named a "high school all-American" would not, in my opinion, warrant a stand-alone article, it is an indicator of one of several items such as those posted by Strikehold that can come together to support the aforementioned general notability guideline. One other point, the mentioned "Notablity (sports)" guideline clearly states that players can achieve notability through college sports.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Failing WP:ATH or WP:NSPORT is nit a valid rationale for deletion. Those guidelines indicate certain athletes are inherently notable, it does not judge the notability of other athletes. In that case, general notability guidelines apply, and based on the sources shown by Strikehold, this subject meets those guidelines. Edward321 (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: Failing WP:ATH is not a valid rationale for deletion, but not meeting WP:GNG is, and I don't see any evidence in the article that it does. There are five sources cited in the article. Of the 5, one is a player stat page, another is a dead link at the UGA athletic department website, one is a blog dedicated to UGA football, another is an ESPN.com game report, and the last is a Rivals.com player profile. Which is to say, none of the above constitutes in-depth coverage by an independent, third party source. A quick Google search didn't get me anything beyond local coverage in Athens and Atlanta papers. Mosmof (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Please, see my post above. A cursory Google News Archive search shows a huge amount of significant press coverage, a small sample of which I posted in my !vote. The article only needs to make the assertion of notability, which it does. Strikehold (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. And a salute to those editors who worked to rescue this article, well done! j⚛e deckertalk 21:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pad feet[edit]

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

Declined WP:PROD. {{prod}} {{prod2}}and {{unreferenced}} tags removed without explanation or improvement. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of furniture terminology. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. The article was tagged as unsourced stub since 2006 until you decided to remove the tag without adding a source. Instead of trying to pencil-whip this nom with essays and deletion policy subsections, why don't you try actually improving the damn thing if you care so much. The "source" you provide proves that pad feet exist and are used on furniture. Big deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is our policy that it is uncivil to make demands of this sort of other editors, who work as unpaid volunteers: "Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other users." So, if you want the article to be improved then please attend to the matter yourself. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's specious logic and you know it. I am suggesting the article be deleted because this is just a dictionary definition of a part of some pieces of furniture and not a particularly notable concept. You are suggesting that it is notable and could be expanded. Suggesting that is not enough, you need to prove it if the article is to kept, instead of just throwing policy links around. The onus is in fact on you to back up what you say with reliable sources that clearly establish the notability of pad feet. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just did that. What you should please do is withdraw your unsupported assertions about the dictionary nature of this stub which are explicitly contradicted by our actual policy on the matter: "Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary articles are short, and that short article and dictionary article are therefore equivalent.". What gives an article a dictionary style is not its length but its focus upon lexical content - spelling, etymology, grammar, &c. We do not have this here and so the policy is not relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not interested in a "my policy is bigger than your policy" pissing contest with you. Again I suggest that instead of trying to find policies to refute the deletion nomination you try actually fixing the problem by adding multiple reliable sources that establish notability to the article. (As opposed to linking the AFD to a very brief mention in a book on furniture). Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the adage that it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish, it seem best to focus upon correcting your misunderstanding of policy and process. Above, you claim that this is a dictionary style article. Have you now read the WP:DICDEF policy? Do you now withdraw? If not, please quote a relevant passage and explain its applicability, if you can. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Merge to cabriole leg, in light of the ability to source existence, this is clearly heavily related to these legs) no sources provided on the article. Can't find any easy-to-use ones via online searches. Sources highlighted above may be useful, the first has some mentions, but I am not certain it is enough to establish stand-alone notability (more like a section on cabriole leg). On a general note: it is the onus of those claiming keep because it can; be sourced to do the sourcing. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 09:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is our policy that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a search engine or collection of links to other third-party sources. Our primary purpose is to create our own content, not to plagiarise the work of others and violate their copyright. Per core policy, sourcing is only required in articles to verify contentious or unclear points. Accordingly, there is no requirement for anyone to add sources if we are satisfied that the content is accurate. The onus is on those who wish to challenge points of detail to place {{fact}} tags where needed. Banner tags which do not address such points of detail are disruptive because they are indiscriminate and unhelpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is, I am afraid, absolute nonsense. All articles should be sourced, partly to establish notability (which is the core issue in this case) and partly to show the accuracy of the content. The article going to AFD essentially says we are disputing the content, please provide sources. You seem to be removing a lot of banner tags without addressing the issues in them - please stop, or address the issues, because it might be construed as disruptive. Banner tags are well accepted policy where articles have a general problem, e.g. a lack of sourcing. I am concerned you may have a distinct misunderstanding of how WP works and how articles are written. BTW the policies state that it is the onus of the person supporting material to provide sources. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 10:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be wrong in every particular. I have cited multiple policies to support everything that I say and can provide more if some point seems unclear. You have provided no such supporting material. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but you appear to have demonstrated a clear mis-reading of WP:V, it is definitely not saying "only content that is contentious should be sourced". It says, quite clearly, that all content should be sourced, but that it is not required, in practice, to source every sentence. The policy them demands that specifically material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced. Please have another read, and if you are still confused I recommend posting at WT:V where people will be able to explain the policy in more detail. It is worth also pointing out that WP:Notability says Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.. WP:SOURCES says Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 10:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aha, I forgot the most obvious (and 100% explicit) explanation, from WP:OR: This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. --[user:tmorton166|Errant]] [tmorton166] (chat!) 10:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed but note that WP:V states "...but in practice not everything need actually be attributed." This AFD does not constitute a challenge to the accuracy of the information because the basis of the nomination is that the article is a dictionary definition. And so it is not necessary to add sources to the article in this case. It is important to resist demands for sources in uncontroversial cases for several reasons. Firstly, it is a chore which few editors will bother with and the few that are willing to do it are thus overloaded and should save their efforts for the more important cases. Secondly, if editors are pressed to follow sources closely then it tends to encourage plagiarism and copyright violation. See the recent case of User:Gavin.collins who was recently sanctioned for this. Editors should understand that they are expected to write articles in their own words. Provided that they are accurate and the topic is uncontroversial, there is little need of inline citation and such references should be used lightly. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Colonel, you are entirely incorrect. Secondly, if editors are pressed to follow sources closely then it tends to encourage plagiarism and copyright violation - this is complete nonsense. Firstly, it is a chore which few editors will bother with and the few that are willing to do it are thus overloaded and should save their efforts for the more important cases. - everything should be considered an important case, especially as this is up for AFD. It is NOT at all established in the article whether this is a significant or notable subject, which is where the sources come in. This appears to be a pattern in your AFD arguments, I am going to try and bring this up on a more public forum for clarification so you are able to understand. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 12:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully this will be able to clarify things --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 12:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, maybe if you didn't start avery badgering remark you make with condescending and insulting statements that imply the other party is a moron and you are a genius who has full comprehension of every Wikipedia policy you would find other users a little more receptive to what you have to say. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This information probably fits best at Cabriole leg. There are many sources describing a pad foot as being used on this leg, but discussion of pad feet independent of cabriole legs is more elusive. This is a perfectly viable small article. It may make sense to merge to a larger article discussing features of furniture but that does not need to be decided here. pablo 11:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)edited  pablo 15:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an obviously encyclopedic topic. Printed encyclopedias don't treat it because they didn't have the space and experts that would have been necessary, not because it made no sense to include the topic. The topic falls into the area of industrial art, more specifically carpentry, which generally suffers from a relative lack of reliable sources. Nevertheless I am sure sufficient sources to build an article on exist somewhere.
If our current notability rules do not allow treating this topic in a separate article, then this is a defect in the rules that comes from optimising them too much w.r.t. keeping crap out. Since we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, the solution is to ignore or adjust the rules.
It's not currently much of an article, so it should probably be merged into a related article. I haven't found a good one yet, but cabriole leg is not appropriate because the applicability of pad feet is much wider. Wherever you have a large number of chairs in a room but no carpet, you have pad feet. If for some reason you don't, you can buy these things in little packages in any DIY shop before your parquet gets scratched. (Please correct me if I am confusing pad feet with something more general that typically only has the "pad" part. That would then be the most natural topic for a more general article to turn the present one into. For the moment I am assuming that the pads + adhesive stickers that you can buy everywhere are a special case of pad feet.)
Wikipedia has a systemic bias against industrial arts: People don't tend to get obsessed with such topics as they do with railways, for example, and those who work in the area tend to be more interested in creating something concrete with their hands than in writing texts and debating with others who think it might not be important. Let's do something against this bias, not support it. Hans Adler 12:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the applicability of pad feet is much wider - do you have a citation for this? Because so far I cannot find one, if it exists then I would probably support your view. For the moment I am assuming that the pads + adhesive stickers that you can buy everywhere are a special case of pad feet - I'm not sure we can make this assumption w/o a source. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 12:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not. As a non-native speaker of English I have trouble with these little words for everyday things. Apparently the correct terms for what I have in mind are floor protector and furniture pad The pad foot is clearly just a luxury version of the floor protector. It is absurd that this doesn't have an article, while dance pad does. Surely there would be no problem covering pad feet under a new article floor protector until we get an expert with the necessary carpentry literature on their shelf decides to split it off again. Hans Adler 12:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, dance pad is an entirely unrelated thing :D which is well sourced. If we could source this article in the same way then I would be all for it! Agreed on the idea of floor protector, I will try and find some sources for such an article. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But it is the only article in the entire encyclopedia in which the words "floor protector" appear. That's how I found it. I think that's a good example of our bias against the fundamental, simple things of life. Of course much more important topics are also affected by that, and the problem has already been noted by the Wikipedia 1.0 team. Hans Adler 13:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it appears from this ref that we are talking about the actual feet here (and the word pad is misleading us). I've created the article foot (furniture) off that cite and I recommend we merge this into it & work on adding refs for the other forms of feet. Thoughts? --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from a discussion in WP:V is there any way we can make a glossary for furniture terms, which this whole entry would easily fall in there? --MASEM (t) 13:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea, I'd support that --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the current topic, people looking for sources should note that these feet are also known as Dutch feet, spoon feet and duck feet though some sources maintain that duck feet are a different style. It seems to be mainly a matter of style though the feet obviously have to make contact with the floor in a satisfactory way. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are you finding this information? I am struggling to find decent sources & a few specific pointers would be great. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the head of this discussion, there are links to various Google searches. Google Books seems the most productive for this type of topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going through those, nothing majorly usable. It just sounded like you were reading from a specific source so I wondered what it was :) --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 13:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information comes from various furniture encyclopedia which all seem to say something about this style of foot as it is a distinctive feature of antique American furniture. Note that, when searching, you should allow for variations such as foot/feet. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the article is currently sourced, it meets WP:GNG. Whether or not it should be merged into a wider topic on furniture feet or a glossary of terms is an editorial decision.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is the type of discussion that sometimes makes me despair of Wikipedia. This is a topic that has had hundreds of years of notability, but is being treated as if it was an ephemeral piece of current popular culture. If we want to have any claim to be a serious encyclopedia then we should find some way of preventing such frivolous deletion nominations. For evidence of notability please refer to the Colonel's comments above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aw c'mon Phil. The article was prodded because it had no sources. The Colonel removed the prod without adding any sources. WP:V is not negotiable. Look carefully at the article history and you will see that it was only after the afd started that anyone now calling to keep this article even tried to establish notability. You can say that notability has now been established, but the nom was based on the lack of sources and the fact that an endorsed prod was summarily declined without explanation or improvement to the article. I don't happen to have any books on the history of furniture feet in my house, so I didn't have any sources of my own and since none were attached to the article it is fair to claim that notability was not established or even claimed by the pre-nomination version of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger is exactly right. This AfD, and how seriously it was taken, only proves that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-writing project by a bunch of people who haven't got the faintest clue what an encyclopedia is, and what it is good for. Consequently they can't be guided by a vision and are mechanically interpreting a set of rules instead. (Even more "keep" results of AfDs are symptoms of the same problem, but that's something I am used to.) Hans Adler 20:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The way this AfD has gone makes me despair a bit too. Removing a prod without explaining the removal or discussing it is not constructive. Cutting and pasting links to various policy pages and expounding on one's own interpretation of them consumes more time and pixels than actually improving the damn article to clearly meet inclusion standards. 'Rescue' my arse.  pablo 22:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decent article which needs some work, with good sources. Well worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 22:09, 11 october 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources are sufficient, as usually turns out to be the case when straightforward uncontroversial material is in question. I agree of course that the sources should have been added in the first place, & it is careless writing not to do so. But it's equally careless to nominate all such for deletion without taking a look oneself. The job of improving sourcing is the responsibility of everyone who works on an article. And myself, I interpret the statement in WP V "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question." as meaning "This policy requires that anything reasonably challenged or likely to be challenged in good faith, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation or other sufficiently specific citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question." Challenging unexceptionable material is an unproductive waste of effort when there is so much unsupported actual junk around--in older established articles as well as stubs. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice improvements by various editors on the article since the AFD. [1] Google book search seems to show plenty of furniture books that mention this, and thus verify its existence. Dream Focus 22:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that no-one was questioning its existence.  pablo 10:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Hegvald (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong gab 14:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided here. "why don't you try actually improving the damn thing" "you try actually fixing the problem by adding multiple reliable sources" exactly Beeblebrox, why don't you spend more time improving articles then deleting other editors good faith contributions. Preaching to others about improvement is extremely hypocritical. Okip 00:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, welcome back okip/ikip/travb/inclusionist/whatever your name is this week. If you would care to check my contribs before insulting me you may just find that I have in fact improved a few articles in the last few days, they just aren't on any radical inclusionist rescue lists at the moment. Unlike the rescue squad, I don't have any agenda other than improving Wikipedia. If you remove a prod from an article that has nominated because it had no sources, you damn well need to add some sources. To do otherwise is disingenuous and hypocritical. If it takes an AFD to get somebody off their ass and encourage them to put their money where their mouth is, that's fine with me. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another case of WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR.  pablo 09:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed !vote to keep on the basis of the article being verified and corrected using RS's --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 17:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements to the article since AfD started. The state the article was in prior to the AfD certainly warranted a prod. Colonel Warden's edit warring to remove the prod without discussion was inappropriate, and such behavior only serves to support the inclusionist/deletionist battleground mentality. Had a civil, rational discussion taken place regarding the article's problems, then this AfD likely wouldn't have had to happen and the article could have been quietly improved without wasting everyone's time. It seems that having a civil, rational discussion is a lot to ask of some people. SnottyWong chatter 23:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete with no prejudice against recreation as a redirect to a suitable target. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over-Run[edit]

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

No assertion or likelihood of notability. Redirecting may be inappropriate due to article being about two unrelated characters. armada Over-Run may be unsuitable for merging into List of Transformers: Armada characters since he did not appear in the anime. NotARealWord (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but the character list is about the anime, not the Dreamwave comic. NotARealWord (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it a character list about the article, and the article covers the anime and the comics, he should be on the list. Mathewignash (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About "the article"? Why would there be an article about... an article? NotARealWord (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is he was a character in that Armada comic book, and this is a page for the list of characters in Armada. It should include the comic book characters as much as the TV series. Mathewignash (talk) 16:26, 3 October 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) 23:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Yeah, the problem with those "List of [faction members]" articles aren't very helpful. NotARealWord (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another TF article with poor notability and sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 As several persons who wanted to keep the article have pointed out, an article of this nature should be held to the same standard as existing articles such as Christianity and violence, Islam and violence, Buddhism and violence, Hinduism and violence, etc. Concerns, raised by those who wanted to delete the article, about avoiding POV writing are valid, although that would apply to the other articles as well. To the extent that a certain point of view is espoused, then this needs to be fixed through editing. Mandsford 19:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism and violence[edit]

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

This is a POV-fork of Peace and violence in Judaism. Even if P&V survives its AfD, this article's topic (J&V) is inherently not NPOV.

The material is the much the same as the article Noleander originally posted two months ago which promoted a view of Judaism as a violent religion. It also brings us no closer to a clear scope of any of the articles currently up for AfD Joe407 (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While Shii is correct that the J&Bs article violated WP:POINT, that does not invalidate the point that was made. Namely, the intersection of topics in that case (and in this one) is invalid as a WP topic. Joe407 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Joe407 says above is exactly correct. The creation of the Judaism and bus stops article was a violation of WP:POINT. But the point made relates very well to this article. You have not created a valid article simply because you have thrown two valid topics together. That is why I ask numerous times on this AfD page for someone who is in support of this article to bring any actual language from sources that will show that any reliable source addresses a topic of "Judaism and violence." Though I've asked numerous times, as of today (Oct. 18) not one instance of such wording has been posted. This is not a "topic" for an article. Were it a topic, sources would make reference to that topic. This is an area for discussion. Wikipedia is not about hosting areas for discussion. Someone needs to provide actual quoted wording from sources that shows that "Judaism and violence" is considered a "topic" by any reliable source. In my opinion that is what this AfD is about. We have not even gotten to square one in this AfD discussion because supporters of this article have not even been willing to address the primary complaint against the Judaism and violence article: it is unsourced in its entire scope. Instead those who wish to support this have only been willing to provide sources for subcategories intended to be found within this overarching topic. In my opinion, sourcing for individual threads composing the article does not indicate that the entire topic is a valid topic for Wikipedia purposes. This is analogous to the Judaism and bus stops article. You don't have a valid topic just because the components are perfectly valid, and even if threads that can comprise such an article can be shown to be sourced. Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - There may be some confusion here, stemming from a recent rash of article re-naming by User:Marokwitz : he unilaterally renamed Judaism and violence to Peace and violence in Judaism; then to Peace and war in Judaism. That latter title, of course, limits the article to war topics, yet the sources (listed below) include many topics that are unrelated to war (such as settler violence). So, this Judaism and violence article contains the material from the sources that is unrelated to war. Personally, I think all the material should be in a single article, but Marokwitz seems to have different ideas. The Peace and war in Judaism can be considered a sub-article of Judaism and violence. This article is a highly notable subject, comparable to:
Especially with recent events in the Middle East, the topic of how religions interact with violence is very topical and notable. There are a large number of reliable sources on the topic, listed at Judaism and violence#References. A few are:
  • Boustan, Ra'anan S., "Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity", in Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practice in Early Judaism and Christianity, Ra'anan S. Boustan, Alex P. Jassen, Calvin J. Roetzel (Eds), BRILL, 2010 pp 1–12
  • Chilton, Bruce, Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Doubleday, 2009
  • Ehrlich, Carl. S, "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Judit Targarona Borrás, Ángel Sáenz-Badillos (Eds). 1999, Brill. pp 117–124.
  • Ellens, J. Harold (Ed.), The destructive power of religion: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007
  • Firestone, Reuven, "Judaism on Violence and Reconciliation: An Examination of Key Sources", in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, James Heft (Ed.), Fordham Univ Press, 2004, pp 74–87
  • Glick, Leonard B., "Religion and Genocide", in The Widening circle of genocide, Alan L. Berger (Ed). Transaction Publishers, 1994, pp 43–74
  • Heft, James (Ed.), Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam , Fordham Univ Press, 2004
  • Hirst, David, The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East, Nation Books, 2003
  • Hoffman, R. Joseph, The just war and jihad: violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, Prometheus Books, 2006
  • Horowitz, Elliott S., Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence, Princeton University Press, 2006
  • Juergensmeyer, Mark, Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence, University of California Press, 2003
  • Kuper, Leo, "Theological Warrants for Genocide: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity", in ‪Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam‬, ‪Steven L. Jacob‬s (Ed.), ‪Lexington Books, 2009‬, pp 3–34
  • Pedahzur, Ami, Jewish terrorism in Israel, Columbia University Press, Columbia University Press, 2009
  • Perliger, Arie and Weinberg, Leonard, "Jewish Self-Defence and Terrorist Groups Prior to the Establishment of the State of Israel: Roots and Traditions", in *Phillips, Gary A., "More Than the Jews … His Blood Be Upon All the Children: Biblical Violence, Genocide and Responsible Reading", in ‪Confronting genocide: Judaism, Christianity, Islam‬, ‪Steven L. Jacob‬s (Ed.), ‪Lexington Books, 2009‬, pp 77–87
  • Van Wees, Hans, "Genocide in the Ancient World", in The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies, Donald Bloxham, A. Dirk Moses (Eds), Oxford University Press US, 2010, pp 239–258.
  • Weisburd, David, Jewish Settler Violence, Penn State Press, 1985

As indicated above, there is a large amount of material on the topic. --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: How about rename to "War in Jewish law" and define the scope accordingly? Joe407 (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, about 50% of the material relates to war, and that would be a great title (although "law" is a bit limiting) for that material. The problem is the other 50% of the material in the sources above: it ranges from Settler violence in the occupied territories, to the Cave of the patriarchs massacre, to violence related to the Book of Esther, to Purim, to the Amalekites, to stoning in the Torah, and so on. That material cannot go into an article restricted to "war". A "war" article could be a sub-article of a "violence" article, I suppose. --Noleander (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point of calling the article ____ in Jewish law is that it forces it to stick to the facts and to a clearly defined scope. As I pointed out in the nom, the title and article as it is now J&V) is an inherently POV topic. In the article War (or violence) in Jewish law, there would be no place for violence related to Purim - it would go where it belongs in the article Purim. The same is true for Baruch Goldstein and the Amaleikites. We would then have a clearly defined article with a clear scope and sources. An article such as Milk and meat in Jewish law is a reasonable model for an NPOV treatment of the topic. Joe407 (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous reliable sources discuss "violence" generically (not limited to "war") and they include war and non-war topics (see list of references above). Are you suggesting that we spread the material out amongst several articles, so it is harder for readers to see it all in one place? Do you think Christianity and violence should also be deleted? --Noleander (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting that we limit this article to a clear, NPOV topic. If additional articles are needed, see WP:NOTPAPER. (regarding C&V, after a quick glance, I feel it would benefit from clarity of scope and trimming. But that is a different topic.) Joe407 (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is not sensible. Are you suggesting that all articles in WP on violence and terrorism should be deleted because they are inherently POV? Or are you saying all the academic sources listed above are biased? --Noleander (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the topic "Judaism and Violence" is an inherently biased topic. The sources you showed above span such a wide range of topics that bringing them together is a synthesis of ideas, creating an impression which is POV. For example, Hirst's book on the roots of violence in the Middle East, Ehlich's "Joshua, Judaism, and Genocide", and Horowitz's Purim book are not related. They each deal with a very different topic and thesis. Drawing them together to use them as a common source can only be done by cherry picking them for what supports the authors thesis. This is laudable in an academic paper but has no place here. Hirst's book belongs under the ME or Arab-Israeli conflic, Ehlich's under biblical warfare and Horowitz under Purim. Joe407 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see: we have dozens of academic sources that do write books about Judaism and violence, and we have a few WP editors who say (to quote you) "the topic ... is an inherently biased topic." I'll go with the academics. --Noleander (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The advantage that an academic has in writing a book if not the obligation, is that of originality and synthesis of existing information to support a thesis. That is the goal of an academic paper or book. Our goal here is different. My comment is not that that academics do no write about J&V but rather to say that by juxtaposing such very different books as you have cited, you are creating the basis of a good undergrad paper rather than a WP article. 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Zero—those other articles might be sourced. This article isn't. Bus stop (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The battlefield aspect is bothersome to me, also. But it doesn't have to be a battlefield: these articles can (and should) document all aspects of the relationship between religion and violence. For every religious precept that endorses violence, there is a usually a precept that opposes violence. For example, the article Christianity and violence begins with a section entitled "Christian opposition to violence". --Noleander (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been said before but - WP:OTHERSTUFF. Joe407 (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander—you've yet to bring sources for this article, though you initiated it. We've been over this ground before on the article's Talk page. I am not talking about piecemeal support for components of the article. What sources support the overall topic? The phrase that is the title of the article has no standard meaning. It means whatever you'd like it to mean. It is not a topic, for Wikipedia article-creation purposes. It is just a common phrase without any fixed meaning. No one knows whether it includes for instance Purim and/or Book of Esther but you are apparently content to argue over that. [2], [3], [4], [5] No source supports the overarching topic, reflected in the title. The article you've created is an undefined receptacle to argue over. What does the article offer the reader? The article offers the reader a snapshot of that argument at any given moment. Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources. Without sources the article can be nothing but a battlefield because sources are the invaluable resource in resolving editorial disagreements. The article is merely your notion of a great idea for a topic and a great idea for a title for that topic. But sources do not support the title, and sources do not support the overarching theme of the topic. Bus stop (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK—bring sources. The title is "Judaism and violence". Please show support for that in sources. What source establishes that as a topic? What is the meaning of "Judaism and violence"—according to sources? Or are editors supposed to debate that? Wikipedia is not a debating society. This is not a blog, or an Internet discussion forum. If it's not sourced, it doesn't belong here. All the material can go elsewhere, on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has organizing principles. Sources underscore Wikipedia's organizing principles. This has absolutely nothing to do with censorship. Wikipedia is not censored. All the material that is in the article or that anyone may wish to put in the article—as long as it is properly sourced—can find a home on Wikipedia. Please bring a source for "Judaism and violence" if you wish to validate the subject of this article. It presently is a string of common everyday English words with no particular fixed meaning. Articles should be written only on topics that are defined by sources. Wikipedia is dependent on sources. Sources make Wikipedia credible to readers. Sources resolve disputes among editors. Bus stop (talk) 10:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IZAK: Those are wise words. I agree, and propose the following: both AfDs be abandoned; both articles (Judaism and violence and Peace and war in Judaism) be re-combined into a single article named Judaism and violence (which was the article's original name since its creation). Then a "rename proposal" be initiated on the article's Talk page. That would be the most sensible approach that would get everyone back to building an encyclopedia. If a bold Admin concurs, their help will be needed to move the Peace and war in Judaism back to Judaism and violence, since a non-admin cannot do that move. --Noleander (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the merger is an okay idea. But the title of the merged article cannot be "war" or "peace and war" because only 50% of the material deals with war: the other 50% is other sorts of violence (settler violence; Book of Esther; stoning as punishment, etc). So the title of the merged article should be "Judaism and violence" (which would also parallel Islam and violence and Christianity and violence). Or, since there are dozens and dozens of sources on this, and the articles are in their infancy, we could reasonably conclude that a WP:Content fork is inevitable, and the "war" material is a good splitting-point, and leave the two articles as parent-child articles.--Noleander (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander— you say that "50% of the material deals with war: the other 50% is other sorts of violence". What source describes that "50%" of that which falls under the heading of "Judaism and violence" is material that "deals with war"? What source makes the point that "50%" of what is included in the topic of "Judaism and violence" is material that relates to "other sorts of violence"? You are promulgating what form the article is supposed to take. You have to show sources for this. Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are listed above at the top of this AfD: their titles are "Judaism and violence" or variants thereof. In those sources, about half the material is about wars, and about half the material is about other kinds of violence (settler violence, etc). --Noleander (talk) 03:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander - I'm still not clear on how you avoid WP:COATRACK with all of the "other violence" stuff. As was well stated above by User:Bus Stop, "you've created is an undefined receptacle to argue over. What does the article offer the reader? The article offers the reader a snapshot of that argument at any given moment." Your category of "other violence" seems to be your subjective sense of what constitutes religious violence.
There is no objective standard as to what constitutes "Jewish violence" as opposed to "violence performed by Jews". We saw this in the article talk pages where we debated including "Jewish views on capital punishment" as well as "Jewish spousal abuse" under your "other violence" category. Define your scope!. Joe407 (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the Judaism and violence article is defined by the reliable sources that discuss the topic (see list above). They address violent acts and attitudes that are described in (or based on) Judaic religious texts, doctrines and precepts. I don't recall any editor suggesting that the article include "Jewish violence", so I'm not sure why you bring that inflammatory suggestion up. (Perhaps you are confused because there was a discussion of sources that address the Torah's "death by stoning" punishments in the context of violence?) If an editor were to recommend expanding the article beyond the religion of Judaism, I would object. All of the other articles - Christianity and violence, Mormonism and violence, Islam and violence, etc - are strictly limited to violence where the sources associate the violence with the religion; and the articles exclude violence where the perpetrators just happen to be members of the religion. That distinction has come up repeatedly in the several Talk pages, and I'm not aware of any editor disagreeing with that restriction. --Noleander (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander—you are repeatedly referring to articles that may be well-sourced in their overall scope—you are mentioning again the Christianity and violence, Mormonism and violence, and Islam and violence articles. These articles may be well-sourced in their overall scope, but how am I to know that this article is well-sourced in its overall scope? Can you provide me with sources that indicate what "Judaism and violence" means? I am not referring to what you think "Judaism and violence" means or what another editor of Wikipedia thinks "Judaism and violence" means—I am asking you what reliable sources say that that term means. Do reliable sources address this question? Can you please bring wording from sources to this area of the discussion page to show what reliable sources indicate is the proper scope for the term which is the title for this article? What do reliable sources have to say about the title that you favor for this article, and the topic on which you wish this article to be written? Bus stop (talk) 11:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment #2 While I realize that WP:OTE means that no article can impact delete/keep of another article, I assume that any admin closing this will read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and bus stops, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence, & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peace and violence in Judaism.
    All of the articles have lots of sources. The crux of the issue as I see it (and the reason User:Chesdovi created Judaism & bus stops), is that all of these articles show that Judaism is a religion that has what to say about almost every topic in a persons life. That's it. Once you understand that Judaism touches upon everything, you can create Judaism & _________.

    The problem is that while you will find sources for Judaism and toothbrushes, the topic has no clear definition of scope. Whatever can be found that mentions toothbrushes (in Jewish history, Jewish texts, or Jewish law) is fair game to enter the article. It is at best ripe for WP:TRIVIA and often will be WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:COATRACK as editors debate the inclusion or exclusion of a toothbrush related story/news item/law/event. As was stated in one of the AfDs mentioned above "The article offers the reader a snapshot of that argument at any given moment."
    Now go back and reread the above sentence while replacing toothbrush with violence or bus stops or elecricity or matchsticks. For each one, the argument stands.

    I would however point out that there is room for much of the information in these articles (J&V, PV&J, J&BS) that could have a place elsewhere. As long as the topic is clearly defined and encyclopedic. Using the above test, articles about "________ in Jewish law" or "________ in the Old testament" or "Historical accounts of ________" are fine given appropriate WP:RS. Violence in Jewish law or Violence in the old testament are both fine topics as they clearly define the scope of the article. To those who will say that the J&V article includes all of these, I refer to WP:NOTPAPER. Sometimes more, yet focused articles allow clarity of topic and purpous. Violence in the old testament is a very diffent topic from ethical questions of assasination in the modern state of Israel. What Noleander did by putting them together was to create an illusion of a common thread thereby violating WP:SYNTH even though no new verbiage was created.
    I recommend that all three articles be deleted and any new articles on these topics be monitored for a while with the question being "What is the scope?". Joe407 (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's part of a series about religion and violence. We don't have a series about religion and bus stops. Shii (tock) 23:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From where do you derive that it is "part of a series about religion and violence"? Bus stop (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is already documented above. Take your comments there. Shii (tock) 00:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that I am not a "sockpuppet". You say that this "is already documented above." What point on this page are you referring to? Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge coverage into the topic to which it relates as this article conflicts directly with WP:NOT#ESSAY. Although it may have lots of of sources, some of which may be related to violence as well as Judaism, this topic is little more than a high school essay topic or the subject for a debating competition. The politicising of topics such as Judaism with violence, war, international conspiracies, the "German question" or the "Palestine question" by presenting essays as encyclopaedic articles really needs to stop, or otherwise Wikipedia is going to turn into a platform for thinly disguised soapboxing, which is the primary purpose of essay writing.
  • On the issue of notability, it is clear that all of the sources address the topic of Judaism directly and in detail. This is not a notable topic in its own right, in the same way that "Judaism and God", "Judaism and war" "Judaism and Jews" are not distinct topics in their own right, but are part of the coverage of Judaism. Editors need to be clear that coverage that discusses Judaism in general, whether in relation to God, peace, war, or violence are about Judaism or other notable topics relating Jewish practice, not "Judaism and X" or "Criticism of Judaism".--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the association of religion(s) with violence is a distinct topic in its own right ... look a the sources above. There is a large body of literature by scholars and secular skeptics that discusses how religions are sometimes associated with violence. In some cases, the commentators go so far as to suggest that various religions (directly or indirectly) support or endorse violence. Are you suggesting that we delete Christianity and violence and spread its contents throughout various articles like Crusades and The Inquisition? Should the article Islamic terrorism be deleted and its contents spread throughout other articles? Of course not. --Noleander (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your views, because the number of combinations and permutations for essay type articles is huge, as their scope is determined by a particular point of view which precludes balanced coverage of the over arching topic. The general principle behind WP:NOT#ESSAY is that articles on God, Religion, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc should not be split and split again into different POV forks, with each split normally limiting the scope of the topic to the point of view of fewer and fewer sources. What this means is that while Judaism may be notable, that does not mean we have to discuss every aspect of human behaviour in relation to Judaism just because a few essayists happen to have written about Judaism within the framework of an essay. Editors should not import this approach into Wikipedia, no matter how many sources use essays for their work. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you have not read the sources (see the list above) - they are not "essays", but are academic works written by scholars and published by mainstream publishers . The association of religion(s) with violence is the subject of numerous scholarly works. Your suggestion that we delete Christianity and violence, Mormonism and violence and Islamic terrorism is irrational. That would make it impossible for readers to find out what the scholarly sources say on those topics. Your suggestion would force readers to visit dozens of articles (Crusades, Witch hunts, etc) and piece the information together (or is that the goal? I refer you to WP:Not censored). You might have a point if there were no scholarly sources that associated religion(s) with violence, but there are. --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure there are sources, but since the address the topic of Judaism, Jewish belief or practice, that those are the topics to which this coverage should be reassigned. "Judaism and violence" is merely an essay topic, and it is Wikipedia policy that prohibits the writing of essay type articles, no matter how well sourced. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Peace and war in Judaism, per Peter Karlsen. Then possibly it can be renamed back to Peace and violence in Judaism. "Judaism and violence" is a POV fork emphasizing violence instead of giving a balanced view of peace and violence. Marokwitz (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander—"Judaism and violence" should not be just a phrase used in passing if it is to qualify as a term on which an article should be written. I have been asking you to extract a few sentences from what you regard as your sources for this term to show us that the use of the term is anything other than in passing. In my opinion articles should be written on topics that have a definition. I believe we deserve to know what sort of definition if any accompanies any usage of that term. I think we should want to know if that term is used in any sort of a restrictive way. That would indicate that it was a legitimate term for the purposes of article-creation. The restricted way in which it was used would also help us to guide any resulting article's scope. If on the other hand no real meaning is attached to the term, then I think the term "Judaism and violence" is merely an opening for a discussion. Such a resulting article provides merely an opportunity for discussing a "topic" which has not been established to exist in the first place. Please bring some wording to support that "Judaism and violence" is sourced in a way that you feel would make it qualify for the purposes of Wikipedia article-creation. Bus stop (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MrCleanOut—you are talking about other articles as if that were our primary concern here. Do you think it is possible that those articles should be "kept" while this article "deleted"? Of course it is. I am not making that argument at all. But it is the corollary of your argument. This AfD page is not a referendum on what you perceive as a related group of articles. Bus stop (talk) 10:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One should be wary of crossing two article topics to produce a third unless this third topic is a notable subject as well. However, per Noleander research, it is clear that the topic of violence in the Jewish religion has been covered in several published academic papers. The topic is therefore valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle—please post some quotes from sources establishing that the topic is legitimate. If no sources establish a scope or any semblance of a defined parameter then this does not meet article-creation requirements. Encyclopedias are not creative writing exercises. If the topic is not real by standards established by reliable sources then this area for discussion is too broad and unstructured for a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  • There's a clear POV push to make historic peaceful nation of the Jews look "violent."
  • Cherypicking - information to suit the anti Jewish trend of the article.
  • Besides the reasons provided above, it has multiple falsification of Judaism, for instance the attempt to broaden the extermination order outside the Amalekites and falsely stating that the Canaanites were such a target, when in fact the Israelies were only required to clear the land out of the inhabitants [7] not to "exterminate."

(In reality according to Judaism's Talmud book, today, since "Sancheriv mixed up the nations, there is no nation that is identified as Amalek." [8]

  • Noam Chomsky and Shulamit Aloni both notorious 'anti-religious-Jews' activists are not the best sources one can have for clarity on Judaism, religion, or else.Marias87 (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: New user, apparent WP:SPA: joined WP just before this comment. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Marias87 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment While googling... If Noleander wouldn't have such screaming propaganda words like 'exrermination" and falsification of the Bible, I wouldn't be "invited." He even tried to revert the edits to his POV and inaccuracy "info."Marias87 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Plutonium27—do you find many more edits for MrCleanOut? I think only a few more. We are not counting votes. The strength of reasoning should matter.
I am still waiting for any of the supporters of this article to defend its existence by bringing some excerpts from their much ballyhooed sources to show that the title which supposedly represents the subject matter that the article is intended to address is anything other than ordinary language used in passing unavoidably by sources addressing other topics. My argument against this article is that there is no topic "Judaism and violence." No source addresses that as an overarching theme. The article is presenting a topic that does not exist, in its entirety. Sub-components of the article exist. Those sub-components are all that can be sourced. Those sub-components deserve articles of their own or those sub-components warrant being subsumed into appropriate articles. The title is misleading—because sources don't support "Judaism and violence" as a topic for an article. If sources don't support the topic, we shouldn't have an article on it. That would be an article on a phantom topic. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is an extremely large literature on this subject. I don't have any interest in editing the article, but I already have quite a lot of relevant material on my computer or shelf. I'll only mention sources from academic writers to be sure about passing WP:RS. This is just the tip of a large iceberg. I note that Noleander already gave a list of relevant sources.
  • Don Seeman (2005). "Violence, Ethics and Divine Honor in Modern Jewish Thought". Journal of the Amerian Academy of Religion. 73: 1015–1048. (which has a bibliography stretching for five pages, many items clearly relevant).
  • Stuart Cohen. "The Re-Discovery of Orthodox Jewish Laws Relating to the Military and War (Hilkhot Tzavah U-Milchamah) in Contemporary Israel Trends and Implications". Israel Studies. 12: 1–28. (with 78-item bibliography much clearly relevant).
  • David Weisburd (1989). Jewish Settler Violence: Deviance as Social Reaction. Pennsylvania State University Press. (a book with many references to Jewish religion and culture).
  • Ehud Sprinzak (1999). Brother against Brother. Free Press. (a book about political violence within Israeli society, quite a lot of mention of religion).
  • Beth Berkowitz (2005). "Negotiating violence and the word in Rabbinic law". Yale journal of law & the humanities. 125.
  • Joseph David (2005). "The One who is More Violent Prevails - Law and Violence from a Talmudic Legal Perspective". [9]. {{cite journal}}: External link in |journal= (help)
Zerotalk 00:48, 18 October 201"0 (UTC)
CommentOh boy, so many falsifications, especially the "The One who is More Violent Prevails" In fact the real Talmudic rule refers to more active with arguments and desperation to keep what's "his." Noleander even tried to insert the "extermination" term on non- Amalekites and distorting the original Hebrew text (referring to the Canaanites) to suit his POV. and thank you again about cherypicking in working about it for a week and more, surely the Jews have been the most violent in history as compared to others, yea right...Marias87 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can repeat that list as often as you like. The question isn't whether threads within such a topic are sourced. The question is whether the topic exists. Is it defined? Please bring wording from sources establishing a definition of "Judaism and violence". You are being asked to provide a source for the overall topic. The ordinary occurrence of three common words does not constitute a topic. In order for something to be a topic for the purposes of a Wikipedia article ordinary words have to have a special meaning, imparted to them by sources. Otherwise you have merely opened up an undefined area for discussion. You've brought together "Judaism" and "violence." So what? Have sources established any semblance of a notion of what applies when Judaism and violence are considered on the same page? Can you bring wording from sources that speaks to the question of what the general outline of such an area of investigation might be? Or are we just going to adhere to our own outline in writing this article? We are not experts. Encyclopedia Britannica, with a paid staff of academic researchers might be competent to write on a topic and title it as they please, based on their credentials. We don't pass credentials-requirements in order to become Wikipedians. We are solely reliant on sources—not just to support the individual threads within an article—but to justify the topic. If the topic doesn't exist, there should be no article on it. Please show me wording that addresses the topic that you wish to have an article on. Extract wording from sources that addresses the total topic. Does it indicate a scope for the sort of topic that you wish to write about? Or are you going to make up the scope as you go along? Bus stop (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defining the scope of articles is a normal part of an editor's task. I don't see why this one is different. More than enough quality sources have been identified to write an article that fits the title as well as any of the other articles with similar titles. The exact coverage can be negotiated on the article's talk page. Zerotalk 05:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zero—if you are making up the scope of the article without recourse to sources to guide you in that task—then the quality of the article can be assumed to be that of garbage. Bus stop (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop's argument to DELETE makes the most sense. Especially according to Noleander's revisions.Marias87 (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please explain a valid reason why it should not be deleted, in fact the above editors have explained exactly why the POV push by Noleander should not be allowed, I checked again his edits, he does try to make it towards a certain slant against Judaism. The Objection is mainly on Noleander's OR and POV version of this page.Marias87 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marias87: Valid reasons have been given - just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they do not exist. Your "above editors" are attempting to define Wikipedia policy in their own terms in order to remove a page they dislike. Clearly you agree with them. You may reference my responses elsewhere to answer your question - I am not about to waste my time in a futile effort to satisfy a drive-by POV pusher. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plutonium27— you mention the concept of I DONT LIKE IT. Of course that concept has a flip-side: I LIKE IT. These are known as Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. But there are some important things that should be discussed in an AfD such as this. I asked you up above if you can bring any wording from sources that might indicate that any reliable source regards the topic "Judaism and violence" as a topic in its own right. You have not even addressed that question. The article was nominated for an AfD for a reason. You and other supporters of the article are simply refusing to discuss the reasons for this AfD. How does that differ from simply voting that I LIKE IT? In summation: if no source identifies "Judaism and violence" as a topic, then Wikipedia should NOT have an article devoted to that. Discussion forums abound on the Internet, but we should only have articles that clearly exist as real topics, identified as such by reliable sources, and defined as well. We should not be going off half-cocked compiling threads of material, however well-sourced, that are not united and defined in that composition by reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop: Your efforts to insist upon a self-serving interpretation of policy (in this case, the definition of terms re topics) are so transparently obvious, no matter how many versions of the Bus Stop Patented Idiot-Guide-To-Internets get thrown in. Although noticeably omitting WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT- but then who's surprised at how that one slips your mind so often? Anyway, I'm sure the deciding admin will understand exactly what you're trying to get across here and will consider all these discussions upon their respective merits. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plutonium27—WP:BURDEN is basic policy:
"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
I've asked you repeatedly to show me wording that establishes "Judaism and violence" as a "topic." You cannot provide wording in sources because this article is merely on an undefined area for discussion. I don't think that meets Wiki requirements for article creation. Articles require sources to establish general outlines or they are unstructured. We have no idea what to include or not include in such an article. The material belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. But this article should be deleted. Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of "I don't like it, get rid of it". The article Judaism and peace, which you might think would fall under "I like it, keep it", is equaly unsourced, unencyclopedic, and should be deleted. Joe407 (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe407, are you arguing that the content of this article is unsourced? It seems to me that the elements treated in the article are well sourced, and I would suggest that if the major problem is, as you seem to think, the question of scope which might be handled by renaming the article, then a more appropriate forum for discussion would be WP:RM. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuujinn—there is no source for the topic. Please provide actual wording from a source for any such topic as "Judaism and violence." Ditto for "Judaism and peace." These are not worthy of being articles. But please quote actual wording from the source that treats commonplace terms (such as "Judaism and violence") in a way that makes you regard them as notable topics. A topic for article-creation purposes has to have some degree of definition. In the absence of a definition these terms merely suggest an open-ended discussion. These sorts of non-articles are not what Wikipedia is about. Sources are the most essential element in article-writing (in my opinion). There is no source for these topics. Articles such as the 2 mentioned above should be deleted. The material contained in them is probably fine, but the material simply belongs elsewhere on Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Judaism and violence" is merely on an undefined area for discussion. Articles need definition. That calls for sources indicating their overall scope. The only sources that have been thus far provided merely use the term "Judaism and violence" in passing with no implication of a definition, leaving the article as an undefined dumping ground for any criticism anyone cares to levy against Judaism based on a sourced association with violence. Definitely unencyclopedic for Wikipedia. We are average people—nonspecialists. Encyclopedia Britannica may be able to write this article. Wikipedians require sources. There are none for the overall scope of this article. Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you're agree with me, but my opinion is that Firestone, Ellens, Heft and Boustan in the list provided by Neolander above clearly establish that the general topic is notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuujinn—you say that sources "clearly establish that the general topic is notable." Could you please extract a few lines from your sources that show this? Also, see my above post at 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC). Bus stop (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bus-Stop, as I said in other venues, I believe that your interpretation of sourcing requirements for the titles of articles deviates from policy, and I'm simply not going to get drawn into yet another lengthy discussion on this topic with you. I believe that the sources used in the article show that that general topic is notable, and while I readily acknowledge that X and Y articles present challenges in terms of scope, I believe that is ultimately an argument to improve the article, not delete it. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuujinn—you concede that you have no sourcing in support of "Judaism and violence" as a valid topic. If you had at your fingertips wording from reliable sources that referred to "Judaism and violence" in a way that you felt confident presented it as a topic that had a parameter defined by that source, I think you would present that wording, because such wording would end this AfD in your favor. I can't help but think you do not have wording to support the topic, or you would present it. No other editor has been willing to present any such wording either. Clearly such wording doesn't exist. "Judaism and violence" is a suggestion for what we should talk about in this entity—nothing more. It is not a valid Wikipedia topic. Editors do not have a defined topic in this entity. This entity only serves the purpose of allowing any editor at any time to come up with another complaint about Judaism. All they need do is find a sourced association between any violence and Judaism. That is a perpetual as well as constantly evolving vulnerability against Judaism. This Wikipedia entity is never written. It is constantly in a state of being written. It is not even ever half-written. This entity represents an ongoing vulnerability. That gets back to the point that the topic is not defined. You are only unable to find wording defining the topic because no such wording exists. Bus stop (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"you concede that you have no sourcing in support of "Judaism and violence" as a valid topic". Uhm, no, I do not, and I feel that your characterizations of my intent verges on an assumption of bad faith, and thus ask politely that you retract your characterization of me. As I said, I'm not interested in debating you on this policy issue--I think your interpretation of policy is flawed, and it's just not productive or appropriate in this venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuujinn—I did not in any way characterize your "intent". Where do you see that? You further say, "I'm not interested in debating you on this policy issue". Let me ask you this: what do you think the purpose of this AfD is? Joe407 says in his nomination of this AfD that, "The material is the much the same as the article Noleander originally posted two months ago which promoted a view of Judaism as a violent religion. It also brings us no closer to a clear scope of any of the articles currently up for AfD". If I can paraphrase him, he is saying there is little or no scope to this article. By extension, there are no sources saying what the scope of this article is, and that is precisely my argument—sources cannot be found defining the entity that is the subject of this AfD. Bus stop (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"you concede that you have no sourcing in support of "Judaism and violence" as a valid topic. If you had at your fingertips wording from reliable sources that referred to "Judaism and violence" in a way that you felt confident presented it as a topic that had a parameter defined by that source, I think you would present that wording, because such wording would end this AfD in your favor. I can't help but think you do not have wording to support the topic, or you would present it." That's all a characterization of me, and this discussion should be about the articles content and policy, not what you think I would or should or could do under a hypothetical set of circumstances you imagine to map to the real world. As for Joe407, paraphrase all you like--my view of his point is above if you care to read it again. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuujinn—I apologize. I see what you are saying. But anyway, getting back on track, do you have any wording from sources that you can post here? I think that we are looking for wording, found in sources, that treat "Judaism and violence" as a "topic." I think we would not be so much interested in seeing "Judaism and violence" used "in passing," with no implication of that phrase constituting an actual "topic" with some semblance of a definition. We would want to see "Judaism and violence" used in some pointed way, with some emphasis on the significance of that phrase. Were we to find such a usage of the phrase in a source, we would likely find a "scope" in such a description of "Judaism and violence," if it were found in a source used in this way. Joe407, in initiating this AfD, complains that there is little "clear scope". (I am slightly paraphrasing him.) If we are utilizing this AfD page as it should be used, shouldn't we be discussing whether sources present the scope that Joe407 suggests may be missing? Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the apology. As for the other, you already have my answer. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn—yes—you concede that this article presents a challenge "in terms of scope". What does a challenge in terms of scope mean? I think it means such a resulting entity is unstructured. If that entity is on "Judaism and violence," then I think it follows that any and every association between "Judaism" and "violence" is fair game for inclusion in such an entity. Such an entity I would characterize as an ongoing dumping ground for anything disparaging of Judaism based on a sourced association between Judaism and violence. That, in my characterization, would not be an article at all, but rather a discussion forum. When an incident arizes—be it a flare-up in Israel, an incident involving Jews in any part other of the world—some editor can present a cogent argument for inclusion in this article. What makes that possible? That is of course made possible by the absence of any definition for the phrase that heads up this entity. It is not, strictly speaking, an article. It is a talking-ground. It is a base for disparagement of Judaism that has no bounds, other than the association in reliable sources of anything relating to "Judaism" with anything relating to "violence." Bus stop (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reluctantly, per Neolander's list of sources. I also agree with IZAK's comments, FWIW. We should work together on fixing the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 5:37 am, Today (UTC−4)

Another gross misinterpertation and demonization attempt by Noleander, vis-a-vis Purim / Esther, trying to potyray the Jews as if they just 'killed many people for no reason" when in fact they targeted their enemies who wished to kill them see: [10] http://www.jewishmag.com/30mag/esther/esther.htm ].Marias87 (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I think the above could be taken as a personal attack, and does not seem to be an argument relevant to the discussion at hand. Would you consider striking it as a gesture of good faith? --Nuujinn (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion.) Deleted by Malik Shabazz, AfD closed (NAC) by 28bytes (talk) 02:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am No Limit[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I Am No Limit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is mostly speculation about a future music release. No reliable sources are included, and none could be found. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have nominated for G4 because I believe nothing has changed from the previous AFD. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 23:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Allison[edit]

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

Article used to promote candidate for political office. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Article offers very little content, along with a link to the candidates campaign website. Cindamuse (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who he's been endorsed by is irrelevant. He's still a candidate with no outside notability shown. See WP:POLITICIAN. He would only (maybe...) get notability for being a candidate if he stood for the Presidency. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - the subject's website is not considered a reliable source for establishing notability. WP:RS Peridon (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, anyway, he won the Democratic primary in his district. I would call him Notable just for that reason. Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I voted Delete above, but I would also endorse a merge/redirect as suggested by Ray. --MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I fully support a redirect as well. Cindamuse (talk) 04:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect. Unelected politicians are a disaster in terms of COI/POV, this is an excellent example of why. tedder (talk) 06:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major party nominees for a national position in a two party system should be considered notable. There will always be enough coverage to be found. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought, too, but when I did a search on the Ventura County Star site, I didn't find much. Maybe that is because the county is a heavily Republican area and the guy doesn't stand a chance. But that does not counter your and my conclusion — which I think is that the candidate who won the Demo primary is ipso facto a Notable figure, even if he or she loses. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let There Be Drums[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Article has never gone beyond one sentence in over four years. Only hits on Google are for the song. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The disambiguation can be fixed through housekeeping once this is deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Ferox[edit]

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

Search reveals no indication of notability for this "independent film." Does not appear to meet WP:FILMNOT. Prod contested by author. Spiesr (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 20:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BSTR-B[edit]

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

All primary sources, Google search shows no reliable secondary sources. Derild4921☼ 20:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no indication of notability of the subject, someone is using wikipedia as a promotional tool for this organization. this particular article is about a school which (presumably according to other article) pays a fee to be a member of the for profit "beaconhouse school system". see also the other two articles regarding this organization which have been nominated for deletion as well. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WookieInHeat. --Kudpung (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with no indication of notability of the subject

--Umar1996 (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 current version, could be recreated as a redirect to an appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Mike Hart[edit]

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

Totally un-encyclopedic, contrived nonsense. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is the kind of article that makes people laugh at Wikipedia. Not notable, not sourced, original research, violates WP:BLP, possible hoax, take your pick. I'd agree to speedy this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral (see below) as reliable secondary sources do exist for the subject (Google). Please, don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about a house of superstition and bias? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please take a look at the article now; I've cleaned it up a bit and added references to reliable published sources. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Guoguo12, well, now at least it's well formatted. However, that's doesn't make the subject itself anymore suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. What you really need to think about is the essence of the subject at hand. The subject is not Mike Hart nor is it Michigan or Michigan state football. It's a meme that implies that one man's comments in 2007 are magically impacting the actions of hundreds of others up to three years later. It's being used as a cutsie-poo theme to write hackneyed sports columns, like the ones cited. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please note that the general notability guideline 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". In addition, WP:RS states, "Some news outlets host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources". Guoguo12--Talk--  01:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please note the following topics have also received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: Lindsay Lohan drug addiction, Lindsay Lohan trial, Lindsay Lohan jail sentence. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • "Articles that share a superficial commonality do not necessarily all meet the requirements necessary to write a well-referenced, neutral encyclopedia article," claims WP:ALLORNOTHING (essay). Guoguo12--Talk--  19:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You can quote as many policies as you want, but you're missing the spirit of the matter. This subject, as it is framed, is inherently non-neutral and contrived in its scope. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • With all due respect, policies like the general notability guideline are widely accepted standards. If you think the subject (the article itself) is "inherently non-neutral", then place a {{npov}} tag on the top of the page, instead of subjecting the article to deletion. If you meant instead that this discussion is "inherently non-neutral", you are correct; you yourself described the subject as "a cutsie-poo theme". Guoguo12--Talk--  22:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You are missing the point of the general notability guideline. If order for a topic to be notable about it must have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. But is that alone sufficient? How narrowly can we draw the lines around a topic? An NPOV tag would be appropriate of the article was a biased rendering of a neutral topic. The topic is intrinsically biased itself (not to mentioned a contrived absurdity), like if we had an article called Jewish curses taking about the curses that Jewish people have allegedly put on civilization at large. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The topic may be biased ... for University of Michigan fans. You appear to be affiliated with or have a vested interest in the University of Michigan football team, as, according to X!'s Edit Counter, you have made over 570 edits to "Michigan Wolverines football". I don't mean to make a personal attack or to disparage you for your past contributions, which I respect; instead, I would like to confirm that you do not have a conflict of interest. After all, one of your reasons for deletion is that the Curse of Mike Hart is "contrived nonsense", which sounds a lot like "I don't like it." Guoguo12--Talk--  00:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • I can assure you that my position would be exactly the same for an article called the Curse of John L. Smith to explain Michigan's four straight wins during his tenure as Michigan State head coach. You're quite right that I've done a ton of work on Michigan Wolverines football. I created the page for Mike Hart (American football) in 2006 and am the leading editor per gross number of edits for the article. You might also want to check who the leading editors are for articles about Michigan State coaching greats like Clarence Munn and Duffy Daugherty and current Spartans coach Mark Dantonio. My objections with the article have nothing to do with rooting allegiances. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Just for the record, I agree with Jweiss11, and I'm unbiased. I dislike both teams >:) Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Very well. In that case, let us continue with our discussion. You asked "how narrowly can we draw the lines around a topic" because you apparently do not find significant coverage in reliable sources alone significant. Perhaps we should ask about this at Wikipedia talk:Notability, as recommended at WP:DR. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Statement withdrawn (see below). Guoguo12--Talk--  23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete Merge - Borderline vandalism, non-notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge.We are not voting on if the curse is real, but if it has been covered in depth in notable sources. Which it seems to have been. Borock (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with a redirect) to Mike Hart and/or Paul Bunyan Trophy. There are quite a few Google hits, but virtually all of the ones in reliable sources are only excerpts of the New York Times blog post. The only other source I found that makes prominent use of the term is from The Oakland (Michigan) Press, and even then, it's only mentioned in the title and once in the text. Unless other sources can be found, I think notability has yet to be established. Strikehold (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Paul Bunyan Trophy. At best this should be part of the rivalry article. A three game win/losing streak is not historically significant enough to warrant a stand-alone article. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan to me. Borock (talk) 03:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? Guoguo12--Talk--  19:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The plan is to delete this page and note Hart's comments in 2007 at Mike Hart (American football) and Paul Bunyan Trophy. I am against leaving this as a redirect because even that would be a reification of the absurd and the contrived. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, please. I'm asking Borock whether he means he supports completely deleting or merging. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This Afd has also been discussed on the article talk page. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with Paul Bunyan Trophy (and reduce to one or two sentences with direct quotation). As of right now, only one source uses the word "Curse" -- this is problematic. Until we get 10 or so different mainstream sources using the word "curse" it violates WP:OR as an independent article (we could re-consider if we find the same word used in an AP article, ESPN article, LA Times article, etc). The only legitimate usage I see (right now) is in the rivalry game article and using a direct quotation from the source. Obamafan70 (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification--as it stands, it is non-notable due to insufficient usage of the term "Curse". I made that point but then misdiagnosed it as a WP:OR issue. Apologies for any confusion, Obamafan70 (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could to move it to, say, "Mike Hart Controversy" or something. What do you think? Guoguo12--Talk--  19:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guoguo12, what you should spend some more time thinking about is the reflexivity of this article's existence, or really the existence of an article for any new abstraction. A google search of "Curse of Mike Hart" now returns this article as the #4 search result, which in turn may result in more people writing (hack, bloggish) journalism about it, which in turns bolsters the article's source-ablity here. This article was likely created by MSU fans with little interest in building Wikipedia at large (Danielkoons, Msuisthebest), who wanted to legitimize this neologism and you are effectively defending that effort. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change it to Mike Hart Controversy and re-write it as follows "Mike Hart made statement x. Michigan State then won y games in a row. New York Times editor z described it as a "curse". This would help your cause considerably. In my opinion, those 3 sentences could be included in Mike Hart or Paul Bunyan Trophy. Otherwise, it seems non-notable. Also, for procedural purposes, please refrain from directing ad hominems and/or suggesting motives for other users WP:AGF. In most cases, such arguments are fallacious and not particularly constructive even if they are true.Obamafan70 (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those cases where it is constructive and particularly instructive. I am not suggesting that the aforementioned users had any intent to harm Wikipedia in any way. Rather, I want to illustrate the larger implications at play. If an accusation has been made in bad faith against anyone, it was made against me above, supported by incomplete, selective research. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jweiss11, you are correct; the first dart was thrown at you. I wasn't directing my comments at you -- it was just an effort to keep this from escalating to a spat, as well as keep this strictly factual. You handled the attack admirably, better than I have in past dialogue (see my talk page for a real gem). And thanks for clarifying; as indicated by the barnstars I've awarded -- I'm well aware of the fruitfulness of your contributions! Obamafan70 (talk) 21:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my accusations, although I did not intend for them to be perceived as such. I only meant to clarify that you are, in fact, arguing for this Afd on behalf of the Wikipedian community. I also did not mean for my inquiry to seem like an argument against your Afd. I would rather look into such issues personally, rather than have it be investigated in some noticeboard. I personally have nothing to gain or lose from the deletion of the article. I simply stumbled upon the Afd and argued against it purely because of the general notability guideline and because I felt it was my duty to improve and preserve any article that could potentially be useful. I now find several valid arguments placed against keeping the article, including notability, possible original research, and lack of reliable sources. Perhaps this is a case where WP:IAR overrules policy, or perhaps I am entirely wrong in citing so many relevant and irrelevant policies and essays. Either way, your fair reason and sound arguments have compelled me to neutrality. Thank you for preserving a sense of civility throughout the majority of this discussion. Happy editing. Guoguo12--Talk--  23:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries re: the accusations. I'm glad we've reached a consensus on this. Thanks for your input. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Paul Bunyan Trophy. This is a legitimate and real part of the rivalry, and to the extent that it is not suitable for an article on its own, should be incorporated into the article about the rivalry. cmadler (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge: Don't keep. As above, this certainly does not merit a dedicated article; at most, it should be short blurb in the rivalry and/or Mike hart article. DeFaultRyan 19:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Come on, folks, let's not get our panties in a bunch. I laughed out loud when I read this. Anyone who has been working on Wikipedia for a while will recognize an article that's not "encyclopedic," as this one clearly is not, but let's not lose our sense of humor in the process. Clearly, as a stand-alone WP article, it needs to be deleted. However, this well-sourced bit of humor would make a light-hearted and entirely appropriate three-sentence addition to the Michigan-Michigan State rivalry article. Whether it's still worthy of inclusion in the rivalry article three to five years from now, well, we can look at it again later. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-encyclopedic nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Blogger_(service)#History. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Blogger[edit]

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

Copy-and-paste job of an older revision of Blogger (service). Contains exactly the same information as the main article, and so far there's no reason to believe it will ever grow significantly. Pointless duplication of content at this point. Morn (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Kent County Council. Sufficient merge already carried out, DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kent youth county council[edit]

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

Completely, totally and utterly non-notable. Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merged the little bit of verifiable information to Kent County Council#Council_structure. I realize this was a contested prod, but I don't think it needed to come to AfD, as a WP:MERGE proposal seems perfectly reasonable. I suggest that the nom withdraw the nomination and redirect the article. I encourage the new editor to develop any other relevant content at the main article. It can always be WP:SPLIT later if the youth council's third-party publicity grows dramatically. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Kent County Council. Fails at WP:Org. --Kudpung (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This article contains unsourced information about a living person. Deleting per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flexport[edit]

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

Non notable company, can't find secondary sources to prove notability DimaG (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chimes Junior Honorary[edit]

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

A single-chapter honor society. No third party sources to establish notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Notability concerns were raised since April 2009. GrapedApe (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided. Apparently this was once a national organization with multiple chapters. The national organization disbanded but a few of the chapters remained in existence operating independently. If this article is going to be about the surviving chapter at Washington University, I would probably recommend deletion under WP:ORG. Organizations that exist at only a single school are generally not notable. But if the article were changed to be about the national organization and its surviving independent chapters, I might recommend keeping it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Campus life at Washington University in St. Louis. This college society is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, and all the references provided are self-referential, but it deserves a sentence or two at the appropriate university article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The chapter at Washington University is not individually notable enough for its own article per WP:ORG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shōtō Tanemura[edit]

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

This article lacks any independent sources to support extraordinary claims such as being the soke of over 20 different martial arts and having been awarded a Menkyo Kaiden at the age of 21 (only 6 years after he started studying traditional martial arts). Papaursa (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To be fair, the article does say he started unspecified sport martial arts at the age of 9, but becoming a grandmaster at 21? Independent verification is a must for these claims. Heading lots of organizations that you run from your home does not show notability. Anyone can create their own martial arts organization and make themselves soke of it. Astudent0 (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like anyone who's an expert in so many martial arts would have been documented, but I can't find any independent sources to support notability. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Janos[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:MANOTE as a martial artist or WP:GNG for being the art director at a local TV station. Papaursa (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOWy j⚛e deckertalk 20:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Halladay's perfect game[edit]

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

The creation of this page smacks of WP:RECENTISM and I don't believe that it has its own notability that is independent of the articles 2010 Philadelphia Phillies season and Perfect game. The current article text is merely copied from the former article, and I believe that it should be redirected back to there. — KV5 • Talk • 17:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. I think it's better to redirect the page to Perfect game. Information about the perfect game is at 2010 Philadelphia Phillies season and a little bit of information needs to be added at 2010 Stanley Cup Finals, as the Flyers played Game 1 of the series in Chicago the same night. Also, you may know that NBC replayed the final out during the first intermission report and the final innings coincided with the first intermission. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The hockey information, as previously stated in other forums, is not relevant to articles on baseball. It's a trivial overlap. Coincidence is not encyclopedic. — KV5 • Talk • 18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Roy Halladay. There are enough links from other articles [13] to make a redirect rather than changing the link to Roy Halladay#perfect game. We have a small number of articles in a Category: MLB perfect games, most of which happened in years beginning with "2". Things like Mark Buehrle's perfect game are a classic example of what's discouraged in WP:NOT#STATS (the preferred method would be to simply link to a website like baseball-reference.com). When it comes to sports articles, the usual response is to whistle and look the other way. Mandsford 03:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Buehrle's perfect game, which establishes the notability of perfect games. They are ridiculously rare - this was the 20th in MLB history, stretching back to the 1800s - and just because this was recent doesn't make it less historic. Add the fact that this was the second perfect game in a year (really there should be three). I will be expanding this with reliable sources, and man, are there plenty of them. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the comment above this one, Mandsford notes that the Buehrle's perfect game article is a violation of WP:NOT#STATS. Note also that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for the notability of any given article. The AfD you reference does not establish notability for all perfect games, only for that article, and I think the result of that AfD could easily be contested in viewing that article in its current form. There is no reason that this information should be content forked from the two articles that it should be part of. — KV5 • Talk • 19:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know about Other Stuff Exists. What I am trying to say is that there is consensus, established at other AfDs, that perfect games are historic events, and that their coverage exceeds any run of the mill sports coverage. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a "I don't think it's notable enough for a full article as opposed to mentions at other appropriate articles" argument. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vodello: 1) This is not a vote. 2) Other participants can read the linked discussions if they so choose, so no one is preventing anything. 3) I see no bold text ("screaming") except yours. 4) Comments like "The delete votes so far have been WP:IDONTLIKEIT caliber" could be uncivil. All things considered, I really do like this article, considering my loyalties. Just a thought.
  • Independent of my comments here, I still don't believe that independent notability has been generated without context within the season in which the game took place or the player's article. With improvement, perhaps there is a possibility for such notability to exist. However, that doesn't negate the fact that if this article turns into the Buehrle article, with box score after box score after stat line after stat line, it will, without a doubt, be violation of WP:NOT#STATS, as that article is right now. — KV5 • Talk • 17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that. I'll grant that Galarraga's game has independent notability based on the bizarre situation. I don't see independent notability with the Buehrle page or this one. Buehrle's could be a candidate for a second AfD in time. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply to Killervogel5) FYI, I removed most of the stat lines at Buehrle's page, and this page really doesn't have that much to begin with. A little stats are okay. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge with Roy Halladay. The Roy Halladay article isn't long enough that discussion of his perfect game in the main Roy Halladay article would make it too lengthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.109.14 (talk • contribs)
    • Really this article isn't a splitoff of Halladay's article. We do discuss it, yes, but some of the information in it would violate undue weight. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 20:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since perfect games are so rare, they receive a lot of coverage. Other prefect games are covered extensively throughout time. I see no reason that this one won't be in future discussions. Actually, it already is since he recently threw a no-hitter in the post-season. The argument that the article is not at the standards it could be is no reason to delete, it is reason to clean-up. I will say that the keep votes should shy away from the WP:WAX arguments and just focus on this article. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well sourced, and the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. The claim of "recentism" overlooks the fact that baseball historians regard MLB perfect games to be a notable and enduring part of the sport's history, as evidenced by detailed coverage in books published many years after the individual games occurred. I put together the following list of such books for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Buehrle's perfect game as examples:
My conclusion is that individual perfect games are part of the subject matter of baseball history, and are thus appropriate subjects for Wikipedia articles. BRMo (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I'm of the opinion that not every single lingle dingle no-hitter needs to have its own article (just because we can write a page that is well-sourced doesn't mean we need to, recentism aside), but definitely this one, being only the 2nd no-hitter/perfect game in MLB post-season history. It's kind of in a class of its own. –MuZemike 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, this article is about Halladay's perfect game on May 30. That no-hitter in the playoffs -- it was just a no-hitter. He issued a walk in the fifth. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but definitely this one, being only the 2nd no-hitter/perfect game in MLB post-season history." I interpreted this to mean MuZemike thought this was about the no-hitter. That being said, I hope this has no affect on your opinion. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Individual single game articles for games of extraordinary importance should exist on WP.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is hardly fulls of STATS and details a rare and very notable occasion for MLB. With that, the article goes beyond general notability and since the game itself is important, it warrants its own article. The implication of RECENTISM is invalid IMO. The perfect games that happen recently have more readily available sourcing and interest. Wikipedia is driven by people's own interest as well. Maybe interested editors will one day create articles for the other 15 or so perfect games.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Substantial coverage is present for notability, and this is a rare enough event that we shouldn't delete it under NOTNEWS grounds or something like that. Encyclopedias generally cover major events, and since we've judged that it's possible for specific games of certain sports to be major enough for coverage, I can't see why we should delete this on grounds unrelated to notability. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not many of these have been thrown, making it notable in the sports context. Dincher (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is kind of important to have articles about the historic events, including perfect games. Roy Halladay's perfect game is the second perfect game thrown by a pitcher in 2010. First time that TWO perfect games were thrown in the same year since 1880. Editorofthewiki created and expanded to a great article, same user that he removed other info and play-by-play sections from Mark Buehrle's perfect game. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Roy Halladay. Bloated with marginally relevant tidbits to make this pose as a real article. The only legitimate section is "Game summary" and can easily be incorporated into his biography. Sadly, Wikipedia is far too polluted with articles like this. Grsz11 00:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The game received ample coverage in reliable and verifiable sources above and beyond that provided most typical games, and the claim of notability for the game is well-supported by the references provided in the article. Alansohn (talk) 01:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sure, lots of coverage that day after, the next day, but any evidence of prolonged notability? Grsz11 03:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep An event that has only occurred 20 times in 131 years is definitely notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, there is WP:RECENTISM. The solution to that is to create the fifteen missing articles, not to delete this one. Regarding Grsz11's comment a couple of lines up, there's not time yet to demonstrate prolonged notability of this game, but BRMo's list shows it pretty well for perfect games in general. Matchups 17:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with you! We shall create 15 more perfect games including Don Larsen's. Every time when there were perfect games in the future, then we shall make those articles within a day or two after that event. BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone close this really soon? Tks. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homegrown (Neil Young album)[edit]

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

Dubious notability. Only sources are a poorly made reference to Neil Young's biography Shakey, an unreliable fansite and an Allmusic mirror which barely mentions the album. Fails WP:V. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Never judge a subject's notability solely by the sources cited in a Wikipedia article. Several books on Young cover this in sufficient detail - see Google Books.--Michig (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Michig said, it has some coverage. Otherwise a good article with proper citations. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, speedy close. Widely and contemporaneously reported, well-documented in reliable biographies. The nominatot's practice of initiating deletion discussions on 1960s/70s musical topics without performing even a cursory search of print resources via Google Books is disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy KEEP. The existence of the album has been attested to in hundreds of sources over the past thirty years. Many of the songs that first appeared on Homegrown appeared on subsequent Neil Young albums and are critically and popularly well-known. Even the album's cover is widely available. [14] Qworty (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, speedy close for the reasons stated above. Nominations for deletion should not be made in such haste. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This album was also nominated for deletion back in 2008; see this AfD. That old nomination was based on a then-current rule about unreleased albums that I think has been modified in the time since, and in any case one of the results of that old debate was improvements to the article. However, some participants in that debate located additional sources that are not presently in the article. The sources found then and now should be added if anyone has time. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per G4. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollie Greig[edit]

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

Unfortunately this is a news or magazine article, and not encyclopedic material. Kudpung (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Article has been speedy deleted (CSD A7) - Wikipedia:Yet another MySpace band. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kick Ptarmigan[edit]

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

Non-notable band that fails WP:BAND CTJF83 chat 16:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bede Wing[edit]

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

Interesting, but I can find no coverage in reliable sources via a google search. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the standard reliable source for this sort of subject which will determine notability or not is Janes All The World's Aircraft. If someone has access to this for the appropriate years in question can they confirm whether there are entries for this or not? - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is a one paragraph blurb that reads like a press release significant coverage? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More references have been found and added. If anybody can get Volume 23 of Sport Aviation magazine, there's an article in it that isn't cited fully in Google Books... - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking more promising, can you provide a link to the partial article in google? How much detail does the Air Facts: the magazine of safe flying have? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Google Books page. Both the EAA mag and the Air Facts entry are 'snippet views', and the Sport Aviation one won't even show properly for some reason. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had coverage in Popular Science and elsewhere back in the day. Dream Focus 05:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while I am cautiously optimistic that this article can be well sourced, I'm not sure it has been yet. The blurb in Popular Science is just that. The snippet views from Google books suggest that there is significant coverage, but has anyone gotten access to those sources in full? Can we assess notability from small snippets alone? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong chatter 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Google Books link above immediately produces numerous sources. There seems to be something wrong with the nominator's search technique. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's a anything wrong with my mad google skilz on this subject--the problem I am having with the notion of keeping this article is that as far as I know, no one has access to any of the sources in there entirety beyond the blurb in popular science. I've asked for details about the source, and no one has been forth coming. The google search shows that reliable sources have at least touched upon the subject, but whether they have done more than a passing mention or the equivalent of a press release announcing the product, or provided the requisite significant coverage is, to me at least, completely unknown. There are five sources in the google search, and I have no access to anything more than very brief snippets. One of the five has no information on the subject. The Kites book from 2000 appears to me to be a picture caption, but I can see only a small portion of the representation of the page. The other three appear to me to be the pre-product announcements, similar to press releases, and like the Popular Science blurb, but perhaps there is more there in the actual sources. So I'll ask more bluntly--has anyone obtained access to any of the articles in its entirety? If not, do we not require that someone somewhere have access to the complete text of at least one of sources used in an article, at least at some point in time? I am perfectly happy to assume good faith if anyone says "yes, I have read the article X and it is good" --Nuujinn (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We all have access the Kites book, which, for example, can be purchased for as little as $1.46. I've seen enough of it online to see that the topic has been noticed and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. We are not here to perform this editing in detail. We just establish that there is a reasonable prospect of improving the article in accordance with our editing policy. If you want to be operating at a higher level of content evaluation, then please try GA or FA review. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colonel Warden, thank you for the link to the kites book for purchase. I see your point, but still find myself in disagreement with you, since I feel that the meager text of the partial views afforded us at this point suggest that the subject is unusual, but not notable, in that it lacks significant coverage. My suggest is that the text of this article be removed to the article on Bede as a subsection, and that this article be redirected there until such time as we have a better grasp of acutal sources (unless anyone has read one or more of these in their entirety and can voach for them). --Nuujinn (talk) 20:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not our editing policy to remove articles while they are under development. The whole idea of a Wiki is that we keep imperfect drafts in mainspace where editors can find them and work upon them. If we deleted articles while we wait for sources or other input then we would not get anything done. Wikipedia was created precisely because the perfectionist approach of Nupedia did not work. Wikipedia works because we tolerate imperfection and this includes articles without any sources at all - there are thousands of them. We have reasonable evidence that there are multiple books which discuss this topic in detail and that's all we need. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a few more Google Books snippets here. And I am going to try and get some of these sources via interlibrary loan to improve this article. So I strongly oppose deletion or merger. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 22:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are reassuring, since it seems that there's coverage for a few years, and they do not appear to be mere press releases. I'm convinced by those additions that we have enough potential for an article, but I am still concerned that we're not working from complete versions of sources, I suppose it is the pedantic old academic in me. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leo4Office[edit]

Leo4Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable piece of software. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I think the participation, though on the low side, is sufficient to close. DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Walkers' Club[edit]

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

Article which, although asserting notability, may not be notable enough for inclusion in our project. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and no outstanding delete arguments (non-admin closure) Yoenit (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Lungpher[edit]

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

Village fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources show up on Google. Derild4921☼ 15:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: According to website wide consensus, all villages are inherently notable. Joe Chill (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? I'm pretty sure I've seen a few AFD's where villages were deleted. Derild4921☼ 15:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really. Joe Chill (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Never mind, searching through the archives I found the same result with other village article. I withdraw this AFD. Anyone feel free to close it. Derild4921☼ 15:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Villages are inherently notable. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e deckertalk 21:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FK Chmel Blšany (stadium)[edit]

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

Non-notable, not referenced and orphaned other than a link from the page of the club which plays there. Cloudz679 (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died in Alaskan aviation accidents[edit]

List of people who died in Alaskan aviation accidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no similar lists for other countries and it violates Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE. Wackywace converse | contribs 13:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would not disagree that location either, but you do mean a M&R right ?Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I was not going to chime in on this as the spirit of these forums should be more judicious. However let this be pointed out that Ted Stevens (whose name this person has no need or interest in using gratuitously) said as quoted in [16] that he expected perhaps to perish this way. When Will Rogers died he was one of the most famous wits in the nation and perhaps akin to Bob Dylan a voice for his generation. There is an established pattern of air crashes in Alaska which have killed notable people as well as others (such as legislator Arthur Johnson) which has established a pattern which begins to become a phenomonon (Hale Boggs again was a prominent congressman when he died and his death led to a shake up in the House of Represenatives power structure) and the man who replaced Ted Stevens in the Senate's father died the way Ted Stevens did and so did Steven's first wife. So the whole thing begins to take on though not a supernatural tone a historical story line though caused by weather of a Bermuda Triangle. There is nothing wrong that all said with merging it into what has been suggested by another voice the list of aviation fatalitiesMasterknighted (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you possibly provide a source that suggests there is an "established pattern of air crashes in Alaska which have killed notable people ... which begins to become a phenomonon [sic]" similar to the Bermuda Triangle? The Bermuda triangle is something which is established in international culture because of the high number of mysterious disappearances of sea-going craft and aircraft. Alaska, however, is not the Bermuda Triangle. If there is nothing to suggest that Alaska has gained a cult following of people who are interested in mysterious air crashes that just happen to have killed several people worthy of note, then the article should be deleted. But even if there is a group of people, no matter how large, that think the number of celebrity who have perished in the air is suspicious, then they are a bunch of conspiracy theory nutters. Wikipedia does not have lists such as these. Wackywace converse | contribs 16:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot the qestion mark in your opening salvo. Therein it is a phenomona not exactly like the Bermuda Triangle but akin in that a group of events have happened in light of a condition in a geographically demarcated area named by the United States, Alaska and that there might be an accident if one flies there or through there. Further notable people have died under such circumstances and the occurence of fatalaties of very prominent people has been a footnote in history several times over. There is nothing wrong with it being merged either, perhaps it would have been better if it had been written as the history of Alaskan aviation accidents and it would be proviential should it serve as the genesis for an article as such (or merged as a section or into a section in the article on Alaskan Transportation Transportation in Alaska. ). Masterknighted (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page reminds me of the old joke: "If it's not on Wikipedia, it didn't happen." As I previously stated on the article's talk page, in light of what's known on this particular subject, this page deserves to be deleted merely on account of being such a piss-poor piece of work.RadioKAOS (talk) 00:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the end KAOS this article maybe deleted but you will still be a very nasty manifestation of some agenda activated by something deep within your raison d'etre. I enjoy debate if this article could have been improved upon and redirected it would have been fruitful but perhaps it is like that proverbial bridge to nowhere now which perhaps it is your best interest to stomp upon. Get a life direct your anger elsewhere and indeed the article would probably be better with a description of weather in Alaska with then a history of accidents and then the effect on subsequent events by the loss of those who perished. I did not think of this when i wrote it. This person was just trying to fill in a gap in information via a list such as are on wikipedia so that a correlation would be established for informational purposes. Obviously it could have been better thought through.Masterknighted (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try not to be so vituperative this time out. Here's the way I see it. I actually live in Alaska, and may enjoy a perspective on some matters which exceeds what someone who doesn't live in Alaska and/or has no ties to Alaska is able to find via a Google search. It would probably be a very safe bet to state that the number of people killed in aviation accidents in Alaska over history numbers well into the thousands. Taking that into consideration, the article contributes approximately zero towards illuminating the subject matter. In fact, all it does is mirror information already contained in List of fatalities from aviation accidents and the individual biography pages linked to the page. If you notice my contributions, I've worked on a lot of Alaska-related pages. My biggest complaint has to do with countless pages which have more to do with Sarah Palin than the titular subject of the page. This is hardly that much more different than that.RadioKAOS (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I am dubious of the merits of this article. In a land as big as Alaska, "local" transport is (I think) commonly by light aircraft. This thus almost become the equivalent of a list of people killed in car crashes, clearly a NN topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  18:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeLong Quarterly[edit]

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

not sure what applies to magazines but WP:GNG in any case. hardly any coverage. [17]. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to B105_FM#Labby.2C_Camilla_and_Stav. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Labby, Camilla & Stav[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. Non-notable radio show, completely unreferenced. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC) ~~ GB fan ~~ 13:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Guest on Labby, Camilla & Stav has been listed separately.--Kudpung (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and Armbrust.--Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to B105 FM where the existing mention could be expanded a little. Delete the list of guests - completely non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  18:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church, Bluffton[edit]

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

Non-notable local church. either way (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valobaslei Ghor Bandha Jay Na[edit]

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

Prod contested. No reference given. Non notable film.There have no response from creator. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 13:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  18:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Geare[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT. no extensive nor significant roles. which is kind of expected for a 4 year old. way too early to create an article. LibStar (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  18:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Fosse[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable. Per WP:BIO, notability is not inherited. She does not seem to have a notable career of her own, so the closest claim to notability is her famous parents which is an invalid claim. either way (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability or wp:creative. The one ref I could find focuses on her father. --CutOffTies (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  18:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Aristide Constantin Georges Caradja[edit]

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

Non-notable private individual with no apparent claim to notability except that he is a distant descendant of a family of nobility (great-great-great-grandfather was once a "Kaimakam" of Walachia), in a country where nobility titles have no legal currency. Per WP:BIO, notability is not inherited and mere relation to notable people does not make a subject notable in Wikipedia's terms. Only source given is a family tree of unknown provenance, apparently privately compiled and self-published, on somebody's website. Most other biographical claims are entirely unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Interesting and notable father and interesting family in general, but neither is a claim to notability. Wikipedia does not create a separate article for every line in the Gotha. (Or rather, some people do just that, but many have to be deleted.) We might be able to get him through on the WP:ACADEMICS ticket, but I found no evidence of research after he got his doctorate. Hans Adler 13:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of personal notability.Anonimu (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  18:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Premier League Fantasy Football[edit]

It's unclear whether this article is about a specific Fantasy football league for the Premier League, or about Fantasy football leagues on the Premier League in general. There's already an article Fantasy football (Association). Might also be a case of spam. Bobbymozza (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Bobbymozza (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looks like a copyvio too. —Half Price 15:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just seems to be some guy's personal reviews of various PL fantasy games, which obviously is completely unencyclopedic. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, completely unencyclopedic. GiantSnowman 13:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is all original research. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Basically just a list. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Mondragon[edit]

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

This guy doesn't really have any notable coverage. Sure he takes photos that appear in magazines, but don't a lot of other people? I also feel as though he wrote his own article based on the overspecificness of some of the details involved. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mild delete - notability not established. I'd change my mind if that were fixed, however. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 06:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pure Vanispamcruftisement created by a single-purpose account … article lacks attribution to verify WP:BIO or WP:BLP notability criteria, let alone WP:GNG … the "References" are just a collection of self-published sources. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) 09:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not seeing notability here. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete nothing in gnews [19]. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I gave it a cleanup when it was first posted, but it appears to fail WP:CREATIVE, with no significant coverage from WP:RS, either online or in his online press clippings. Top Jim (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable. Fails WP:GNG and the article as it stands is indeed pure vanispamcruftisement. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - although most of the article centers on his photography work, there is one line where it's claimed he was a co-developer of the Transputer. I can find nothing online supporting this, and the article's creator reverted my attempts to tag that line for citations twice. If evidence for that can be found, then that is certainly notable, and the parts about his current career could be trimmed down. Top Jim (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at what the internet has to say David May (computer scientist) has been heralded as the project's inventor. Carl might have worked on the project but he sure as heck didn't play a crucial role. Also, the fact that the user keeps removing citation tags makes me think that the user either knows that they are lying or are trying to hide the truth surrounding that fact. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rushel Shell[edit]

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

fails WP:NSPORTS and general notability guidelines Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Shell has received significant coverage from a range of reliable sources, both local and national -- see the reference list in the article. He is one of the top HS athletes in the country: a national freshman of the year, probable state record-setter and major college star, and possible NFL player. He's being recruited by virtually every big-time college football program and will only grow in notoriety as he approaches his senior year, breaks more records, and decides which college to attend. Even midway through his junior season in high school a google search for "Rushel Shell" (in quotes) results in almost 3,000 hits. Bottom line: he's a notable figure. Anybody who argues otherwise doesn't understand how big high school and college football, and recruiting, have become in this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreybower (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How good he may or may not become is just speculation right now, and Google hits do not confer notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Live CD. Any content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCjacking[edit]

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

Neologism which also fails WP:USEENGLISH as the article lacks sufficient English-language sources using the term. Cybercobra (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added two English-language sources to External links. Note, however, there being a lack of English-language sources presented in an article is not a reason for deletion in itself. I spend more time on French Wikipedia than on English Wikipedia, and it is not unusual to find in the former articles with more English sources than French, or exclusively English sources. But this is not usually complained about because non-French sources are still accepted as sources, provided they are good ones. I don't see why should be more punctillious about the language of sources here.
Also see my arguments below. RedRabbit (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would generally agree, but since the article is question concerns a word/term/neologism... --Cybercobra (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article concerns a neologism, but is mainly about a practice, not a word. RedRabbit (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NEO, WP:NOT#DICDEF. Take your pick. Not enough found to have an encyclopedia article.--Michig (talk) 10:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Under WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:PROMOTION. It would meet WP:GNG as a hobby or popular activity if there were more people doing it, but the referenced coverage only talks about one guy (which probably means it's also WP:COI, as he probably created the article). -- BenTels (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please check before alleging the article contravenes WP:COI. The creator of the article is a native English speaker, which that 'one guy' is not. And I doubt the author of the page works for Google, which that 'one guy' apparently does, according to his homepage. Your other arguments I address below. RedRabbit (talk) 06:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't seem to meet notability requirements. Yworo (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are plenty of entries listed on Google from a search on 'PCjacking', so there must be considerable interest in the subject. Being a based on a neologism in itself isn't a reason to delete an article; there are plenty of articles based on neologisms which advocates of this article's deletion would consent to keeping (see the article on 1337 for example). I think a search through magazines and blogs will reveal an adequate number of sources, should anyone have the time and patience. PC Jacking is not merely some hobby of marginal interest, for Linux users are very passionate about their operating system . 203.39.247.185 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done further research and found a number of articles in magazines treating the subject:
http://www.tecchannel.de/news/themen/linux/434876/pcjacking_um_linux_populaerer_zu_machen/ (German)
http://www.fn.hu/tech/20060301/kalozakcio_szabad_szoftverek/ (Hungarian)
http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/9340/pcjacking-zur-verbreitung-von-linux.html (German)
http://blogs.pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/tux-love/2006/07/pc_jacking_a_craze_is_born.html
http://techie-buzz.com/foss/crazy-linux-fans-messing-departmental-store-computers.html
And that is to say nothing about the considerable discussion in blogs and forums.
Now allow me to address the arguments propounded above by the adovactes of deletion. To begin with Neologism — a search on the web (which I took liberty of making) will reveal the world has significant currency among bloggers, magazine-writers and people posting on forums. Therefore it is not fair to say the article is created with the intent of promoting use of an unknown or little-known word. As for WP:NOT#DICDEF, this does not imply the article should not remain, only that it should be expanded beyond a definition.
And for those who complain that the article is being used for promotion, I have this advice: rewrite the article in a tone that agrees with Wikipedia's guidelines, if it does not already. As a matter of fact, the last link is for an article whose author deprecates the practice; indeed an article on the subject needn't necessarily promote the practice, a fact to which that article abundantly bears witness.
As for notability, even if you ignore the evidence on blogs and in the links above, you only need to give the matter a little thought to see why the subject might be significant. Linux users number in the millions, most of whom are passionate about their operating systems and frustrated with the monopoly of Windows. Though perhaps a majority might not approve of 'PCJacking', a large proportion would be interested in the phenomenon, and non-Linux users besides — I should expect this conclusion would easily be borne out with a poll of Linux users — if you find otherwise, I shall only be happy to recant. If we follow the logic above on notability, all articles on Linux software which only a minority of Linux users employ should be deleted as being 'not notable'.
This should be enough establish the article's notability. RedRabbit (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, as for WP:USEENGLISH, a quick look at the link in question will reveal it says nothing about a lack of English-language sources being a reason for deletion, contrary to what is assumed above; that article is about naming conventions. RedRabbit (talk) 06:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point was how do we title the article if there's no English term for it, considering that the article is itself about a term? Foreign neologisms strike me as a bridge too far. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although the word was invented by a Frenchman, 'PCJacking' is a composite of two English words; therefore there is nothing 'foreign' about it. And the Frenchman in question generally writes in English (online, at any rate). In fact, 'PCJacking' is the English term, and there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate title for the article in keeping with WP:USEENGLISH. Note the English articles on the subject don't put 'PCJacking' in italics, as would be expected if the word were French — on the contrary, to a Frenchman the word would sound decidedly English. RedRabbit (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added another 4 sources in English (yes, English) to the article. Altogether there are about 13 different articles about PCjacking linked to on the Wikipedia article, 6 in English, 7 not in English. And they don't all talk about Manu Cornet. Read them if you like. Even the Washington Post discusses PCJacking, but not under that name. Can we agree the subject is notable now? Or do you need another 10 sources? RedRabbit (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A number of new "references" do not use the term "PCjacking", they are about using Live CDs, which we already have an article on. Therefore they do not support keeping this article. Why should it not simply be merged as a short note into Live CD? Yworo (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. By the way, PCjacking rates a mention in a book. http://books.google.com/books?id=HhyXPPX0HSkC&pg=PA28&dq=%22PCjacking%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&hl=fr&cd=2#v=onepage&q=%22PCjacking%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false I made a mistake with those references, but there are still a number of others, at least 9, supporting the article.(talk) 13:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've removed the dubious references. But I still think the nine articles already found on the subject (most of which have since benn removed) establish its notability. However, I am in favour of merging the article to LiveCd. RedRabbit (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, PCjacking has been referenced in three books. http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22PCjacking%22 RedRabbit (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch the Books LLC book, they simply reprint collections of Wikipedia articles. Yworo (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also scratch the one published by General Books, it's a vanity press. Getting your book published by them costs $18,000 - $25,000. Now that's vanity! Yworo (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, that leaves one book. 00:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you please provide a quotation and translation from the book? Google isn't showing me contents for that book. If it's only mentioned in passing, then the notability is still in question. Yworo (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The extract in question is in German. I had to put it into Google translate to understand it; so any translation I give would be a best-guess approximation, not a reliable one. But I can write it out in German if you like. As for notability, there are about 10 online magazines that discuss 'PCjacking', and one book; and it has made it into many blogs and forums besides. I think its notability is established. RedRabbit (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the "online magazines" are actually the blog sections of the same. I'm afraid you haven't convinced me of the notability. I wouldn't object to merging the content to Live CD and making this a redirect, though. Yworo (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdinand Katipana[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY as he does not appear to have played a professional or international match yet. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough to justify an article.--Michig (talk) 10:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Keep. Appearances that weren't apparent before indicate notability.--Michig (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a quick Google search would have brought up over 1,000 results, including (on the very first page!) this site which confirms over 150 professional football appearances, meaning he clearly passes WP:ATHLETE...a lazy nomination. GiantSnowman 13:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn - not lazy, just mistaken. My apologies for the error. Top Jim (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly passes our notability guidelines based on his play in fully-pro leagues and large number of sources covering his exploits. Jogurney (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirada[edit]

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

No sources, only the website link to the neighborhood's page. Also the neighborhood is unfinished yet is stating what each part of the neighborhood has. I vote delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL due to the lack of sources to verify anything, which qualifies it as speculation. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 03:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted as a probable hoax. Evil saltine (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erica Albright[edit]

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

"Erica Albright" may be fictional - there are no reliable sources, and several ghits indicate that the person does not exist. Questionable notability in any case. It's concievable that the article could be rewritten to reflect this, but I think it's a lost cause.The article may have been created as part of a social media strategy for the movie The Social Network. Acroterion (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked "her" on facebook who David Desvouses was and "she" removed my comment and deleted me as a friend. There you go. Mike Allen 04:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously a hoax PortP (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryson James Cooke[edit]

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

Fails notability.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No entry in IMDb: so much for the acting and film producing claims. No sources found either. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I used different search terms to look to verify anything in the article or on the talk page. There is no indication that he has worked on the movies listed, played in the Arena football league or played for Auburn. Nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No plausible assertion of notability, and there never has been in the article's history. Could be A7'd.--Michig (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
was A7, but admin refused to do his homework Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The de-prodding admin did just fine... as the article had a reasonable (albeit unsourced) assertion of notability and was thus ineligible for A7. The required "homework" was done by you by your bringing it to AFD for discussion. Good job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I get praised for bringing something to AfD instead of the occasional shouting-match... thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no coverage in reliable sources, which indicates a non-notable actor. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Valid Name changed from Jason Cook to Bryson James Cooke. Reason for this was his eligibility to join the Screen Actors Guild Union. Jason Cook of Days of Our Lives is with same union. No one in the union has the same name. Jason Cook aka Bryson James Cooke attended Auburn University with a foucs in Industrial Design.[20] Jason Cook aka Bryson James Cooke letterman at Auburn University. His number was 28. [21]AU Media Guide on page 23 lists the All-time Lettermans.[22] Jason Cook aka Bryson James Cooke was casted as Tyrone on the film Young Again (2012).[23]99.35.222.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • you're adding junk together; different person. the article claims there's a Bryson James Cooke born in 1979. the one you bring up is listed as 1980. apart from that, playing on some football team isn't reason for fame. neither is a movie that's yet to be made. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Actors. The individiual needs a longer career to meet WP:ENT, and/or actual coverage of some sort to meet WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will userfy on request. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coldwell Inn Activity Centre[edit]

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

Organisation that makes no claim to significance or importance. The sole content of the article is a very extensive history of the area, 99% of which is not actually about the activity centre itself. KorruskiTalk 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted Goals Against Average[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day -- author, who cites himself as the inventor of this statistic in the original version of this article, states on the talk page: "This is a new statistic but something I consider possibly revolutionary. It expands on a commonly accepted measurement (Goals against Average), resulting in a more accurate measure of the goalie's true ability. Please let me know any opinions on it. Alex Irwin" Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GedUK  18:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brisbane Lions–Port Adelaide AFL rivalry[edit]

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

Just another rivalry between 2 of the 16 teams in the league. They've met once in a Grand Final. Nothing else that significant. All of the refs refer to individual games, not really on any long standing rivalry. The-Pope (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • every entry must meet notability criteria to have its own article in the English Wikipedia; or,
  • every entry in the list fails the notability criteria; or,
  • it is a short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.
The list If the article were a list, contains it would consist of notable games: the second Qualifying Final, 2001; the second Preliminary Final, 2002; and the Grand Final, 2004. It would only pass muster as a list (as "List of AFL finals between Brisbane and Port Adelaide") if its items were those three games only. --BrisroyFan58 (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't written up as a list... it's written as an article, so the topic as a whole must satisfy the WP:GNG, not a synthesis of the individual items.The-Pope (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, the whole article must pass WP:GNG to be kept, and that's why I've !voted delete. Maybe I should have have explained myself better.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understood you, I just don't think a list of 3 finals games should exist as an article or a list either!The-Pope (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aardwolf (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Unneeded disambiguation page for which a speedy deletion request was declined. The redlinked items are to articles that have been deleted, and the two bluelinked items can be easily distinguished with hatnotes. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (One hatnote only, per WP:NAMB.) Clarityfiend (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no need for a disambiguation page for 2 articles, a hatnote is just enough. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion on deletion; the only reason that I declined it is that it didn't fit either of the criteria spelled out by the db-disambig template. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on whoever made the recent additions. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made the recent additions. Is there some reason you're pretending not to be aware of this? Also, redlinks with additional context are still redlinked, and they are redlinked due to deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, a red link with a blue ancillary link, is a valid link. If it isn't please quote from the rule directly. As is a valid see also link. I didn't add the new entries, I just cleaned them up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you left this comment in the right place? That doesn't seem like a relevant merge. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it belongs to the Afd below. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:15, 4 October 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) 00:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alansohn. Having this disambig now seems justified. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a third article was created, and with it is a good disambiguation page. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - There are three articles that all have AArdwolf, disambiguation page is useful. ~~ GB fan ~~ 06:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a legitimate disambiguation page. JIP | Talk 07:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Kaiser[edit]

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

Speedy declined on the grounds of "might be notable". I think not. Chris (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soruces below for her stlying work http://shine.yahoo.com/blog/GQKV6FTQY4BLOSCC565U7KKJLM/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.157.134 (talk) 12:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any independent 3rd party sources? Something not written by the subject herself, or by someone she works for...
I don't think anyone is questioning whether she exists or has the job she has. The question is about whether or not she is notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --Onorem♠Dil 14:51, 5 October 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) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Batko-Yovino[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, non-notable Geography Bee winner. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:21, 3 October 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) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Credit to her for winning the Geography Bee, but I don't see that as reason to have an encyclopedia article on her.--Michig (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I think WP:ONEEVENT applies. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pouët[edit]

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

A website that has received no coverage in reliable sources. Fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:58, 3 October 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) 00:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Harris[edit]

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

Apparently fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions. Doddy Wuid (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maintain I've been a fan of Elise Harris's YouTube channel for over a year now. She has uploaded almost 400 videos and has had over 4 million views since 2006. Her most popular video accounts for 1 million of those views. On YouTube, she is ranked the 51st most popular comedian of all time. AlexPlante (talk) 01:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain Elise Harris does exist as a comedian. She has and still does appear at The Ship, 68 Borough Road, Southwark, London, [1] She has appeared at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and did so this year with Alex Marion and Paco Erhard as the comic trio, The Bald and the Beautiful [2]. A talented comedian and film maker, she has posted over 350 videos on YouTube and as can be seen on the YouTube site, has had in excess of a million hits. She has also filmed, edited and performed in the film Vestal Virgin and was winner of Best Actor award at the Super Shorts Film Festival. The film was also the official choice of the 2007 Paris Film Festival. Elise also has an entry on the Internet Movie Database listing the four films she has starred in. To delete Elise Harris from Wikipedia would deprive the human race knowledge of a very funny and talented lady. Citled (talk) 09:30, 6th October 2010 (BST) —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Maintain I am disappointed to see the entry for this artist marked for possible deletion; I simply see nothing in the deletion proposal worthy of support. In almost two years of enjoyment of Elise Harris's many gently humorous YouTube videos (the statistics cited by other maintainers are pertinent and more than adequately answer the 'Refs largely from agencies, promotional sites, listings or minor mentions' charge), any suggestion that she is not a significant presence, both on-line and in person at her many live performances, in the field of British comedy is not only wrong but, frankly, rather disparaging of an unusual, witty and very amusing artist. I do not view her Wiki entry as merely a resume (I am sure she will have done a far better job with her actual one). Four million on-line views, alone, surely marks this artist out as worthy for inclusion here in Wikipedia. [[User:RickyBee (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)]]— RickyBee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Please address the policies in question, WP:GNG and WP:ENT. It is not the veracity or otherwise of the statements in the article and those above which are being addressed here. "Depriv(ation to) the human race (of) knowledge" or inclusion of it in Wikipedia is dependent on its notability, as laid out in these policies. Citations demonstrating significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject are not, as yet, evident. Mention in a listing is not independent and proof of appearance does not establish notability. There are many artists appearing in comedy clubs. Probably the majority of British actors and comedians have appeared in one capacity or other in Edinburgh as the Festival(s) and the Fringe constitute the biggest annual arts event on the planet: some sold out the Assembly Rooms, some held a spear in a school hall. Many films are shown at festivals of all statures (defunct now being that of the former Paris Film Festival). YouTube stats don't themselves establish notability either. But sig. coverage etc. of any of these would. Doddy Wuid (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To new editors The word here is Keep, not Maintain. It is also not a good idea to use new identities to bolster your side, just in case anyone gets that idea..... This can be, and often is, checked out and can lead to blocking from editing if found to be the case. Also, the question of Elise's existence is unlikely to be the point of this discussion. Her notability is, and I would advise you to read at least WP:GNG and WP:RS before declaring your undying fandom. Peridon (talk) 21:59, 6 October 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) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can't see anything of particular note here, and agree with the nominator about the refs. Peridon (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"To delete Elise Harris from Wikipedia would deprive the human race knowledge of a very funny and talented lady" - Wikipedia is not here for promotion. If the human race (or at least the part of it that write the sources we consider reliable and not trivial) hasn't heard of her already, then she doesn't yet fit our rules. These may be seen as quirky, unfair, or whatever, but they are there. They are the rules of the site. Peridon (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'Up and coming' comedian, but not there yet in terms of inclusion in an encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:V, and agree that the "maintain" votes above strongly suggest this is a severely misguided promotion attempt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:N and WP:V. References #5, #6, #15 satisfy the following criteria: 1) They address the subject directly in detail, so no original research was needed to extract the content; 2) They encompass published works; 3) They are multiple secondary sources, independent of the subject; Also per WP:N "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". Also please refrain from insinuating that those who voted "Maintain" after me are really myself using multiple identities. I did not know the correct term, and evidently those who followed me just re-used the same term. It should not be surprising that at least 3 out of her thousands of followers on YouTube and Twitter would comment here.AlexPlante (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strikethrough because user has already !voted 'Maintain' - additional posts are 'Comment' or something like that. There's a lot to learn here... My comment about multiple !voting was to head off the possibility. We get a lot of sockpuppetry in AfD, and sometimes fan clubs who don't bother to read the policies at all. And we get worse than that.... Peridon (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #5 does not address the subject in any detail - the article isn't about her, #6 is bordering on local newspaper coverage but is about the only one that comes close to being adequate, #15 is not a reliable source.--Michig (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jeopardy!. Jujutacular talk 05:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament[edit]

Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AfDs related to this article:

Completely unsourced article about a non-notable game show tournament. No sources for participants, game scores, airdates, etc. Same reasons for deletion as listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There's some secondary coverage, cf.
    • Mark Cooper. "TV Show Punches Memory Button." The News (Boca Raton). July 11, 1994. p. 1C. [27]
    • Rakesh Agrawal. "Man in Jeopardy and Big Bucks at Stake." South Florida Sun Sentinel. July 22, 1994. p. 3B. (ProQuest) (describing Jim Brachman's appearance in the Seniors Tournament, as well as a Final Jeopardy! round in which he participated)
    • Samantha Yost. "Williamsburg Man a Finalist on Jeopardy!" Orlando Sentinel. May 22, 1987. p. 3. (ProQuest) (brief description of contestant Lee Saunders, mentions that he was "one of 15 national finalists" out of "thousands of people in a national search for senior contestants")
    • Jesse Leavenworth. "You Could Have Slept in an Answer on Jeopardy!" Hartford Courant. July 25, 1995. p. B1. (describes how the Jeopardy! writing team contacted Old Riverton Inn owner Pauline Telford for verification in a clue used during the Seniors Tournament taped in February 1995 that Elliot Shtier responded to correctly)
RJaguar3 | u | t 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of your notations...
  • "TV Show Punches Memory Button." - Human interest "A man will compete on a game show." Nothing notable about the actual tournament.
  • I happen to think mentioning its existence, when it taped, when it is scheduled to air, the amount of the grand prize, and the length of time are quite significant facts about the actual tournament. The criterion involved is "significant coverage. Heck, I've cited casting notices and interviews about particular contestants for Legends of the Hidden Temple, even though you might decry them as "human interest." RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Man in Jeopardy and Big Bucks at Stake." - Essentially this is "A man appeared in a game show tournament and played Final Jeopardy." Nothing notable about the actual tournament.
  • This article, like the previous one, mentions significant facts about the tournament, like its top prize, the minimum guarantee for finalists, when the final aired (the Thursday night prior to the article's publication), and some information about what happened on the individual episodes. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williamsburg Man a Finalist on Jeopardy!" - A brief description of a contestant and that a game show held a national search (which several do, not just Jeopardy). Nothing notable about the actual tournament.
  • That Jeopardy! held a national contestant search to find 15 contestants for its tournament is a significant fact, just like the airdates of the particular contestant's episodes. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You Could Have Slept in an Answer on Jeopardy!" - Jeopardy verified info with the source about a clue that appeared on one episode of what happened to be part of a tournament. Nothing notable about the actual tournament.
  • It mentions in passing that the 1995 Seniors Tournament taped in February. But I do see your point with regard to this article. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply mentioning the phrase "Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament" in a publication does not make this article topic notable. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:GNG puts it: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The first three articles I believe more than trivially mention the seniors tournament. Even though the articles may be about contestants appearing on that tournament, this does not automatically make those articles trivial coverage. Also, coverage is not less significant if you brand the article as "human interest": this does not factor into significance of coverage. RJaguar3 | u | t 00:38, 9 October 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) 00:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's analysis of the sources Rjaguar dug up. As it stands, this is not separately notable enough for its own article, but it certainly warrants a mention in the parent article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliable sources show notability, despite being denigrated as "human interest". Yesterday a a source was denigrated as only an "interview". Reliable is reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the main Jeopardy page. Total agreement here with Ten Pound Hammer. —Carrite, Oct. 10, 2010.
  • Merge - "Reliable is reliable" true, but it is not independantly notable. TPH hit it on the head this time. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 00:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Without a clear steer on where the best redirect would be, I'm closing this as delete. GedUK  18:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Soul[edit]

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

I cannot find anything to show the subject's notability. References are needed to support, but I cannot find anything to verify his notability. either way (talk) 14:58, 3 October 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) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Thurtene Carnival. GedUK  18:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thurtene Honorary[edit]

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

Non-notable local student organization. No references to support notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Note that the 1 external link is about the organization's event (Thurtene Carnival), not the organization itself. GrapedApe (talk) 15:33, 3 October 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) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thurtene Carnival, the article about this organization's most famous activity, which has more and better sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 4 gnews hits doesn't cut it [28]. LibStar (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per Metropolitan. To my surprise the carnival appears to be notable, but the honorary society is not except for its connection to the carnival. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy and Zoe Schlagel[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable actresses whose roles have been confined to bit parts to date. Acroterion (talk) 15:47, 3 October 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) 00:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Clark (journalist)[edit]

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

I declined to speedy this as it does now have a low-grade claim of notability, but I doubt this individual actually meets the bar of notability. The Fox story out of Boston does mention him by name, but there is no in depth discussion of him as a person, it's a story on a prank that he is possibly linked to. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Delsorted under "authors"? He writes a blog on wrestling and hosts an internet radio show on wrestling. I guess he is the author of the blog but it seems like a bit of a stretch. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 5 October 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) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think that perhaps a WP:PROD would have handled this... Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Per Zero[edit]

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

I was not able to find any writing about this company in reliable, independent sources. The chief claim to notability is that the company won a Design Award of the Federal Republic of Germany, but the linked page provided as a source does not confirm this award, and I was not able to find any evidence that this organization did get this award. The other claim to notability is that the company was given an International Design Excellence Award, but again, no confirmation of the award is available on that organization's web site.

Prod removed by creator after the addition of these "sources." FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.german-design-council.de/en/designprize/designpreis-2010/gewinner.html, the site for the awards given by the German design council, has the record of Zero Per Zero winning the award, under their submission of the 'City Railway System.' They are second from the bottom. The second link was faulty and has been fixed to verify the award. Several other awards have been added under the 'awards' section. Syw1479 (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This seems reasonable to keep given the various references and awards as notable sources. However, it's a bit of a stub and could probably use more "encyclopedic" content. --Artlovesyou (talk) 06:37, 6 October 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) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little coverage in gnews. for something to be worthy of inclusion it has got to get wider coverage than the industry it's involved in [29]. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad B. Duberstein Moot Court Competition[edit]

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

I can find many cursory references, but the only meaty, substantial information to be found is on its website. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG for this reason. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 19:30, 3 October 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) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no sources I can find. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rekonq[edit]

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

Deleted in two separate AfDs this year; still no significant coverage in reliable sources, or any indication that it is notable in any way. Jayjg (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main arguments are that :

- There is a few secondary source that did reviewed rekonq (see links at the end of the article).

- Rekonq is the default web browser in kubuntu 10.10 that will be out in one week.

So it can now be considered notable in some way. I guess the debate reduce to the question of how strict your view on notability is. Of course, Rekonq is far from being as big and well-known than firefox (and it will never be), but it can compare to other small open source web browser like arora (also based on Qtwebkit) or midori (also based on webkit). I can cite a few other web browser that have their wikipedia page and that can be compared to rekonq :

- Epiphany : older and better established than rekonq but still comparable in term of technology and audience.

- Uzbl : still alpha software, same type of technology than rekonq.

- Shiira : same type of technology than rekonq

- Stainless_(web_browser) : small technology preview commercial web browser. No secondary source.

I could continue the list (see List_of_web_browsers), but I think you get the point : you are applying strong notability criterion for Rekonq and at the same time there is similar or smaller projects, with no secondary source cited (may exist), that are in wikipedia. We need more consistency, otherwise it would feel like arbitrary or random removal decision. I believe that Wikipedia scope is not only to list the few top browsers, but gives information about the smaller ones. Even if their usage share is an order of magnitude smaller than those of the top browsers, they are used in real world in their specific "market" (users of KDE desktop in the case of Rekonq). Bzhb (talk) 21:34, 3 October 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) 23:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Still not seeing any evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Jayjg (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Default browser at least in Kubuntu and Chakra – two popular Linux distributions. That alone is enough. There are articles here for lesser useed, pre-alpha vaporware crap like GNU PDF and nobody challenges that. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it that the article still has not even one secondary reliable source? Jayjg (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stop making things up. There are sources in the article. Give proof why the sources are not reliable or shut up. Thank you. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to its secondary sources, this article has a primary source. As of the release of Kubuntu 10.10, rekonq is now the default web browser for a major Linux distro. Why is this article even a candidate for deletion? Oconnor663 (talk) 08:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.thestage.co.uk/listings/venue.php/6827/upstairs-at-the-ship-london
  2. ^ http://www.comedy.co.uk/fringe/2010/the_bald_and_the_beautiful/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_October_10&oldid=1142640000"