Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 26

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

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 redirect to Newfoundland and Labrador First Party. and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne R. Bennett[edit]

Wayne R. Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG as a necessary article. He is a unelected candidate. Aaaccc (talk), 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - feel free to ignore the WP:TLDR bit below if you have no interest in seeing how I reached this conclusion.

The article itself concerns the idea that people or organisations have a tendency to "blame Israel first"; that is, it is used by supporters to "imply that any particular criticism of Israel is just one more example of the tendency to blame Israel unfairly". The article was created by User:Mbz1 and nominated for deletion by User:Phearson a few minutes later. The nominator's rationale of "Possible attack page? I didn't CSD this, because it appears sourced and well written (for an essay anyway)" is not reflected in the comments by those advocating deletion, who (to broadly summarise) instead argue that the article constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and is inherently violating our policy on maintaining a neutral point of view; some also pointed out that as a collection of links and quotes (and nothing more) it was nothing more than a WP:COATRACK. Those arguing keep, on the other hand, counter these assertions, arguing that any WP:SYNTH problems and WP:NPOV problems can be fixed through normal editing.

It's rare to find an article that is inherently POV-y - that is, regardless of what is done to it, the very subject is POV - and there's little that can't be fixed with sufficient editing. The same is true of WP:COATRACK. The only exception, really, is situations where there are no sources covering the subject in such a format as to allow for a non-coatrack, or non-synthesis based article. Unfortunately that seems to be the case here; one submission is this, with the justification for its use as evidence being "As you could see it has 60 customers reviews, and all are 5 stars!". Somehow this failed to sway the argument; I can't see why. Many of the other things relied on are similarly inappropriate polemical or unreliable sources, as helpfully discussed by User:Unomi below. The end result is a debate with a clear consensus to delete, and that's the action I'm undertaking. I'll avoid going into my usual analysis of who posted useless !votes, because quite frankly, that'd take too long. Several people have mentioned the idea of merging the topic, or userfying it so it can be merged, or userfying it as an essay. I am opposed to the third option (Wikipedia's userspace is most certainly not for unrelated essays like this) but am perfectly happy to, for a small period, userfy the article for the purposes of including some of its content in other articles. I will expect whoever comes to my talkpage to have got some kind of consensus on the article in question that including this sort of thing is acceptable; failing that, I will not userfy it.

One thing worth mentioning is that the Israel-Palestine Wikishitstorm is subject to arbcom sanctions, which permit administrators to install and enforce discretionary sanctions on any editor in this area who, after being made aware of the decision, fails to adhere to our standards of conduct. Several editors contributing here have been made aware of the decision, including TFighterPilot, Mbz1, Crotalus_horridus, Quantpole, Johnuniq, Off2riorob, Brewcrewer, Chesdovi, NickCT, Marokwitz and Epeefleche (yes, I compared the entire AfD history to the enforcement and warning logs) but none of their behaviour here seems of the sort that would require further enforcement action. If people feel differently, they're welcome to leave me a message with the specifics on my talkpage, and I'll take a look at it. Until then, those people mentioned above should know that they are treading a thin line by contributing in an area they've already been warned over, and that some of the conduct here would certainly not be acceptable if repeated.

Thanks to all who read my little (hah) explanation. I'm open to any comments, plaudits, critiques or suggestions on my talkpage, as usual. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blame Israel first[edit]

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

Possible attack page? I didn't CSD this, because it appears sourced and well written (for an essay anyway) Phearson (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you nominated the article for deletion in 3 minutes after it was put in. You claimed it to be an essay. If I understand this "essay" thing right it means that I expressed my own opinions. May I please ask you to be so kind and point any instance in which I expressed my own opinion that I would be able to fix it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, because its written like an essay doesn't necessarily mean it is. But that is a content problem that needs to be discussed on that article's talk page, not here. Phearson (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It means to gather information and put it together to make something else. Phearson (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) On Wikipedia, synthesis occurs when an editor takes what two or more sources say and puts them together in such a way as to make a conclusion that wasn't in any of the sources. In this case, the important question is whether any of the sources discuss the concept of "Blame Israel first"? The ones I looked at didn't. Putting together a series of well-sourced paragraphs about people unfairly blaming Israel for their woes and wrapping it up as a "Blame Israel first" syndrome is, in my opinion, synthesis. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to explain it to me. I just added this source and this source that directly talks about "Blame Israel first", but IMO one should take into account the other names of the syndrome that are counted in the article like: "Israel Derangement Syndrome" and "When in doubt, blame Israel" and "Israel did it". Those all are different ways to describe the very same thing, and the sources for those are well represented in the article. That's why I do not believe the article falls under WP:SYNTH? Will you agree with my assessment? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SYNTH is actually not a reason for deletion. The only reason to delete an article based on the policy WP:SYNTH is if the entire topic is made up. Based on the sources you provided I don't think this is the case. Still, the article does not appear to take a neutral view on the subject, and should be fixed. Marokwitz (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Well written and well sourced article of a very important subject. Opinions of a different people including scientists, journalist, politicians are present . There's no issues with WP:NPOV. Broccolo (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the NPOV statement. See Talk:Blame Israel first Phearson (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep. Basic Google searches reveal the term to be notable. An article on the term, its use, and its applications should be a welcome addition to this encyclopedia. The article has some SYNTH components, but this is a problem that should be rectified by editing. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Israel gets blamed for a lot of truly whacky things (or awesome things, depending on perspective; trained sharks and vulture spies would be awesome) it has nothing to do with, no question. But this article covers the trope of people blaming Israel or other people talking about people blaming Israel. The "Ahmed Sheikh" section actually does neither, it's just about why Sheikh thinks Arab countries don't like Israel. A lot of these sources don't talk about the titular phrase or use words to similar effect which looks like a coat-rack/SYNTH. The phrase does exist, sure, but I'm not seeing the secondary-sources picking up on it as noteworthy. Sol (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I got an idea about writing the article after I read the book WHEN IN DOUBT...BLAME A JEW!: A PERSONAL AND PEOPLE'S MEMOIR OF ANTI-SEMITISM. As you could see it has 60 customers reviews, and all are 5 stars! And of course the section about Ahmed Sheikh is a good addition to the article. He's blaming Israel in absence of democracy in Egypt. He believes "that the schools in Morocco would have been better, or that the public clinics in Jordan would have functioned better", if there was no Israel. His opinion is very important because "He is not a mere propagandist, but a keen and influential observer of the current Arab temperament.". And of course the article is well represented by both primary and secondary sources Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ;Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL;Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your not supposed to make conclusions, per WP:OR. Phearson (talk) 06:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I did not make any conclusions. The sources I have used did.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then WP:COATRACK Applies. This article blatantly one-sided. Phearson (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but probably not in an uncorrectable way. Marokwitz (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mbz. I think I understand why people would want to delete this article, but it is not synth in any case. The references all talk about it so it is not something mbz put together himself to create the subject. I don't think it should be in cat Israel though and it should be named something else. GGdowney (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something else or Merge to Arab Israeli conflict. The references I read did mention the topic so I agree it is not something the author put together himself. This article is basically about the well known claim that Arab leaders divert attention from their own domestic problems and suppress initiatives of democratization using Israel as a pretense. As such it is a notable topic as part of the Arab Israeli conflict article. But the current title and wording of the lead seems to imply that this claim is a fact, this makes the article unbalanced. Marokwitz (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep following the recent rename and improvements to the article. Marokwitz (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any problems with NPOV can be fixed via editing, and looking at the article it is would appear that the synthesis argument doesn't quite work since the sources cited are about the subject. This will certainly need eyes on it, but I can see no reason to delete, and I would suggest that in the future the nominator wait more than three minutes before nominating articles for deletion. AniMate 07:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/rename to Anti-Israel propaganda. This is a part of Anti-Zionism, however, Anti-Zionism is a large article. Hence it would be beneficial creating a separate sub-page about this. Keep. A distinct propaganda strategy that deserves a separate article. Biophys (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep As is true of many articles on contentious issues, it does need a lot of work--but there is some well sourced content here about how blame is thrown at Israel. That being said, a Merge to Criticism of Israel might be a good use for the content. But that article is enormous to begin with, so maybe it is best to keep this here. I do think a new title might be in order, perhaps Criticism of Accusations Against Israel Controversy :) Qrsdogg (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Revised to Regular Keep per betsy. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about renaming it to Criticism of criticism of Israel :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perceptive, and with more than an element of truth to it, but clearly violates WP:NPOV, WP:SYN etc. Sadly, I don't see any way a neutral article on the subject could be written. A more general article about the use of 'external enemies' to deflect internal criticism might work, if WP:RS is available, but this is just too specific, and likely to degenerate into yet another edit-war. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge salvageable information to one or more of anti-zionism, politics section of relevant countries, Criticism of Israel and perhaps propaganda. Mbz1 cites two sources above that use the phrase "Blame Israel first", one of them is Living in the times of the signs, where the next chapter is "Is the Islamic Messiah connected to the Antichrist" which goes on to offer evidence that this is in fact the case. These are not serious sources, they are invariably polemic and/or below the quality threshold of sources we should use for an encyclopedia. un☯mi 07:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a clear enough difference between this article and 'Israel and the apartheid analogy'. The latter is a topic that has been widely discussed in multiple sources, with the pro and anti positions getting serious attention from well-qualified commentators. This article essentially only presents one POV, and is on a 'topic' that has apparently received little scholarly attention as such. It is a polemic, rather than an encyclopaedic summary of an external debate or controversy. I happen to think, as I suggested earlier, that it actually illustrates a real enough phenomenon, but that in itself doesn't make it suitable as a topic for a Wikipedia article.
As for Jimbo Wales's opinion on this, I think that (a) I'd rather hear that from Jimbo himself, and (b) he'd quite likely also say that his opinion deserves no special weight, and AfDs should be decided on the merits of arguments, not on the notability of contributors. I'd also recommend people to look at what Jimbo actually wrote, rather than rely on your somewhat selective quotation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One is only left to wonder, if the user really looked at how many sources on the topic blaming Israel there are. So here they are yet another time Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. If so many reliable sources discuss the subject why unreliable wikipedia should not?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Using Google etc to find sources for a subject one thinks of oneself is WP:OR. Find sources that actually attempt to analyse the question, rather than mention it in passing, and maybe there will be grounds for an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are many attempts to analyze the question. Here's one for example. I admit I have not read the book, but here's a review from which it is clear that the author does "analyze" the question, and this book description clearly states "For a surprising number of people, Israel has become a pariah state, a threat to world ... And how can a geographically tiny state of only 6.5 million people be thought to have such a profound effect on world politics? " I would rephrase the question, and ask how for so many wikipedia users Israel has become a pariah state, a threat to world--Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that supposed to be a serious question? How do you know how many Wikipedia users consider Israel a 'pariah state'? Perhaps we need a Why do supporters of Israel think that everyone is against them article too. Meanwhile, I'd suggest you read the book first, and then tell us if it is relevant. This is generally considered the best procedure ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is not only me who thinks so. Once again user:Jimbo Wales's opinion that "we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias". BTW Jimbo got scrutinized for stating his opinion.
I will of course eventually read the book, but reading the reviews on Amazon, and the author's summary are good enough for me to know it is a very relevant to the subject. BTW I will really appreciate, if it is possible for you to do, to avoid adding my user name to every edit summary you write. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does the phrase "if anything" mean in this: "...I think a cursory look at dozens of articles suggest that, if anything, we have a problem with anti-Israeli bias, not the other way around."? (forgot to sign) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Ha-ha-ha, great edit summary :) BTW you were so preoccupied with writing the edit summary :-) that you forgot to sign. What Jimbo said is the sad truth. I just added a new section to the article about a book written by an Italian journalist. In this article the author is described as one of non-Jewish intellectual, who's horrified by the amount of blames and hater Israel gets. The article says the number of those non-Jewish intellectual could be counted on fingers. And wikipedia is a very good mirror of a real world's opinion. Anyway I believe we should end the discussion now because a closing admin would have a very hard time reading it over. If you'd like to discuss it more, let's do it at my talk page please. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should have been more precise. The secondary sources aren't parsing the phrase, analyzing it's usage, or why this particular term is notable. The Israel and apartheid analogy has all of that; RS employing the term, analyzing its claims, refuting it, condoning it, etc. The sources here use the phrase, in varying forms, and I get the general aim of the article but it looks like it's built around a phrase that's received usage but not coverage, if that makes sense. The various underlying motives(new anti-Semitism/xenophobia/nationalism etc.) are notable and perhaps some of the material should be incorporated there. There's certainly a push by various political forces to demonize Israel (or India, China, Russia, the U.S., Sparta, etc.) and use it as a scapegoat for their domestic issues. The balance problems are daunting but that's a different issue. Sol (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should follow due process, which is to allow 7 days for comments on an AfD before closing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS, NPOV. [email protected] (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is reflecting in the ample sourcing. Balanced -- I don't see a pov issue here. There is no synth that is at the level of a delete !vote; any such issue, if it exists, can be addressed in normal talk page discussion and editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible delete. So radically fails NPOV as to come far closer to propaganda than we can possibly allow; this kind of thing has no legitimate place on Wikipedia, regardless of whose cause it was designed to champion. I predict that if it had been written to support the opposite side in the I/P battles here that the howl for its deletion would be overwhelming and that suggestions would be made to sanction its creator... It would really be refreshing if, just once in a while, editors who write so prolificly on one side of the I/P conflict or the other would occasionaly contribute an article that focuses on the humanity and legitimate predicament of the other side.  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What an oppose with threatening me with the sanctions! There's no NPOV issue in the article. All sides presented in the article, and the facts simply speak for themselves. This is not an attack article. This is a defense article, an article that analyzes a phenomena why Israel is always to blame. And about writing "occasionaly contribute an article that focuses on the humanity and legitimate predicament of the other side", guess what? I did: The Mountain of Israeli-Palestinian Friendship;Yoni Jesner and Ahmed Khatib;Arab rescue efforts during the Holocaust and others.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Late annotation: It should be noted that Mbz1 has since removed the ref to the book Living in the Times of the Signs, whose "The Antichrist Dimension of Islam" chapter I linked to below. Discovery of problematic nature of source courtesy of Unomi, first provided above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC) )[reply]
To legitimize your title phrase and thesis you cite one book that includes the phrase exactly once, in passing, and another that does just the same, but also includes a chapter on The Antichrist Dimensions of Islam, which advises, "When considering the spirit of the antichrist, one must begin with Muhammed." I really dislike having to say so, but that is simply irresponsible. I'll admit I'm probably reacting much more strongly to this than I otherwise would, though, if I hadn't spent hours reviewing the sources you offered for a previous, now-deleted article, which tried to show that Richard Wagner's first deep love was a Jewess, where you relied in very large part on a completely unreferenced 1896 article in a Jewish home/family publication akin to our modern Readers Digest which neglected to mention that Wagner was 12 or 13 at the time of the relationship it alleged, and that he didn't even reside during those years in the same city where the relationship was supposed to have taken place. Ostensible "sourcing" like this is just extremely discouraging to me... Good on you, though, for the articles you mention that document acts of cooperation and kindness between Jews and Palestinians. It's that kind of cooperation that can end the I/P conflict, if anything can, rather than each side constantly trying to document how they've been wronged and to decry the evil on the opposing side.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what Wagner has to do with that, but if you call this source written by Ferdinand Praeger, who is listed in Music_encyclopedia_topics "a completely unreferenced 1896 article in a Jewish home/family publication" I've nothing else to add to the Wagner's subject. About the article in question, you may want to look at the least of external links alone to see the justification of the title.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to Praeger's 1892 book, which was rife with invention and has long since been discredited. I was referring to your reliance on this ostensible source, from an 1896 edition of The American Hebrew magazine, and apparently taken via translation from some earlier unidentified editon of Allegemeine Zeitung des Judenthums. But you're right that Wagner himself has nothing to do with this present article. Your habit of introducing sources like this has everything to do with it, however, and it's this habit that prompted my comments above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, you never bothered to look over the sources presented in this article, but you made your comment because of "my habit"? How about at least trying to assume good faith. If I found a book at google books how should I have known it got discredited? And why in your opinion Jewish sources should not be taken into account? BTW the reference you complained about for this article was removed. It is will be nice, if you at least strike out your comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be much easier for me to assume good faith if I weren't puzzled as to how it is that you don't recall having been presented with just this same information before, on the now-deleted talk page for your Richard Wagner's first love article and in its AfD discussion, at length, and by multiple editors - including a genuine Wagner scholar - and I do recall it. And really? Really? You're going to try to twist my objection to the crap sources you've introduced into allegations of objections to Jewish sources in general? I'm sorry, but I don't know how to have an AGF discussion with someone whose giggle test seems so impaired. Get that looked at, and if you still feel inclined to make ugly suggestions then you're welcome to do so at my talk page. All the best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wrote 63 articles, and I possibly cannot remember all the sources I used. If I wrote a few articles, or none as somebody did not, then I might have remembered.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"As somebody did not" would make me all teary if I thought more of those 63 articles; as it stands I'd rather have my article-creation history than yours. You know what, though? I enjoy spirited discussion, but I don't especially like to fight when there's any real rancor involved. Besides, it's hard to want to growl at anyone who can take such breathtaking pictures. Want to kiss and make up at my talk page?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear this is the Jesner and Khatib article you created, where you later fought for retaining this wording:
Zakaria Zubeidi,who at that time was a leader of Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, helped to carry Ahmed's coffin. He acknowledged "...that giving life might be a better way of winning Israeli understanding for the Palestinians' plight than blowing up children on buses."
and fought, threatening with withdrawing the DYK to keep out:
At Ahmed's funeral, Zakaria Zubeidi, then the leader of Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigades, helped carry the coffin. Of the organ donations, Zubeidi said:"When we heard Ahmed's father decided to donate the organs, we blessed the step ... Despite Jenin's reputation for the suicide bomber and the bomb belt, the people of Jenin camp love life and granted life to five or six children and didn't distinguish whether they were Jewish or Muslim or Christian because our problem is not with the Jewish people as the Jewish people, but with the occupation."
Almost all Many of the articles you create pertaining to A-I crawl through AfD with a large number of issues raised by a variety of editors and invariably they have to be fixed by others. un☯mi 14:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are lying and trolling as usually. From 63 articles I created 5 or 6 were nominated on deletion. Only one that had nothing to do with A/I conflict was deleted. I recommend you collapse your comment because it is absolutely irrelevant and has nothing to do with this DR. If you have issues with me, file AE.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Partisan hackery by someone that should have been removed from the topic area long, long ago. A Wikipedia article is not a platform from which to whine about how one personally feels about the treatment of Jews, supporting one's sentiments by stitching together a hode-podge of quotes of others. Srsly, go blog about it. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy as essay Seems the prudent and reasonable course. If the user can mark it up into a real article, that is one thing, but it does not appear to meet that criterion at this point. Collect (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable topic, and the article is well-referenced to reliable sources. Potential problems with respect to non-neutral point-of-view and perhaps synthesis/original research can be fixed with prudent editing; deletion therefore is unnecessary. Peacock (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. Synthesis in current form. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV, Attack nonsense from the same editor that gave us this shenanigans. NickCT (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaking. The attack articles are Israel and the apartheid analogy; Judaism and violence and a few dozen more [....] like those. This article is a defense article, not an attack. BTW so called "shenanigans" was kept and read by about 9,000 people on DYK--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if you could quit BAWWWing about other articles that your side of the playing field cannot tolerate. Go ahead and try to AfD either of those if you think your case is strong enough. Tarc (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if "Blame Israel" is discussed as a meme used by Israel's defenders instead of being presented as a factual explanation that discredits any particular critic of Israel. betsythedevine (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Delete or Merge to Criticism of Israel. Do many critics of Israel have bad motives? Yes. Can one find examples of stupid or hypocritical criticisms of Israel? Yes. It is still a long jump from these facts to this article's claim that Blame Israel First "is a tendency that prevails in the Arab World, and is prevalent as well among the Western and Israeli far left and at the United Nations." Comparing this article to Self-hating Jew or New anti-semitism, other criticisms of critics of Israel, this article looks even more like a WP:COATRACK display of polemics that favor one side of a question, with examples that support those polemics. To people who say that the article just needs clean-up and should be kept, OK, please clean it up then. We are not doing an AfD for a hypothetical article that could be written with the same article name (although "Israel derangement syndrome" is a more common name for this particular meme based on g-hits), this is an AfD for this article as it exists. betsythedevine (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was even worrying, that it took you so long to show up here, and I guess now I could expect to be taking to RFC/U after that trolling of yours. Once again I wrote the article you did not like. But could you at least try to be fair? Where did I compare this article to Self-hating Jew and/or New anti-semitism? I did provide very well sourced opinion pieces that "blame Israel first" mentality might have something to do with antisemitism, but I have never compared this article to New anti-semitism. The article is based on facts. I am far from saying that Israel is always right. She is not, but if Israel was the only country that could not take her turn in sitting in UN security council for human rights, there something wrong with UN, not with Israel. If Obama, while giving the speech in Indonesia blames Israel for new homes built in Jerusalem, while completely ignoring that Indonesia does not allow Israeli citizens to visit the country there's something wrong with Obama, not Israel, If wikipedia could host such articles as Israel and the apartheid analogy there's something wrong with wikipedia not with Israel, if Israel is blamed for ..., but that's enough. No reason to go on. And over all most of "delete" reasons prove the subject of the article --Mbz1 (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you actually want this article to survive AfD, you might do better to demonstrate your ability to write with a NPOV by not making personal attacks on everyone who comments negatively on it, Mbz1. Frankly, everything you've written so far in 'support' of your article has done little other than demonstrate why if any article on the subject could ever be written, it needs to be done by someone with less emotional involvement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I mentioned Self-hating Jew and New anti-semitism only as examples to show that, as Jimbo says below, a neutral article can be written on a similar topic. New anti-semitism, for example, discusses the usage and history of that meme--it does not WP:COATRACK a bunch of examples of writers who think new anti-semitism is a valid meme, followed by some examples where criticisms of Israel were demonstrably motivated by anti-semitism. betsythedevine (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Fast POV Pushing and biased article. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 18:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This has nothing to do with me. WP:AAJ and all that. Having said that, I do have some hopefully useful thoughts. First, it is entirely possible, as a general rule, to write a neutral article on topics of the sort covered by this article. Whether this article is that or not, I'm not in a position to say, having only cursorily reviewed it. But deletion is not usually the correct answer to an article that isn't as good as it could be. Second, I see a fair number of problems in this discussion with other irrelevant arguments: for example, the various attacks on Mbz1's alleged partisanship seem mostly false and highly partisan themselves. Let's focus on the article, not the author. Let's focus on the arguments and facts, not the personalities.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peacock. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per brew and Peacock. Obviously notable and reliably sourced topic. Any NPOV and/or SYNTH issues should be dealt with on the talk page, not by deleting the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a POV screed (whoever wrote it) not treated by any academic work (or non-opinion journalism in serious publications) anywhere as a topic. It's also a fork of the many articles on antisemitism, and suffers from rather glaring OR and SYNTH problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm pretty sure we don't have articles like that. Heck, I'm having a hard time coming up with a summary of what the article is about in the first place, it certainly isn't about a phrase. I also find it the two images rather disturbing. How blatant can POV-pushing get around here? --Conti|✉ 14:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Out of all the POV debacles in this area, this pretty much takes the cake. Shoplifter (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid POV one must:
  1. Avoid stating opinions as facts. No opinion listed in the article is stated as fact.
  2. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. There is no seriously contested assertions listed in the article stated as fact.
  3. Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. All assertions, if any, are all directly stated to the source.
  4. Prefer non-judgmental language. All language used in the article is neutral.I am not talking about quoted and directly stated to the sources opinions.
  5. Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This is an interesting one. What could be opposite views in this particular article? That all the blames Israel gets are justified? But who is to state such a view? Instead of stating it, Israel simply gets blamed. So, here's the paradox of this article: the blames themselves that are well represented in the article, and the opinions that contradict those blames make the article neutral.
So in accordance with wikipedia policy there is POV in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 'opposing point of view' to the premise that Israel gets blamed for everything would be the premise that it doesn't. The article is cherry-picking multiple sources to suggest 'blame Israel' is a normal response in the Middle East etc, without providing evidence (from WP:RS) as to how common this is. Yes, I'm sure it happens, but asserting that it is "an attitude found not only in Arab countries, but also in Israel itself, and across the world" seems rather stretching things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like a lot of us, I became aware of this article from a post on Jimbo Wales' talk page, so I paid close attention to Jimbo's comment above that this article should be salvageable. I don't think it is possible at this time, unless there is a major change in the title and framing of the article. For example, it could be titled Allegations of Israel's demonization, perhaps. "Blame Israel first" is a nonstarter. Then you have to be balanced in the lead and be sure to provide a balanced perspective in the text. Otherwise the article will come across as POV synthesis. I suggest that people interested in salvaging the article work toward that goal. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article name has been changed, and now it is simply Blame Israel. The word "Allegations" in the title will not work out. "Blaming Israel" is fact, not allegations. Just above I explained why the article is not POV, but I am very much open to all suggestions and all the help for improving the article except removing well sourced, directly stated to the reliable sources opinions.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my opinion, the article's neutrality would be improved by describing "Blame Israel" as a meme or slogan used by defenders of Israel instead of showcasing it as the uncontestedly accurate way to describe the motivation behind criticism of Israel. betsythedevine (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I made that change to the article's lede and assuming it is accepted, I will change my !Vote above to Keep. betsythedevine (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Criticism of Israel....no more POV than the preponderance of 9/11 conspiracy theory advocacy pages like 9/11 conspiracy theories, September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate, United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001, World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, 9/11 Truth movement...etc, ad nauseum...all of which are riddled with SYNTH issues far worse than this article has.--MONGO 17:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has nothing to do with 9/11 or conspiracies. Phearson (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the article has nothing to do with 9/11 except Israel was blamed for 9/11 too. User:MONGO simply provided examples of a few other articles, in which "SYNTH issues far worse than this article has".--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info The lead was re-written, the new proposed name is Blame Israel (Meme), which is fine IMO. So, if there are no other opinions I will move the article to Blame Israel (Meme), and let's please close this DR as "speedy kept" :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content is still not encyclopedic in the slightest. --Conti|✉ 18:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be the proverbial lipstick on the pig. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even with the recent changes, my delete vote stands. This is a collection of quotes and sources on a theme. That doesn't meet WP:GNG and COATRACK-ing it can't cover the initial OR deficiencies. If this is the standard for what's allowed as an article, editors could create all sorts of POV-pushing coatracks by assembling thematically related quotes and calling it a "meme" (ie, "Obama as socialist meme", "UN as New World Order meme", whatever). Sol (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is also the issue of whether this 'meme' (horrible word) actually exists, rather than an 'Israelis (and their supporters) always thinking that the Arabs (etc) blame everything on Israel' meme. The article contains plenty of (cherry-picked) evidence of what supporters of Israel think, but little evidence that the supposed 'blame Israel meme' itself is anything like as common as the article makes out. Until WP:RS can be found that actually discusses this, there are actually no grounds for treating the 'meme' as a real phenomenon at all. If anything, the logic behind the article is that of the conspiracy theory, rather than of a description of observable fact. As I've said before, there is probably some truth to the article's premise, but that doesn't alter the fact that it is OR based on a particular POV. Unless a properly-researched neutral source discussing the subject (the 'meme' as a meme) can be found, this is simply not a fit subject for an encyclopaedia. It needs to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, let me please rephrase your own comment made about different article: We are not reporting the Blame Israel (meme) as fact, and nor are we attempting to asses its validity. All we should reporting is the fact that the issue has been raised in notable places. There are facts, blames and opinions presented together in the article. It should be kept. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given the failure to allow this article to develop by the nominator and that the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Blame Israel can be broken down to (i) reliable sources describing acts of blaming Israel and (ii) reliable sources describing the topic "blame Israel." This was the same issue in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby Jesus theft. If you look at the source table here, you can see a division between the two approaches used by the reliable sources. The column "Article Title cont." allows you to sort the news article titles to see what Israel in fact is being blamed for (over time) and to make it easier to locate reliable sources describing the topic "blame Israel." The topic meets meets WP:GNG and WP:NOT and any issues can be resolved over time, given an appropriate amount of time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info The article was renamed to Blame Israel (Meme).--Mbz1 (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that helps. I have an open mind on this article, certainly no dog in this fight, so if this could be made more neutral, starting with the title, I'd cheerfully chance my stance to "keep." But that hasn't happened yet. ScottyBerg (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scotty, thanks for the comment. I am open to other suggestions about the name, but I am against including the word "allegations" in the name. Could you think about something else please?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sort of out of ideas. I would suggest that you try to think creatively as to a formulation of this article. It has some good content in it but smacks of synthesis, and it is getting a lot of "delete" sentiment. ScottyBerg (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The article is well sourced and well written. The subject very important and very noteworthy. Scientists, journalist, politicians are all referenced.

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 10:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Does this appelation apply to any other country, "Blame Cambodia", for instance? Chesdovi (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Anti-Americanism for an obvious example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "Blame Cambodia" theme happens to be quite a popular subject of discussion at the moment in Thailand and Cambodia. You can find many articles/blogs etc that talk about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do have Blame Canada, but that's about a song. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Chesdovi, but not in the direction you apparently intended: "Accusations of anti-Semitism are a tool used to silence anyone who criticizes Israeli policies. But would any one criticizing the policy of Iran be labeled as anti-Muslim or anti-Persian? Are critics of the Chinese Government routinely described as anti-Chinese? Is condemning the Saudi Arabian government anti-Arab? Surely aggression, military occupation and violations of human and political rights should not be put beyond criticism?"1 Substitute "anti-Israeli sentiment" for "anti-Semitism" and the same argument applies.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above quote is by Palestinian Arab from Gaza (the government of which shells Israel with rockets) Alaa Kullab. He now lives in Sweden, a country with a constantly increasing numbers of antisemitic incidents.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unbelievable. You object to this RS because its author is Palestinian? You who wrote (and had the decency to retract) above, "And why in your opinion Jewish sources should not be taken into account?" Is it really possible that you fail to see that your ad hominem would apply equally to any Jewish author who defends Israel's current government policies? Is it really possible that you can't see how utterly racist the attitude behind your statement is?  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not put words in my mouth. I have never said Arab opinions should not count. I simply provided information about the author of the quote, exactly the same way I did it for the quotes I used in the article, like, for example in this section name Egyptian writer and columnist Hassan Hafez on blaming Israel or Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian of Palestinian heritage or Ahmed Sheikh, a Palestinian journalist and the current editor-in-chief of the Qatar-based television channel Al Jazeera and so on. You should have done it yourself. Providing a quote without naming the author is a copyright violation.(I did not notice the link.) I will appreciate, if you are to stop calling my remarks "racists". Not that I care about your apology, but you really should think before you write something similar to what you did above. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, lets see what your words were: "The above quote is by Palestinian Arab from Gaza (the government of which shells Israel with rockets)". Does Alaa Kullab represent the Gazan government? No. Have you any evidence of him being involved in shelling? No. Have you any evidence that he is responsible for any "antisemitic incidents" in Sweden? No. You made a totally unjustified attack on a critic of Israel because he is a Palestinian. That you see nothing wrong with this if further evidence that you cannot write on the subject of Israel without blatent POV-pushing. If you wish to see an article on the subject, I'd suggest you leave it to those whe can actually do so to Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What AndyTheGrump said. You were implying that Alaa Kullab's quote should be disregarded because he is from Gaza and now lives in Sweden. If that's not a racist comment, I don't know what is. --Conti|✉ 20:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):::::::No, I did not do anything of above. I provided information on the background of the provided quote, and its author for a better understanding. The opinion was written by the author, who was introduced as "Stockholm-based Palestinian Alaa Kullab." The newspaper also specified it was written in response to this opinion. I have nothing to retract. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now we have to explicitly identify every commentator on I/P issues as either an Arab or a Jew? As if the sub-heading of the article I linked to, which identifies its author as a "Stockholm-based Palestinian", were somehow trying to hide something? Btw, I'm disappointed you seem to have declined to meet up on my talk page. I'd hoped we could work out our apparent conflict over this article there instead of here.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice the link you provided. I believe in some situations, in particular, when we quote opinion pieces it might be important to know the background of the person, who stated the opinion for a better understanding of it. It has absolutely nothing to do with a racism, it has absolutely nothing to do with rejecting of an opinion, but yes, I do be believe in some situations it is important. After all the newspaper that published the opinion provided the author background not only in the beginning, but also in the end of his opinion.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just how much worse will you make it for yourself before you give up, Mbz1? Did the source you quote choose to link Kullab with the shelling of Israel? No, you did. Did it link him with asntisemitic attacks? No, you did. A blatant attempt to smear him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries re the missed ref. That superscript cite method I used is easy-enough to miss. I'll need to think more about this context/background thing. In the meantime, would you please try to think about how you might respond if a pro-Palestinian editor had made the post you did, but about a Jewish author, instead. I'd appreciatate that. Also, I know we all do it to some extent, but I'd be grateful if you'd try to avoid adding substantively to your comments after you've posted them. It kind of interferes with the continuity of the thread. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular situation I would not have accused a pro-Palestinian editor in making a "racist" comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) What just happened here is pretty cut and dried; linking where the man is from to the government that is alleged to "shell Israel with rockets", thereby poisoning the well in terms of accepting his words on the subject matter. If that wasn't bad enough, he/she further denigrates the person by noting that he now lives in a country where antisemitism is allegedly on the rise. So in one neat and tidy little statement, mbz1 discredits someone who holds a different point of view by lumping him in with terrorists and antisemites. The WP:BLP implications here are rather serious IMO, and a retraction may be wise before this is escalated. Tarc (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on contra-meme. Editors should realize that there are plenty of reliable-source editorials that will make it into this article that claim the proposition that the world "blames Israel first" is one or both of the following:
− A canard promoted to shield Israel's government from legitimate criticism.
− The result of a paranoia (not my word, see sources) that tends to produce the results it decries.
Here are just three of the abundance of "contra-meme" ( yucky word, I know ) articles available: (1) Israel's unprecedented insecurity – and paranoia (Belfast Telegraph); (2) "... they resolve the problem by creating a conspiracy theory that explains everything." (Haaretz); (3) Then there's this, about manufacturing the appearance of anti-Semitism for political gain (Inter Press Service) Do we honestly need another synth opinon piece masquerading as an encyclopedia article for I/P editors to fight over? Don't we have enough of those on Wikipedia already?  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all those sources, and I could provided hundreds more of the same, are a very good prove that Blame Israel first has the right to exist.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles don't have rights. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, English is not my first language. Once in while I have difficulties in expressing myself, as well as in understanding others. For example I have spent the last 10 minutes trying to understand what in the world shut the **** up" means, but so far I was not able to find it in any dictionary. (sigh)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what would stop the converse of this article? If thematic variations on a topic are worthy of inclusion sans a focal point like having the article covering the book Why Blame Israel, what stops someone from taking all of these references to Israel as the root of all problems and write the article "Israel as cause of all Middle Eastern issues"? Aside from why anyone would actually want to write such nonsense, they could do it with the sources you've compiled here. Or what about an article "The Best Baseball Player Ever"? It's got 1,200 hits on google archives compared to the 88 here. "Obama is a socialist"? 5,950. Are these also article worthy? Cause there are lots and lots of books on both of them. I think they are ancillary to larger topics and aren't in themselves notable, like this article. I'm not trying to be glib, I just don't think phrases related to notable issues receive notability by association. This is an outgrowth of New Antisemitism but it lacks that topics serious academic treatment. Sol (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The exact "converse" of Blame Israel is Criticism of the Israeli government, a random WP:COATRACK of the ruminations of silly op-eds and partisan academics. Oh, and the latter survived a recent afd with nary a whimper.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Their side has an article critical of us, so we must have an article critical of them" is not a valid reason to keep an article, or to even create one in the first place. It is becoming increasingly clear that this article was created not because the subject was thought to be notable, but rather to serve as a counter-weight to articles that the proponents do not like. This sort of thing got some people into a bit of trouble a few years ago, i.e. Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid, and others... Tarc (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Straw man.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTICE TO ALL ABOVE I have posted ANI regarding this AfD, which is clearly getting uncivil by the minute. Phearson (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say that we should delete this as SYNTH. there is a possibility that the article could be radically re-written so as not to be a hodgepodge of pull quotes and examples and instead convey a coherent thesis, but I'm not holding my breath. Protonk (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I am inclined to say that you are mistaking. According to WP:SYNTHESIS states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In this article 90% of the sources that are used do imply the conclusion of the topic of the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    the spirit of SYNTH is to prohibit articles strung together by a tenuous editor derived connection. Related to this subject I can imagine an article on the self hating jew in foreign policy. Many of these same authors have (and others in the neocon circles) trotted out the argument that Jews who criticize Israel do so out of some pop-psychological self hatred rather than any grounding in fact. It is the same issue. A subject which appears only as a rhetorical device among a small class of authors and think tank members crafted into some apparently coherent whole because we can find a bunch of quotes that all say the same thing. Protonk (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not know what is "the spirit of of SYNTH", but I read the policy, and this article does not violate it. Period. And about "a small class of authors" you are right only "a small class of authors" rise their voices on that subject. If there were many people, who do, there would not have been "blame Israel first" mentality and then there would not have been this article.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    68 contributions and wikilawyering to boot. I think you are reaching the point of diminishing marginal returns in your contributions to this discussion. Protonk (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That so called "wikilawyering" is a great argument, where there are no valid arguments left. I do not like this argument. If I or the article I wrote is accused in something I have to have the right to defend in accordance with wikipedia policices. But you are right, I have to stop contributing to this AFD. There's no use to continue, but it was an interesting experience because in the last few days I was the subject of PAs, incivility, bad faith assumptions in different places (not only on this AFD) could provide links by request, and all concerning the article. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Looks to be WP:SYNTH shit list of anyone who has ever blamed isreal for anything. No source appear to directly discuss the over arching Idea that this is a "meme." I am sure that using the mehtod employed here Blame America and Blame France would be doable. I see nothing here to suggest that "Blame Isreal" is in fact a meme rather than an action of blaming Israel The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's synthesis and this is evident in the heading "Intellectuals analyzing "Blame Israel" mentality". The article is comprised entirely (excepting the short lede) of quotes by people and these quotes are being used as examples of this meme. Does any source do more than imply, but actually say "there is a mentality of blame Israel anywhere? Is there any substantial analysis, not just quotes, of a specifically named "blame Israel" viewpoint? Here are some sources at random: Haaretz, Al-Masry Al-Youm, A Match Made in Heaven. None of them seem to do anything but provide quotes. Who interprets these quotes? Wikipedia's editors. Ergo, synthesis. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will really appreciate, if you are to provide a single example of any quote that got interpreted in the article?--Mbz1 (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, there are sources about mentality of blame Israel
Why Blame Israel? The facts behind the headlines;
"For a surprising number of people, Israel has become a pariah state, a threat to world ? not just regional ? peace and security. Israel gets the blame for half a century of Middle Eastern violence, for inciting Islamic-based terrorism throughout the world, and for stealing land whose historical right of ownership is at best contentious. "
"We must excel in our writing… and stop blaming all our problems on Israel. I wonder why we blame Israel for every fault in [Arab society. This is the logic of the weak, who seek a peg on which to hang all their mistakes in order to evade a true confrontation with reality"] and so on, and so on.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of those you just gave an example seem to be WP:RS criteria. 1 is an obvious WP:SPS, one is a Website Selling a book, and 1 one is some institute which may or may not be a WP:RS The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If no one is interpreting the quotes, Mbz1, pray tell us why they are in the article? How are they examples of anything if one does not associate them with a certain viewpoint they don't explicitly mention or support? I would really appreciate it if you would provide one reason why the article comprises only examples and no actual analysis of the "blame Israel meme"? As for your sources, they don't actually say anything about the meme itself (nor are they particularly reliable); you will need to cite the book itself and stubbify the article if your argument is to hold. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fetchcomms, from your question I see you never bothered to read the article.I cannot provide any reason why there's no no actual analysis of "blame Israel meme" in the article because there is actual analysis of "blame Israel meme" in the article, for example this one "Israel was to be blamed because its hundreds of air strikes against combatants were lethal, while Hezbollah was to be excused for shooting off thousands of rockets aimed at civilians because of its relative incompetence." or that one "Beyond that lies the oldest hatred of all, that of the Jew. A full answer to the question ‘why blame Israel’ must, in the end, deal with anti-Semitism." and there are more of those analyzes.
Here's a source that used the very same wording used in the article "blame-Israel mentality".--Mbz1 (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite follow you—that source makes allegations against NPR; I see your quote from the WP article, but that quote is under the "Intellectuals analyzing "Blame Israel" mentality" section, just a compilation of quotes and examples. Let me get this straight: I think the topic is pretty valid—but the article right now is written completely in the wrong way, and basically needs to be stubbified and restarted. It's a bunch of examples and quotes that purposely lead the reader to think something. I see no balancing arguments, I see no explanation for the validity of the opinions of these "intellectuals". The reader is simply forced to make the conclusion that Israel is being (unfairly) blamed by other countries. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some sources about Blame Israel First. Washington Times and this book. The Blame Israel First saying is also attributed often to groups or crowds of people, such as here. SilverserenC 00:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Silver seren, and Norman Podhoretz source with exactly the same launderer "blame Israel mentality" is cited in the article: "Nor did being on the Left entail the blame-Israel-first mentality that by now has become as widespread among Israeli intellectuals as anti-Americanism was in the United States in the days of Vietnam"--Mbz1 (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article seems to be nothing but WP:SYNTH --Guerillero | My Talk 00:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is why we have WP:SYNTH, so we can't publish articles about topics that aren't already established subjects. Just because a few commentators have used this style of argument doesn't mean its a notable topic for an encyclopedia. The article can be nothing more than original research without neutral parties discussing "blaming Israel" as a phenomenon. The article also smells pretty strongly POV. It might work as an academic blog posting or as a published essay, but not as an encyclopedia article. Also, per fetchcomms and Bali ultimate. ThemFromSpace 00:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do hope that the closing administrator will act within wikipedia policies and disregard the delete votes based on wp:synth. There is no wp:synth in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it doesn't even seem clear what the topic of this article is. I think it's meant to be about an argument or perception that Israel is unfairly singled out for criticism; but it seems to have broadened to cover criticism of Israel generally. We already have an article on that, Criticism of Israel, and this one feels like a WP:POVFORK. Perhaps it could be rewritten to focus more tightly on this specific argument, but the topic is so inherently contentious that I doubt a NPOV article on the subject could really be written. Robofish (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - subject isn't encyclopedic at all imo - awful. I went to look who had created it and my guess was correct - how amazing is that? Off2riorob (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I knew 99% of users, who will vote to delete it, that is before it was brought up to Jimbo's page and AN/I. How amazing that is? This AFD is kind of paradoxical on its own. While the article will probably get deleted the AFD for this article has proved very well the name of the article Blame Israel first, the topic of the article,and the necessity of it to be on wikipedia. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that may editors do not consider the article appropriate for Wikipedia is proof that it is! Interesting logic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that no matter how many users and administrators for that matter will come here and tell me that this is wp:synth I will never agree that it is. If I do not agree that it is wp:synth then I do not agree that the delete reasons are valid. If I do not agree that the delete reasons are valid then... Well I'd better stop here before you will tell me something else with a few "*" as you did here :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We all need to dial it down, Mbz1, you included. You've called other editors trolls and liars over this, in edit summaries and on at least one talk page that I know of. Don't let's start calling for blood, any of us, okay? No one needs any more strife over this, including all our friends at ANI. For my own part, I've tried to respond to you with all the good manners I can bring to the discussion, on my talk page, where I hope you'll have the good grace to reply, despite the very difficult nature of this conversation.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- the only possible way I can see this article being retained in any form is as an illustration of what a partisan synthesis of POV-pushery looks like. This article is nothing but flag-waving propaganda. Reyk YO! 03:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What a user wasting its time "in this shithole" :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the sad thing is, as I've previously suggested, there probably is a grain of truth in the article's premise: that 'Blame Israel' is a common-enough response in Middle-Eastern politics, even when clearly irrelevant to an outsider. This article is a good example of exactly not to discuss the issue: it illustrates the demonisation of Israel by demonising its critics instead.AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since nationalist propaganda articles like this are part of the reason I and many others are turning off Wikipedia, I'm not sure what your point is. I suspect you were going for a cheap shot, but you'll have to flail harder. Reyk YO! 03:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"nationalist propaganda articles like this"... no more questions.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<!-- Please add your comments and/or vote to the TOP of this section (after this comment) --> <--- Please explain why you think you are entitled to tell other editors where to place their comments. And please sign your contributions [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC) -->

I have restored the comments of other users to the proper chronological order, and downgraded mbz1's section headers appropriately. All of that was highly inappropriate. Tarc (talk) 05:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • A note to the closing administrator
Extended content

according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

  • To avoid POV one must:
  • Avoid stating opinions as facts. No opinion listed in the article is stated as fact.
  • Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. There is no seriously contested assertions listed in the article stated as fact.
  • Avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. All assertions, if any, are all directly stated to the source.
  • Prefer non-judgmental language. All language used in the article is neutral.I am not talking about quoted and directly stated to the sources opinions.
  • Accurately indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. This is an interesting one. What could be opposite views in this particular article? That all the blames Israel gets are justified? But who is to state such a view? Instead of stating it, Israel simply gets blamed. So, here's the paradox of this article: the blames themselves that are well represented in the article, and the opinions that contradict those blames make the article neutral.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explanation why this article does not violate wp:Synth

wp:Synth states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research"

There's nothing like this in the article. The conclusion was reached not by me and/or any other editors, who edited the articles, but by the sources themselves.

Here are only few examples of the sources used and conclusions they reached

  1. the reviews on book written by the Director of the Center for Israeli Studies at University College London. The book's name is Why Blame Israel?
  2. Book by Norman Podhoretz has exact same wording "blame-Israel-first mentality that by now has become as widespread among Israeli intellectuals as anti-Americanism was in the United States in the days of Vietnam"
  3. a book by Pierluigi Battista questions "a mad blame" of Israel by United Nations, European Union, who blame Israel while completely ignoring what is happening in China and Darfur.
  4. Please see the titles of the external links

More examples could be presented by request. Thanks for reading--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • *Comment The article reminds me of Peter Robinson's Uncommon Knowledge. Except there are 17 hard liners (purveying Tu quoque, the ad hominem of antisemitism, etc) to 1 strawman moderate (saying, "Actually, I quite agree") instead of 3 to 1. Representing opposing views with the interpretations of those who oppose them is hardly sufficient, however unbiased their analysis. For the sake of argument, I shall put aside the issue of whether opinions are being stated to be facts. But where, then, are the facts? After the opinions of the quoted 17 is removed, there is only the opinions of the people of Israel as surveyed by Tel Aviv University. This lack of any NPOV content turns a content discussion, which should be conducted on the talk page, into a deletion discussion, the only defense for which is assurances that it can be made better. Anarchangel (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The discretionary sanctions say "What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict." Does this article positively contribute to that effort ? I don't think so. The article seems to be a synthesis of published material that advances the position that Israel is a victim of a cruel and unjust world. While playing the victim is quite a nice propaganda technique to distract people from looking at the facts and context of a matter, and slogans are essential to any propaganda effort, I'm not sure that it's a sensible way to frame an article in Wikipedia when the objective is meant to be neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it. The collection of cherry picked soundbites are interesting and reliably sourced but they are sampled from a vast space of commentary about the conflict and synthesised to advance a particular narrative. It could have been an article about the currently popular delegitimization narrative rather than the Blame Israel narrative. Perhaps that article will be written soon. These narratives deserve a place in Wikipedia amongst all of the other narratives about the conflict, they need to be described but this isn't the way to do it. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – One can surely make well-written and well-sourced POV and OR material here; this is one of them. –MuZemike 05:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per serious SYNTH concerns. --John (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete − this doesn't seem encyclopedic at all. It advances a particular point of view and I think that is contrary to the established principle of neutrality. I agree that it has been concocted from various sources in an attempt to present an argument which none of those sources actually support when considered on their merits. Lovetinkle (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the sources given support the titular assertion that there is a meme here. Can't not be OR. 24.177.120.74 (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tarc. Hobartimus (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article calls it a meme, but the sources don't seem to. It's basically an article about a tendency to ascribe negative events to a real or imagined stereotypical enemy, either seriously or for humorous effect. Except that none of the sources are about this tendency, they're all about specific instances. It probably falls into one of the list of cognitive biases but I couldn't be bothered to work out which. At best, this tendency, as applied to Israel, deserves one short and well-sourced paragraph in the Israel article.--KorruskiTalk 09:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic is great for a blog, but is totally unsuitable for an encyclopedic article (try again when a couple of secondary sources have written substantial works on the article topic). At the moment, the article violates WP:SYNTH since it is just a list of random comments remotely connected with blaming Israel. Johnuniq (talk) 10:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no confidence that this topic could ever comply with NPOV. In addition there are concerns about synthesis. I would not expect to find this in an encyclopedia. Quantpole (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Comment There does seem to be sourcing for the fact that there are accusations of the Blame Israel mentality. But evidence for this being a meme is rather slim (to say the least, this indicates the page may be forkish trying to make a claim for which there is little evidence to push a POV) also the page does not appear to have any counter argument (this is not a reason for delete but a reason to work on). I see no reason why this material could not be merged with out damaging our understanding of what may not even be a topic. There is also I think an element of synthesis, whilst some sources do talk about Blame Israel mentality others seem to only be talking about singling out Israel and ignoring others. There may be something here, but I am not too sure.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:SYNTH. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as exactly the kind of WP:SYNTH POV-pushing that Wikipedia doesn't need in this sensitive topic area. *** Crotalus *** 17:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. The article topic itself is irretrievably incompatible with the requirement to provide coverage in a manner that meets WP:NPOV. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a ridiculously bad subject for an article. There is no way that it can ever be made neutral or objective and it borders on Persecution complex. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. Yet another POV-pushing article we do not need. Huldra (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Criticism of Israel (very selective). That article should discuss outside reception of Israel and it can easily accommodate "criticism of criticism of Israel", which this material essentially is. This article is cobbled together and cannot stand alone as it is a NPOV violation. For an example of the issues with sourcing, I removed "When in doubt, blame Israel", which was claimed to be an alternate topic, because that phrase appears in no reliable source that I can find. Fences&Windows 04:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for scouting around to find this, F&W. I also see there's a large selection of similar commentary quoting Dershowitz and other proponents of the notion that the world blames the Israel government inappropriately for its actions at Israel lobby in the United States#Responses to criticism of Israel. I agree this article is a POV fork.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A little more looking aroung just now leads me to believe that Criticism of Israel#Accusations of singling out might be a better home for anything in this article that merits salvage. Editors interested in reading more about this whole issue might like to review the following, as well: Debate on pro-Israel lobby in U.K. and American Israel Public Affairs Committee.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is yet another unjust reason to delete the article. Why? Here's why: Do we have to delete or merge article Divergent boundary only because it has some info about in volcano, and there are thousands examples like this one all over wikipedia. Do they all have to be deleted and/all merged to other articles, or only the ones, that have something positive to say about Israel?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, if you've not read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, you should consider doing so. JoeSperrazza (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no one could view the examples you mention as POV forks. Our policy about such forks says, among other things: "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia." But I won't argue the point with you; I think we've already used up too much real-estate here that way.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1, I think your view depends on the notion that the Blame Israel first article doesn't violate SYNTH. Everything else you say follows from that assumption. I agree with OhioStandard that the analogy doesn't work well. It's possible to write a synthesized article about divergent boundaries that would present a particular POV held by a certain subset of geoscientists advocating a specific view about one or more aspects of the topic by collecting their work together and excluding the rest of the research carried out on these features. It wouldn't be very difficult to synthesize an article because there has been so much work published on the geology of ocean ridges and rift valleys. It might even be in someone's interests to do so if, for example, they wanted to promote some commercial aspect of investment in seafloor massive sulfide mining associated with a small spreading centre somewhere. The current divergent boundary article isn't an article like that, it isn't a synthesized POV fork. It's simply an article about divergent boundaries. It's not a great article about divergent boundaries but it provides a basic introduction and overview. Naturally a summary is included in volcano per WP:SUMMARY although it appears to be a summary of the MORB article. Anyway, my basic point is that if you don't see it as SYNTH then pretty much everyone's delete/merge arguments are going to look invalid to you. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete This does seem to be a fork. There is anotehr page that covers this very subject, and fits in better with hte way similar subjects are presented.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with anti-Zionism or antisemitism – I think everyone here can agree that there's plenty of historical evidence of bigoted people blaming Jews for everything (eg. Protocols of the Elders of Zion). This subject is simply a facet of a much larger bigoted phenomenon. At the moment, the article doesn't cover past events or background information and only focuses on modern events. I believe that it should be merged, so readers could view it in a larger, historical context. If it isn't viewed in the greater context, then readers could mistaken view this phenomenon as something invented by Muslims or the Left. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, my main concern is that the article is taken out of context. If background information and alternate views could be incorporated into the article, then I'll change my !vote to keep. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just asking for troubles. There are enough problems with legitimate articles. TFighterPilot (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 am willing to provide the information in this article for anyone who cares to transwiki. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antivirus Studio 2010[edit]

Antivirus Studio 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Rogue software, no indication of notability, no sources given. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Also reads like a how-to guide to get rid of this software, and might qualify as a borderline G10 speedy. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki While this article may need deletion, its information may be useful elsewhere. Phearson (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Information on how to remove it is widely available on the net, but that alone doesn't amount to notability. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio River Bearcats[edit]

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

Non-notable semi-professional sports team, fails WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. Only sources provided are not independent, thus fails WP:RS. Potential violations of WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:ADV as well. Paul McDonald (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians in Kosovo[edit]

List of politicians in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know how this article has stayed on Wikipedia for so long. It is a huge, unformatted directory with mostly just names and no descriptions or sources to back them up. Logan Talk Contributions 21:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a classically bad list of NN people. WP is not a webhost for political parties. This list is unlikely to be needed by any of our core readership, students. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This list is to document the people and track them. Anyone interested in studying kosovo, the elections and history will be interested in this. James Michael DuPont (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no waste of redirects here, these list articles are to collect all these stubs into a central location. I am interested in being able to find and collect reliable information on this subject, and therefore think we should keep them. James Michael DuPont (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Gluckman[edit]

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

Journalist - writer of no independent note and with no notable awards or associations. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No secondary coverage. In general people are not notable just for doing their jobs, although as a journalist your name is automatically going to get into print. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reason I gave when I PRODded the article - "Obviously a prolific writer and there are plenty of examples of his writing in notable publications online, but unfortunately I haven't been able to find any secondary coverage that we can use (I had to remove this per WP:BLPSPS as it appears to be self-published by Rolf Potts). The article has been tagged as needing further sources for 18 months and it seems this can't be resolved. Awards are mentioned although it's not specified which, the only award I could verify is this which is not significant enough to meet WP:ANYBIO." January (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep There are a lot less notable people who have Wikipedia articles. He does need some sort of significant contribution or award to be kept but I vote keep to preserve this article until someone proves that this person doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article. 5dsddddd (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turner Stokes[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography Snowman (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. (actually there is one source in the article but it barely mentions him) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Faulkner[edit]

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

Non-notable "professional" wrestler autobiography. Only professional association is with the International Wrestling Cartel, a group whose article has previously been deleted for lack of notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not a wrestling guru, but I'm pretty sure that there aren't any 15-year-old professional wrestlers. Logan Talk Contributions 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FrontEndArt[edit]

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

Non-notable software company. Has some mentions in Google Scholar, but they appear to be mostly primary (University of Szeged), and I can't access the sources themselves. (Related proposed deletion: SourceAudit and SourceInventory) Pnm (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn, but funny how I had to nominate it for deletion before anyone gave a rip... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of robotics[edit]

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

Woefully incomplete, link farm, no effort put into list. Deprodded with a tautological rationale. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Glossaries are accepted content - see WP:MOSGLOSS and numerous other glossaries. That this one is incomplete is not a reason to delete it. It is, instead, a reason to complete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a good reason to at least try when putting an article together. If you can't be arsed to put more than two words in a glossary, you probably should let someone else do it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author of this glossary also created Glossary of machine vision, which is more fleshed out. He started on this one and then just stopped. It's not clear why but that's still no reason to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • TenPoundHammer, There was enough content for the article before you tried to delete it. Far more than just two words. Dream Focus 05:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's expandable and clearly a valid topic. Nyttend (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly encyclopedic. Also, will the same nominator stop nominating so many things for deletion constantly. Don't most of the AFDs you start end in keep, if more than a few people are around to notice? Dream Focus 05:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so; most of 10PH's AFDs result in deletion. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong chat 04:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now but no prejudice against re-creation when someone has enough time to add more to the article than alphabetic section headings and {{Empty section}} templates. There are more entries in the external links section than there are in the article itself. SnottyWong chat 04:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors cannot add entries to an article if it has been deleted. This proposition is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not absurd. Editors can have the article restored or just start it from scratch. When this article was nominated, there was barely any content so it wouldn't have been much of a loss. The reason it is absurd to you is because you believe that an article with a notable subject and zero content is worth keeping, whereas I believe it is not. Anyway, the article has been expanded now, so I'll strike my vote and change to Keep. SnottyWong confabulate 15:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, otherwise we'll only have to come back and re-do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW and CSD G3 (vandalism). I've blocked the editor as well until they provide a commitment to not create further hoaxes.. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, it seems that the editor is a sock puppet of someone already blocked for sock puppetry. Nick-D (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Akureyri[edit]

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

Suspected hoax. All the references, and the article's content, are WP:BALLS. What to do about the creator, who has confessed to creating "in-jokes" on Wikipedia before? Geschichte (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In-jokes? Regardless of whether or not this article is factual, it doesn't seem to be an 'in-joke' of any sort. Clearly not WP:DAFT fodder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.201.125 (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has the article, which is seemingly drivel, been created then, if it's not some joke? Geschichte (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but i can safely say it's not WP:DAFT fodder, which is what the creator owned up to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.201.125 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the article important? Possibly. Is it BS? Possibly. Notify the creator of the page that this discussion is underway so they can comment and give their inspiration for creating this page. I will assume good faith and state that the creator possibly does not know how to point out an invalid source. There have likely been cases in which the creator of an article used a source that was a hoax and they themselves were fooled. Finalius (Say what?) 20:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feeling is, that this is not the case of someone being fooled. For example, the sentence "The battle lasted less than an hour, yet left 17 British soldiers dead" is sourced to this website which merely shows that there are 17 Commonwealth war graves at Akureyri. If it was just the case of someone writing an article based on a hoax blog entry, then I'd be willing to believe they were not at fault. In this case, however, the blog source is "backed up" by other sources, none of which actually mention any battle at all. There are also whole sections without any sources at all. Manxruler (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is it just me, or am I overlooking something in the sources in the article? There's (a) A history of Akuyeri that makes no mention of a battle; (b) an history of the war in Iceland that makes no mention of Akuyeri; (c) absoluteastronomy.com (d) some blogs and (e) a picture of 17 gravestones of persons who didn't necessarily die in a battle fought there? If someone can provide a reliable and verifiable source that says that there was a battle fought in Iceland at Akuyeri during World War II, then I'll vote keep, but it's kind of odd that the article can't cite to a book or news item. Considering everything that's been written about the Second World War in the past 70 years, there should be no need to rely on ww2trivia.blogspot.com for a source. Mandsford 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To sum up my view of the article, and why I believe it's a concious hoax: The article contains loads of detailed "information" which does not come from the blog entry, or any other source, which leads me to the conclusion that it is not just the case of someone writing an article sourced on a hoax blog. Manxruler (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Likely hoax, fails WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Edison (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The figure of 17 British deaths seems to come from the fact that there are 17 graves in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemetery at Akureyri, but a search on the [5] website gives their date of death and none correspond. For the sake of doubt I have also checked the much larger cemetery at Reykjavik where there I could find only one relevant death, a captain who died on 18 May, and that does not match this story. Lastly, any incident at Akureyri would belong in the Operation Fork article. 62.49.68.239 (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a blatant hoax. If this had actually happened it wouldn't be so obscure that nobody's heard of it. (Cue the "cover-up" allegations now!) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 02:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swoop G[edit]

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

I contested a prod on this one as I thought it needed more scrutiny. He has released an album that reached #99 on the Billboard R&B albums chart - see Allmusic, but the only real coverage found was an article form the Press-Enterprise reporting his arrest on suspicion of murder in 2006. He has released at least three albums, so there may be offline coverage somewhere, but from what I've so far found, I don't think we have enough for an article. Michig (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can find mentions of him such as [6], and [7], but not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While the !vote count leans toward Keep, the true policy backed consensus is for the article to be deleted. There haven't been any references presented thus far that show any form of notability for this article to be kept. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 02:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centro del Sur[edit]

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

Deprodded with addition of "sources" which are both primary. No non-trivial coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep- There is no reason this should be at AFD. The mall is very notable and there is bound to be a lot of information seeing that it was one of Puerto Rico's top malls for a long time. Plaza del Caribe has replaced it in Ponce recently, but it doesn't mean this article should be deleted. Third-party sources are very easy to be found, you just have to give the article time. (WP:DEMOLISH) Feedback ☎ 01:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- While my first reaction is "Speedy Keep" I figured there must be one very significant reason why 10-lbs wants it deleted. So please elaborate on what makes the 2 existing sources to be "primary sources" using WP's criteria and how that alone is enough reason to delete the article. Also, explain in what way the coverage is not "non-trivial", citing specific examples if you can. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
The first source appears to be the city's website or some sort of directory listing which is not a non-trivial mention. The second is the mall's own website, which clearly is a primary source (anything's own website = primary source). Clearly neither of you know what speedy keep means, nor do you know what "reliable secondary source" means. Are there any news articles about this mall? If so, then Google News doesn't have them. "It's been around a long time" is not enough. Also, the article's been around since November 2009, which is plenty of time for someone to bring up new sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you forgot to cite specific examples of how the article's coverage is trivial. Or maybe you just couldn't cite any -- I did say, "if you can". Nowhere did you elaborate on where Wikipedia policies state that a city government's official website is a trivial source, other than the product of your own invention. Clearly there is someone here who doesn't know what he's talking about, and that someone is you. Ah, and did I forget to mention your own use of a mall's "own" website as a primary source in Eastridge Mall, as shown HERE? And, in case you did not understand my vote last time, I did say "Speedy Keep" and, in addition, I re-considered my decision and still voted "Speedy Keep". So I said Speedy Delete and Speedy Delete it is. It wasn't any of your business to come along modifying my edits w/o my authorization. Just as with WP:SNOW you are misinterpreting WP:Speedy Keep. As another editor said, striking out "speedy" in votes is considered refactoring editor's comments. So next time keep your fingers to yourself. Even if you were right, your striking action is an insult to the closing admin's intelligence. The same goes for your "Comment to admins" above: I will have to believe you are really thinking admins cannot figure out Mercy11 is the article's author (a misnomer as I, though the creator, was only one of the authors).
"Are there any news articles about this mall?" ... and ... "Since November 2009, which is plenty of time for someone to bring up new sources." So argumentative!! Why don't you bring up the new sources yourself as you happily did HERE for another mall article, and stop putting yourself for judge amongst us? The encyclopedia would be better served if instead of nagging to others about how bad this article is you went ahead and spent your time fixing the Centro del Sur Mall article as you cheerfully did with this other Mall article HERE.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 08:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Speedy keep per WP:SNOW, this is definitely notable being a major shopping mall. Better sources could and should be included though. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better sources from WHERE? I found absolutely nothing when searching "Centro del Sur" + various keywords. Where are the news articles? Magazine articles? That kind of thing. Don't say "Keep but add more sources" if no more sources exist; it's not like the Source Fairy is gonna make sources grow overnight. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2 x e/c) Well, I don't speak spanish, but I found a couple of mentions (which are probably just that, mentions, though) in local media : 1, 2... Now I agree these are far from good sources, but I'll say this : lack of reliable sources is not a criteria for deletion, notability is. Especially as this is a non-contentious article, facts can be trusted coming from primary sources or listings, unlike BLPs. So I say again : keep (because sources is not a criteria for deletion), but if possible, add more sources. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please not strike the 'speedy' in votes? This is called refactoring people's comment. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's acceptable when speedy keep is being misused. Tell me how this fits any criterion of WP:SK — it's not a vandalism/disruption AFD, it's not withdrawn, et cetera. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did cite WP:SNOW, didn't I? I don't understand why this is such a big issue for you? I voted speedy keep, maybe it wasn't within the guidelines of speedy keep, whatever, the closing admin will decide that when establishing whether to keep or not. Now that this is said, I don't believe I have anything to add. [CharlieEchoTango] 02:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch your language, 10 pound, this is not a battleground but a forum to discuss your delete proposal. In any event, one option was for you to tag the article POINTING OUT that it needed more citations but, 10 pound, you chose to go for the Nuclear option instead. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

  • KEEP: as Diego Grez pointed out in his link, there are many reliable 3rd party sources including some of the most widely circulated newspapers in Puerto Rico. El Johnson (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "In Ponce, shopping addicts head for the Centro del Sur" 1. Centro del Sur is one of the main mall on the island. Do we delete because sources are not easily available online? After 10 years and millions of dollars Wikipedia still doesn't get it.--Jmundo (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE Let's step back for a moment. First reference to establish and demonstrate notability is a listing of the street address of the shopping center from a local government site. Second reference on the page is a 1st party reference to the subject itself and as such is unacceptable as a demonstration of notability. First link brought up here (at AFD) to demonstrate notability is a manager of a store in the sopping center talking about the Lottery and some of the prizes you could win (like a dinner at their restaurant). Second mentions the shopping center in passing regarding a chain of toy stores that are good for children's birthdays. Google books link by Jmundo only mentions the mall in passing in a overall section about shopping. Notability by these links and references has NOT been established. I apologize to any spanish speakers/readers as to my understanding of the articles linked. To use the abused argument WP:OTHERSDONTEXIST a major shoping mall that takes up 3 corners of an intersection in my hometown is not yet established as an article here because, while it may have importance locally, it has yet to have 3rd parties that Wikipedia recognizes as reliable sources write about it's significance. Hasteur (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin, please review the information I have put together on the talk page concerning what may be a dilution of concensus. Hasteur (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is a "stub" which simply needs to be expanded. Additional sources would be of help. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hasteur did you not see 1 ?El Johnson (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google books link by Jmundo only mentions the mall in passing in a overall section about shopping. As referenced in my previous refutation Hasteur (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you know that studies have shown that bolding text is hard to read, and users tend to regard it as screaming?--Jmundo (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Jmundo, I ask that you redact your Ad-Hominem attacks here and on the talk page immediateley. Comment on the substance of the purpose of this article, not on it's author. I bolded and reproduced the original quote because it appeared that El Johnson missed it in the original discussion. Should you elect not to redact your attacks I will be inclined to open a request for review regarding your lack of civility and Point-y editing.Hasteur (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I noticed that 10 lb hammer added the {{primarysources}} and {{refimprove}} tags after the nomination for deletion. I believe that this should have been the preferred method to improve upon this article which clearly needs improvement. I am glad that this has been realized and corrected by adding these tags. Thus my vote is based upon these facts: 1. Appropriate hatnote tags have been added. 2. Article is Stub Class. 3. Time is needed to allow editors to act based upon these hatnotes. QuAzGaA 01:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You bet he did it after his nomination for deletion.
In fact, here is another cute little fact: his very first move was to put a notice in the article that it was being considered for deletion. It turns out I monitor that article and saw the notice and made a few improvements to the article (added the photo, added content, and the holy grail, added another citation) after seeing his notice. Now, at that point any reasonable human being would had, in good faith, attempted to work with me, right? Well, no, not 10 pounder, instead at that point he went for the Nuclear option and in response to my good faith edits (and, VERY IMPORTANT: 1&1/2 days later) he gracefully nominated the article for deletion. There was no common courtesy to state his objection to the article in the article's discussion page, and if he had innocently forgotten to do that, he later acted in bad faith by nominating the article for deletion 1&1/2 days later when I had already started good faith efforts to fix the problem(s) he was nagging about.
So he follows a non-standard protocol in making delete nominations. He doesn't have the darn courtesy to post anything other that a Delete Nomination (and, then, in bad faith). If a person doesn’t even know how to follow common courtesy (com’n danmit we are talking COMMON courtesy), how the hell can we expect him to subscribe to anything in the world of the rest of us living reasonable human beings? And to lack of courtesy and bad faith, I add that his action was disruptive in that we could be attending to other more important matters than seeking to control this guy's impertinent and baseless delete nomination. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
Mercy11, please stop attacking Ten Pound Hammer. This is the page to discuss the merits of the Centro del Sur article, not to accuse him of wrongdoing. If you persist in assuming bad faith, you will probably find yourself blocked from further contributions. I ask you, focus on the article and not on the editors. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind getting blocked,,, for the right reason. When someone that doesn't know me calls me ignorant, as he did above for no reason, you bet I will also attack back. However, my goal was not to assume bad faith, but to report the facts as they unfolded. I do react to reasonable people, so I will comply with your courteus request. We need more people like you submitting AfDs. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Comment Question: Can anyone please show us e.g. 3 or more newspaper articles that are actually about the mall; ie "significant coverage"? I can't tell from the links so far provided, but I have yet to see evidence to pass the general notability guideline. If such sources cannot be found at this time, then deletion and userfy would be more appropriate. Live articles need to meet WP:GNG. The notability criteria is not subjective; not "if we think it is notable" - it is specific. Please see WP:VRS.  Chzz  ►  05:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why 3? Why newspaper articles? You seem to be setting those two in stone, but I don't see where they are set in stone in WP:RS, or am I missing something in that message? Also, WP:VRS and userfy are essays, not policies or guidelines. Maybe we should be more careful because they don't have an weigh-in in this discussion. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • There are lots of forms that reliable sources can take - but many of them aren't going to apply to malls. How many scholarly works discuss malls, and this one in particular? Few malls have books written specifically about them. Articles from the media (typically print) are about the best we can hope for in the case of the typical shopping mall. There is no "3 references or delete" rule, but 1 reference would not be sufficient and 2 would be iffy. The question I would ask, I suppose, is "Why not?" UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • I said "3 newspaper articles" for simplicity. "Significant coverage in reliable sources" is open to some degree of interpretation, but to me, it means >2. I suggested newspapers, as I thought that might be the best chance. Books, and certain websites (e.g. newsworthy; with the 'reputation for fact-checking' etc) would also be fine. Yes, GNG is a guideline, not a policy. Verifiability, No original research and sticking to a neutral point-of-view are policies, and all are dependent on decent coverage in reliable sources. If there are few good sources, then it is impossible to have a neutral, verifiable article on a topic - no matter what it is about.  Chzz  ►  15:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Comment: None of the following Mall articles (and there are scores more) cite any references whatsoever: Foothills Mall (Arizona), Northpark Mall (Mississippi), MetroCentre Mall, Lake Forest Plaza, Kahala Mall. Yet they dont even have a tag at all - let alone being listed as AfDs. (And that's just a sampling.... as I said there are scores more at this Cat HERE, possibly hundreds as I noticed via a quick perusal). I am not suggesting this in any way that more references shouldn't be added to Centro del Sur, but instead asking, isn't it more reasonable yet to direct our limited resources at addressing all of those such miserable mall articles before we start dealing with mall articles that, like Centro del Sur, have references albeit objectionable by some accounts? There are many, many other Mall articles in the same Cat link above that either don't cite any references but have a tag on them (such as Valley Mall (Hagerstown) and Capitola Mall), and many more that are guilty of possessing the objectionable "Primary" References only (ex: The Loop (Methuen, Massachusetts)) and many others also that possess the so-called "No non-trivial" references (ex: Solomon Pond Mall (a town’s website and travel blog)). If we are going to be reasonbale, such articles ought to take precedence over others that, like Centro del Sur, were being attended to in good faith to bring up to compliance. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
    • Mercy11, please review WP:OTHERSTUFF. We're not dealing with the other articles, we're dealing with this one. Have you even read the sources listed at the article and proposed here? Take a look at other Mall articles and see what they have in terms of references and how the reference speaks about the mall at length and not just the name in passing in 1 sentence.
  • Well, thanks, but I made it known before I wasn't using that as a Keep rationale and also stated why I brought it up. In any event, thanks for the otherstuff link which I didn't have. Essentially I spoke out of intution, and it turned out to be correct. Thanks. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Comment As a local to Penuelas (20 mintes from Ponce), I'm going to search for articles to see what I can find in regards to Centro del Sur and it's notability, both in English and Spanish. Can we please remember to remain civil here and not attack. TenPoundHammer, please also remember that it's inappropriate to strike another individuals !vote, as this is simply a discussion and individuals have the right to their own opinion. This has got to be one of the worst cases of civility that I have seen. I'll be back shortly with my findings and my opinion/!vote. Dusti*poke* 07:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to check your local newspaper. A librarian may be able to help you find archived copies somewhere. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this helps, however, this is their section for press releases, events, news articles etc. On the right hand sie, it lists Commercial Centers Management, Inc.'s properties (they own CDS). In total, this mall contains 62 stores. This statement, "Come and visit Santa Rosa Mall and Centro Del Sur Mall, the only two shopping centers in Puerto Rico that provide a specialized program that offers classroom facilities with particular courses for the use of the community, completely free!" indicates it also acts as a community center of such. I haven't spent a lot of time researching this in spanish, as I doubt we'll find a lot in English, however - I can state that I feel this article should be kept. Dusti*poke* 18:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per information I just posted above. Dusti*poke* 18:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dusti, that's good information but it is also known that Centro del Sur was the largest mall in southern Puerto Rico for over 30 years - until PDC opened in 1992. I am afraid some folks here might be thinking Centro del Sur is some sort of a low-life strip mall. Fact is, local papers cover the yearly Miss Centro Del Sur contest hosted there (advertising? maybe but so is Miss Universe and no one would think of doing a AFD on that), the mall's opening day festivities in the 1950s, that it's has the distiction of being the largest of the malls owned by the largest mall owner in PR, etc. All these things are documented by reliable, third party, secondary sources, including newspapers. Unfortunately, there are editors arguing that to be acceptable as a source the source must have received the blessing of the Pope. You know the expectation is to find sources that "speak about the mall at great length", as one editor put it, when it has already been shown that the likelihood of finding scholarly discussions, even news articles, about something as mundane as a mall is next to zero, whether it has 240,00 sq ft or 240 million sq ft. Centro del Sur is discussed in the respected books by Randall Peffer, yet that doesn't move editors with preconceived ideas of the level of coverage a mall must have to be considered prominent. I perceive a lack of the common sense in these expectations, especially when certain locales, such as capitalistic hubs, are more likely to rite in-depth news articles about their malls than are (then-) agricultural towns like Ponce, all other things (read: mall square footage) being the same. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Delete WEe have consistent deleted articles on malls of this limited size (220,000 sq. ft) unless there is some very strong reason otherwise. I think we are as we should be a little more reluctant for articles in this subject because of the obvious potential for advertising. I do not see any special importance or good sources here; the importance as having a public meeting room is trivial, and the sources adduced above are either trivial, directory information, or press releases. That we have some other articles on malls of this degree of unimportance merely indicates we have not yet gotten to them. Though I suggested deletion for the article, we perhaps might have an article on Commercial Centers Management, in which some information about this and their other malls could be mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you that the public meeting room offering at the mall is trivial, but what do you mean that one source is "directory" information? "It's been around a long time" may not be a reason to save a mall article (since many could had been around a long time), but imo, "for a long time it was the only one around in such large geographical area" is reason enough, not because of the time or the geographical aspects, but because of the scarcity point. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Brilliant! Congrats. Nice approach. Bout time someone thought of this. Bravo! My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
  • Delete Further to my earlier comment, I haven't seen evidence that there is significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:GNG WP:V  Chzz  ►  13:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. And rename to List of 1970s punk rock musicians or similar.  Sandstein  07:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of musicians in the first wave of punk rock[edit]

List of musicians in the first wave of punk rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Twinkle messed up and left this part-done, so I hope it works OK). I wonder if this makes sense as a supportable list. While there was a "first wave" with sources out there, I can't find any key definition that would make the membership of various musicians objective, and no clear definition as to who was or who was not in the "first wave" - all we have in the article is "1975-1979", which seems arbitrary and is unsourced. If you look on the Talk page, the discussion is pretty much all people swapping their own OR/POVs. I think what we need in order to keep this article is a source that clearly defines the "first wave" in such a way as to make it possible to decide who was in it. Thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as completely arbitrary in definition. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, I think we'd need more than one source. I think we'd really need evidence that there's a generally accepted definition of what and who constitutes the "first wave" - there are sure to be lots of different opinions in the music sphere out there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Punk rock became popular in the mid-1970s and was largely over in terms of its initial mainstream popularity by 1979, with post-punk, new wave, goth, etc. becoming more popular. There was a 'second wave' if you like in the early to mid 1980s, particularly enjoying popularity from 1982. The first wave (at least the UK part of it) is documented in Alex Ogg's book No More Heroes: A Complete History of UK Punk from 1976 to 1980. The same publisher has two volumes covering the early 1980s bands, one focusing more on the 'street-punk' and related bands and one on anarcho-punk. 'First Wave' doesn't seem to be widely used, but if retitled to 'List of 1970s punk rock musicians', I don't really see a problem - not difficult to source - there are plenty of books on punk rock of that era.--Michig (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's an interesting idea - I think renaming to "List of 1970s punk rock musicians" could be a good solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Punk rock was started in the early-mid 1970s. That era is known as the first wave of punk. The term is used in the Punk rock article a few times and has book citations that I do not have access to.

The best thing to do is have lists of punk bands by decade (1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010). The second wave punk bands list is even worse off then this one. If done by decade, there is no POV pushing about sub sub genres. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good plan to me - I agree the term "first wave" is used, but without a clear definition of what and who it comprises, a list under that title does seem like OR/POV. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I support the idea of renaming to 'List of 1970s punk rock musicians' as there appears to be no clear consensus for who is represented in the first wave/second wave/n wave. As an example, does the first wave cover the US acts of the 1970s, while the second wave covers the UK acts of mid decade. It could be argued that as these acts effectively had different messages (the US was more personal politics, the UK more externally political) this is enough to classify each as being part of a separate wave. Using the term wave runs the risk of POV pushing, while classifying by accepted chronological systems would avoid this. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Castellan[edit]

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

This article also violates WP:N. Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Document[edit]

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

This article is an essay (apparently writen by employees of Xerox) based on original research, as is outlined on its talk page. Removing the original research from the document would leave us with little more than a dictionary definition, so I propose that deletion is the best option. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepMore than a dictionary definition or essay, this is a well referenced article on a notable subject. Documents existed before the Xerox company, and are notable based on pre-Xerox references. Any spamvertising or POV material can be edited out. Edison (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well referenced? Are we looking at the same article? Anyway, this is the pre-Xerox version of the article, if anyone is interested. That version has no references, so I'm not sure we have something to go back to. If someone was willing to rewrite the article from scratch, of course, there would be no need for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing the AFD process with the editing process. If you dislike this edit from 2007, the edit history allows you to return to the version before that edit. "Documents" are clearly a notable subject. The version before the 2007 revision by "some folks at Xerox" had remained about the same for 5 years, since 2002. Rather than "Delete and start from scratch," you have the option of editing the article, and tagging it as needing references. You can be bold and go ahead with your proposed revision, or more wisely you can gain consensus for it on the article talk page first, so you do not get accused of vandalism for removing text and references. Did you raise your concerns on the article's talk page, before racing to AFD? A little search in a public library or at Google Book search would reference most of what is in the older version of the article. Edison (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it as reading like an essay back in November, but I take your point. I misjudged this and am happy for the discussion to be closed. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support closure per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the idea of a document is definitely worthy of an article. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the word "document" is heavily used and should be described. I agree that it appears that research from Xerox is the primary source of reference, which makes it worse. This makes it appear to be an internal research paper, just copied over. The article could be deliberately shortened to align it with the multiple core meanings of "document". I have looked for suitable references, and it is a bit difficult to find books that have studied the topic Elcidia (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a broken link in the current version of the article (now reverted back to the pre-Xerox version), which appears to be a copy of this journal article. It could be a useful source. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The last comment was disregarded of course, but consensus is still that he is not (yet) notable for a Wikipedia article. NW (Talk) 16:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fady Alnajjar[edit]

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

Autobiography wiht no evidence of notability. None of the refs are about the subject. Dicklyon (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I count only 4, as I mentioned above. Are you referring to other works, perhaps internal documents or working papers, that are not available outside his institution? (I ask because I noticed via Geolocate that you're at the same institution as the subject:) Agricola44 (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. His CIMCA'05 paper has 16 citations in Google scholar, not bad for something that recent, but that's far from enough to demonstrate the impact needed to pass WP:PROF#C1. As for the awards listed at his cv, they're mostly student awards, except for one vanity scam one. What it adds up to to me is what one would expect to see for a just-graduated researcher on a good track, but it's very rare for someone at that level to be notable by our standards and I don't think he's one of the rare exceptions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that it is early to be in wikipedia at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadyone (talk • contribs) 09:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC) — Fadyone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete He is Arabic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.51.22.188 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope everyone will disregard this inflammatory comment. Geolocate shows this IP as being close-by the anon comment above and both of these anons are in the same geographic area as the subject of the article. (One is actually at the same institution.) They are very possibly one in the same person. Hopefully there will not be any more provocative comments to disrupt the normal debate here! Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.Cúchullain t/c 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Bernstein[edit]

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

Article reads like an advertisement; strip away the promotional aspects, and I'm not seeing any solid WP:BIO material here. A related issue is some heavy WP:COI editing by the subject's webmaster on Hair restoration, Management of baldness, and several other related articles.OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete this page. It is being edited to preserve encyclopedic information and eliminate extraneous information. Thank you. Furthermore, I find the fact that this page has been targeted for deletion simply because I have made an effort to improve Wikipedia articles to be a personal attack on Dr. Bernstein. I agree that this article needs to be modified. But the fact remains that this article has existed in its present form for over a year and it is only now that I have made some edits to other contextually relevant pages that you have targeted this page. I find this behavior to be unacceptable.
As for the comment, I'm not seeing any solid WP:BIO material here. Surely you jest. There is some improper wording, I will grant you that, but the suggestion that there is not "any solid biographical material" is farcical. Rbernstein (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read WP:BIO, you'll see that it's about our policy regarding threshold for notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics): Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes (such as NIH, CNRS, etc). However, academics, in the sense of above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g. in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements; conversely, if they are notable for their primary job, they do not have to be notable academics to warrant an article.
Obviously you are in the wrong, or at minimum not disclosing what you find objectionable to these writings. The idea that there is nothing notable is outrageous and factually-incorrect. Rbernstein (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy as db-promo. EEng (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Account "RBernstein" appears [8] to be a role account and probably should be blocked as such. See WP:ROLE.
    • Comment I'd prefer not to do the blocking myself as the nominator of the article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the problem now? I have edited the article to be as neutral as possible and I have shown you that the article passes muster given the page on notability reference for academics. This article clearly falls within the purview of that article. I, of course, don't mind editing content deemed unsatisfactory, but the manner with which any issues are brought to my attention is problematic. I am still waiting for an explanation as to why the assertion was made that Dr. Bernstein or his work do not meet the "threshold for notability." Of course, OhNoitsJamie, I don't expect a response, because your assertion is false. Rbernstein (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, my initial nomination already describes my objections. The blurb you quote from WP:PROF doesn't indicate why the subject meets the guidelines. I don't see how Bernstein is particularly notable as an academic or a professional any more than any other individual in his subject area. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Bernstein is particularly notable as an academic or a professional any more than any other individual in his subject area That is where, I am sorry to say, you are factually wrong. Dr. Bernstein was the first person to describe Follicular Unit Transplantation and Follicular Unit Extraction in medical literature. This is an accepted fact in the industry. Do I need to provide you with evidence? Rbernstein (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should start by reading the article before flagging it for deletion. This is a direct quotation from the president of the internationally-respected organization the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery at their meeting in 2001 upon Dr. Bernstein's acceptance of the Platinum Follicle Award for "Outstanding Achievement" in scientific and clinical research in hair restoration: "Dr. Bernstein has contributed to the field of hair transplantation in dramatic and substantial ways, revolutionizing the advancement of Follicular Unit Hair Transplantation. His published articles have become important in advancing this methodology. Dr. Bernstein's contributions to medical literature also include studies examining the power of sorting grafts for density, yield by method of graft production, local anesthetic use, and suture materials." Again, your assertions are baseless. Rbernstein (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, sir, I asked what the problem is now considering that I have edited the article down dramatically and your reply was a reference to your initial objection. What is the problem with the current article? You are not helping, but creating antagonism where none need exist. I ask you to be constructive. You are wasting my time, and your own, with your baseless comments and references to content that no longer exists. Rbernstein (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting further on it. I've stated my case, and other editors can add there !votes during the course of the AfD process. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you're not commenting now that I've shown evidence that your comments are totally absurd and baseless. You've stated your case that you, don't see how Bernstein is particularly notable as an academic or a professional any more than any other individual in his subject area. You are not defending this comment because it is indefensible in light of the clear facts. Rbernstein (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the subject of notability, you said: doesn't indicate why the subject meets the guidelines
Here is evidence that this is incorrect:
Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities.
CHECK! He is currently Clinical Professor of Dermatology at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University.
However, academics, in the sense of above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g. in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements;
CHECK! Dr. Bernstein continues to publish medical literature despite his role as hair restoration physician.
You suggest, unbelievably, that despite meeting two basic criteria for notability as an academic, he isn't a notable academic. Again, this is incorrect to the point of farce. Rbernstein (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are quoting WP:PROF's description of what it means to be an academic, period, and confusing it with its criteria for notability among academics. Anyway, under your reasoning everyone who works either (a) inside academia or (b) outside academia, is not only an academic, but a notable one as well.

Let me advise you, User RBernstein, to stop now. That way, when the actual Dr. Robert M. Bernstein gets into the office tomorrow morning, he might, just might not fire you for bringing him so much embarrassment by your behavior here. Or are you in fact the person your username implies i.e. Dr. Robert M. Bernstein? EEng (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

outdenting Perhaps you should read the whole WP:PROF page, instead of focusing on the introduction, which simple establishes who is covered by WP:PROF. I never disputed whether WP:PROF applies. this is the section that is germane to this discussion. Note that "I am notable because I say I am" is not listed among the criteria. I also don't think "Platinum Follicle Award" is going to qualify as a "highly prestigious academic award." OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that "I am notable because I say I am" is not listed among the criteria. Who are you? Honestly, I didn't say that and you know I didn't say that. Read what I wrote. He has been honored by the pre-eminent society in the field of hair transplantation, a multi-billion dollar international industry. You chose to belittle what you obviously do not understand. 7. The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. At the very least, Dr. Bernstein meets this criterion. He has revolutionized the massive industry of hair restoration with his medical literature. It has given him enough of a "notable" status to be invited to appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show, the Dr. Oz Show, Good Morning America, The Today Show, The Discovery Channel, The Early Show, CBS News, Fox News, and National Public Radio. And that doesn't even include his interviews in print. Honestly, this is getting old. Dr. Bernstein is notable and your objections seem to be driven by some antipathy, on your part, of an undisclosed nature. Rbernstein (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - as promotional (should have been speedied IMHO) and per WP:BIO/WP:ACADEMIC. Please, Dr Bernstein, don't rehash all your "arguments" above - you have made your point, no need to repeat ad nauseam. – ukexpat (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as promotional. Google News shows that he makes himself available for brief comments to media such the New York Times (several), and was quoted by ABC News and CBS News in stories about quarterback Tom Brady's November 2010 consultations with hair-replacement specialists. There are several press releases identifying him as a co-author of Hair Loss & Replacement for Dummies. Gets a passing mention here in the Washington Post as head of the New Hair Institute in an article about hair loss. I don't see the notability. --CliffC (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A closer reading of the Washington Post hair-loss article I mention above shows that it deals with The Bald Truth, a radio show hosted by Spencer Kobren, who is identified by the Post as "an advocate for the balding", and who pays various radio stations for air time.
"The show carries ads that sound like ads (for, among others, a hair transplant chain called the New Hair Institute) as well as on-air recommendations by Kobren himself. The other night, for instance, Kobren wove in endorsements of physicians Robert Bernstein of New York and John Cole, who has an office in Wheaton. Both Bernstein (who heads the New Hair Institute) and Cole are members of something called the International Alliance of Hair Restoration Surgeons (IAHRS) [founded by Kobren]." —Post
--CliffC (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, I never realized there were so many hair transplant doctors using the media to help one another drum up business. No wonder some people in the industry feel themselves entitled to WP articles. Qworty (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strongest possible DELETE. I think it's just terrible how this blatant WP:COI account has spent so much time insulting other editors in this AfD, simply to try to preserve an obvious WP:SPAM article whose only purpose is to try to persuade balding people to try out this guy's hair transplant services. Obviously, that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. There is no secondary WP:RS whatsoever to support any kind of notability for the doctor, and that certainly is the only relevant fact along the road to closing this matter forever. Qworty (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent reliable sources. The article appears to be nothing more then well written spam. I see no notability here --Guerillero | My Talk 02:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but which part of this steaming pile of moneygrubbing manure is "well-written?" EEng (talk) 03:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's interesting to see the word "follicular" used once in one's life, though I doubt that it works very effectively as "well-written" WP:SPAM designed to drive bald-headed clients to a hair restorationist's office. Qworty (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right! Follicular -- that's the little car that takes you up a mountain, right? EEng (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just remembered, we used to sing about this in eighth grade music class. The words are perhaps fitting:
To set the air with music bravely ringing
Is far from wrong! Is far from wrong!
Listen, listen, echoes sound afar!
Listen, listen, echoes sound afar!
Funiculì, follicular, funiculì, follicular!
Echoes sound afar, funiculì, follicular!
--CliffC (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Snowball delete anyone? This one is a no-brainer IMHO... – ukexpat (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree with the deletion, I don't think it's obvious enough to be speedy. More importantly, it bothers me a bit how much enjoyment people seem to be taking from it, and the lack of civility. I'm thinking especially of phrases like "steaming pile of moneygrubbing manure", and the personal attack that starts with "Let me advise you". Axlrosen (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a great believer in the potential for redemption of even the most grievous of sinners i.e. many valuable editors were real troublemakers when they started on Wikipedia, but this guy made it perfectly obvious that he was here solely to advance the economic interests of this Bernstein character, and his account has now been blocked for that reason. I take full responsibility for having a little fun at his expense.

As to "Let me advise you...": I stand by that too. Either Dr. Bernstein deserves to be embarrassed (if he encouraged this editor to use Wikipedia -- employing Bernstein's name as a username, no less -- as a promotional forum) or Bernstein does not (if he didn't know what was going on). So for the good of Wikipedia at least, and possibly for that of Dr. Bernstein, I advised the editor to cut the crap.

EEng (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just say that I think Axlrosen has been extraordinarily patient with this user, which is commendable. However, I would advise the user that if they decide to become involved in future collaborative projects, they should avoid adopting such an arrogant and presumptuous tone towards veteran members of the project. It certainly doesn't engender a helpful attitude from others. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lest anyone misunderstand based on a cursory reading, I want to clarify that the "this user" with whom Axlrosen has been so patient is not me, but User:Rbernstein. At least, I hope that's the case. EEng (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC) (And I too compliment Axlrosen for his patience, though if he'd asked me I would have counseled him to give up much sooner. But many of us have, at times, foolishly wasted our patience on another editors who, in retrospect, was simply taking advantage of our good nature.)[reply]
Sorry not to be clear; yes, I meant that Axlrosen was quite patient with User:RBernstein, and that User:RBernstein (admittedly Dr. Bernstein's webmaster) should heed the advice. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here expecting to vote delete and to be honest am quite surprised that no one seems to have looked for sources. This in Popular Science says he pioneered Follicular Unit Transplantation seemingly meeting PROF #1. There are plenty of media references which suggest that he is worthy of note for his work: e.g. [9] [10] [11] [12] (you get the idea). Whilst I hate puff pieces and would prefer articles to not be written by conflicted persons, that's never been a reason to delete something when it could be improved. SmartSE (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PROF #1 (aka WP:ACAD, Criterion 1) provides (my italics added):
Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea...In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question.
With due respect to Popular Science, it's not an academic publication, not to mention the substantial number of references requirement. The media references are also useless -- see the very entertaining discussion underway at User_talk:Rbernstein (skip to the section just after the unblock-request box). EEng (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm fair enough, I stand corrected. SmartSE (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Reply to SmartSE's comments. With all due respect, I have to point out that none of the links you provide constitute WP:RS for the purpose of establishing WP:N. First of all, not a single one of the links is ABOUT Bernstein. They are about hair transplantation, not Bernstein. They might indicate that hair transplantation is notable, not Bernstein. But I would argue that they don't even indicate that much, because four of these links do not constitute WP:RS of any kind. They are primary, non-neutral sources, not secondary, neutral sources. They aren't news stories--they're nothing more than press releases about each TV network's own programming. They are, in effect, advertising rather than news reporting. Since they are neither secondary nor impartial, they cannot be used as WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 01:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bernstein holds no academic position at Columbia. David Eppstein has uncovered the fact that Berstein is merely unpaid "volunteer faculty" at the Columbia Medical Center, rather than a professor at the university. [13] The phone numbers given in the link are for Bernstein's own medical office, rather than university phone numbers. There is no evidence that he even has an office at the university. Thus, any potential arguments that Bernstein might meet the conditions of WP:ACADEMIC are moot, since he holds no academic position in any conventional sense of the term. Qworty (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly I agree that deletion is the clear outcome of all this, and the article's presentation of Bernstein as a "professor," without explaining the true nature of that professorship, adds to the already vivid picture of blatant promotionalism. For the record though, one need not hold an academic position (i.e. postsecondary faculty member -- paid or unpaid) to qualify under WP:ACAD. In certain areas e.g. medicine and computer science, there are researchers in private industry who have never been "on faculty" anywhere, yet whose work (e.g. measured by its citation by other researchers, effect on public discourse, etc.) qualify them for notability under WP:ACAD. EEng (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, but the latest problem is that this has now passed from a simple case of WP:COI into outright, blatant fraud. So much of the self-serving keep argument, both here and on the blocked user's talk page, has centered on the demonstrable falsehood that the guy, as originally described in the article, held a professorship at Columbia University, while only yesterday a previously uninvolved editor uncovered the truth: the guy is not at all a professor at Columbia, but only an unpaid, volunteer instructor at a medical center with ties to the university community. The prime argument for keep, so vigorously put forward by the blocked WP:SPA, had been that Bernstein was a very highly placed academic at Columbia, when the truth is that the university never hired him to do anything at all, whether it be to sweep floors or clean the cafeteria. What Bernstein may or may not tell his potential patients about his academic background is one thing, and certainly outside of our purview here, but the relevance for us is that self-serving arguments based on WP:ACADEMIC must be thoroughly exposed as hollow when it is determined by evidence uncovered by neutral, objective, previously uninvolved editors that a false academic claim has been made--not only in an article itself, but in the primary arguments against its well deserved deletion. Qworty (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainly per Qworty's second note above. For the record, I don't think that this has been dealt with very sensitively however. SmartSE (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on what you mean by "dealt with sensitively"? I suspect that you mean something different than Qworty thought you meant, and I think I agree with you. Axlrosen (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you 100%, and I think that the WP:AUTO policy should be amended to warn users not only to avoid writing articles about themselves, but also to avoid defending those articles in AfD. It is one thing for a WP:SPA to write a WP:SPAM article for a commercial product from a completely WP:COI point of view, then come onto the AfD discussion to defend that non-notable spammy product. But when the spam being promoted is in fact a person, and the individual begins to monopolize other editors' valuable time with extremely insulting, WP:OWN arguments that are later determined by uninvolved editors to be false, and tries to start a flame war that gets so much red-hot attention that the WP:COI account achieves nothing more than getting itself blocked for all time, then it is only natural that, very unfortunately, there may be some hurt feelings involved. That's why I think it is so important that these non-notable individuals, whose grasp of WP policies is typically extremely weak to begin with, and who so often resist even the most rudimentary tutoring on policy, recuse themselves from writing articles about themselves, as well as recuse themselves from defending those articles. To my mind, there are few things as heart-breaking on the project as to see these self-promoting WP:SPA individuals coming onto an AfD to jump up and down in emotional distress as they cry out "I'm notable, I'm notable, yes I am, yes I truly am!" to the point that they get blocked, and succeed only in drawing wider public attention to the lack of notability that led to the situation in the first place. Anyone with a compassionate human heart would want that kind of tragic, self-destructive situation to be avoided at all costs. Qworty (talk) 19:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must say the last 96 hours shows WP:AUTO's warning about the common fate, at AfD, of self-created articles -- "Beware that third-party comments may be most uncomplimentary" -- to be a bit of an understatement, to say the least. Too bad that attempts by the non-notable to write their own articles isn't itself considered notable, for then Dr. B could have an article, which would detail all the strained claims made on his behalf. But that would be too much fun, and would be kicking someone when he's down. We have better things to do.
WP:COI and particularly WP:AVOIDCOI specifically warn that COI's should steer clear of AfD. But vanity/COI editors are often the least informed about how things work around here. When someone is about to create a new article, he or she is invited, "Before creating an article, please read Wikipedia:WP:Your first article." If the novice editor does that, somewhere in there he'll read, "Do not create pages about yourself, your company, your band or your friends, nor pages that advertise..." Maybe that particular warning merits placing right out front on the new-article template itself, together with advice about how surprisingly effective editors are at sniffing out COI and how regularly self-promotion attempts end up embarrassing the person or entity they were intended to exalt. Or maybe that would do no good at all. I dunno.
EEng (talk) 02:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:PROF#C7. Yes, he doesn't have a real academic position; is that relevant? Google news search found plenty of major media stories mentioning him (in NY Daily News, CBS News, ABC News, NY Times), but most of the mentions I looked at were on the trivial side. Nevertheless, I think this meets the "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area" standard for #C7. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Crit 7 as I said at User_talk:Rbernstein (which is quite a strange read, let me tell you, but worth reviewing before you come to a conclusion here):
Putting aside the questions of what frequently quoted, conventional media, and as an academic expert mean, the idea that being "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert" may lend notability has to be applied in light of the text of Criterion 7 itself, which is that "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (my italics). A good measure of substantial impact outside academia might be the extent to which the subject's opinions stimulate response and discussion, especially from and among other experts, or policymakers. I doubt very much that anyone made any response to -- agreed or disagreed with, commented on or discussed -- anything Bernstein said in any of these forums. He's just a medical doctor who was willing to talk about his field. The substantial impact, if there was any, would have been limited to a possible increase in the size of his practice.
Please reconsider your opinion in this light. (The entirety of User_talk:Rbernstein is worth a skim if you have an hour or two to kill.) EEng (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My short answer is that notability is not the same as significance. We're not here to judge whether he has done anything of great significance, whether he's worthy, whether he deserves to be well known, but only whether he actually is well known. So if he's well known as the go-to guy that the TV news people call up when they need to talk to someone about hair, then he's well known, regardless of whether he even knows anything about hair. If he's a blatant and undeserving self-promoter, that's still irrelevant, as long as his self-promotion actually works. That is to say, we shouldn't allow him to carry on self-promoting here, but if other people have taken note of his self-promotion then we should take note of them. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the distinction between significance and notability, but that's not the issue here, and neither is his self-promotion on WP. Again, Crit 7 itself reads (my emphasis)
The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
A note to Crit 7 reads (again, my emph)
Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.
The note suggests a path by which the criterion itself may (as the note says) be satisfied; to determine whether the media path actually leads to notability in Bernstein's case requires returning to Criterion 7 itself, and its requirement of "substantial impact." So, has the quoting of Bernstein had a substantial impact outside academia? I claim that while "substantial impact" could take many forms, a necessary (though perhaps not sufficient) test for "substantial" is that there be some kind of response -- that someone oppose, support, comment on, or rely on something he said, outside the forum in which he said it. If the FDA issued a warning about hair graft X, and a national news show, reporting the story, said, "Bernstein, a leading expert, wrote as far back as December that X could be dangerous, to which Dr. J, developer of X, responded..." -- that at least might suggest substantial impact (with emphasis on suggest -- it's impact smoke, but still not impact fire). Bernstein has none of that. Appearing on a talk show, or the existence of quote marks around your words in a Men's Health puffpiece, isn't even "being quoted" in any meaningful sense. They're just interviews, which no one else picked up on or cared about. Thus no substantial impact, and no Criterion 7.
I'd be interested to know what you think.
EEng (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable despite his constant presentation of himself to the media. He is not the inventor or discoverer of Follicular Unit Transplantation, he is just an implementor. His lasting contribution is trivial, as are the mentions of him in the cited material. --Bejnar (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one presents a tougher policy question than usual, in that it's hard to ignore the fact that Dr. Bernstein most definitely meets WP:GNG. On the other hand, it's equally hard to ignore the fact that this article has always violated a core principle of WP:NOT, which is that "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion". It could easily have worked the other way-- a libelous or attack article about an otherwise notable person is just as subject to deletion. In this case, I think the consensus is that this person, because of the use of Wikipedia as a means of promotion, fails the one ground of WP:PEOPLE that really is up to the editors' opinion concerning encyclopedic suitability-- "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." If someone with no association with the physician's hair restoration clinic were to author a future article, the outcome might be different. Ultimately, WP:NOT trumps WP:NOTE. Mandsford 16:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely disagree. An article whose content is so self-promotional that a complete rewrite would be necessary i.e. nothing in it is worth keeping, can be deleted on that basis, but that's not what happened here. And that can happen without regard to the subject's notability; if a new, not-wholly-promotional article is begun, then the question of notability might come up if someone doubts it. On the other hand, abuse by the subject of WP for his own purposes means that the article might have to be purged of such content, and the editor sanctioned, but can have no bearing on a notability decision.
The R.B. article was not irretrievably promotional, so that played no part in my delete recommendation, and neither did the circus with the "Rbernstein" editor here and at User_talk:Rbernstein. I recommended delete because, in my opinion, Bernstein is notable neither under GNG nor any area guideline., and only for that reason.
There's clear consensus Bernstein doesn't meet ACAD, but you're the first to suggest he might qualify under GNG. So pease be specific -- and I mean specific -- about how he mets GNG, with careful reference to GNG's "Significant coverage" and reliability requirements, plus its requirements that there be multiple sources which are secondary and independent boith of the subject and of one another.
EEng (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. to Qworty: Don't freak out! Let Mandsford answer first!
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of characters in the Camp Half-Blood series. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thalia Grace[edit]

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

Violates WP:N. Note that this character is only a main character ONCE, and basically never is notable again. Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here 16:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Stanley[edit]

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

Background: In perusing some old AfDs I participated in, I came across this unusual case. In the original AfD the result was a delete as the closing admin discounted the SPAs and "I've heard of him" calls. The AfD itself opened in 2005 under the old VfD naming convention, appears to have gotten lost, renamed in October, then had !votes trickle in from Jul-Aug of 2006, then closed in Oct by Guy. However, a keep-voter from the AfD removed the tag from the article, and for whatever reason the article was never actually deleted.

Present: Given the AfD's odd history and length of time since, it probably can't just be procedurally deleted now, so...where it is at is still the same concerns raised 5-6 years ago. Stanley gets a brief name-drop in a USA Today/Christians Science Monitor article about "godcasting" in general, but beyond that I see nothing reliable or significant in terms of coverage. The bibliography is long but none of the material sufficiently meets WP:AUTHOR Tarc (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might be reading to mutch into this but the sum of it all seem to be that this article was deleted once, and there for has to be deleted again. That is no reason for deletion. Especially per [15].--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I believed that it "had" to be deleted simply because of AfD #1 I would have gone to DRV or perhaps the original closing admin, but I felt that given the oddities of the original discussion and the length of time since that it deserved a proper 2011-era discussion. Tarc (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 15:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sift Heads[edit]

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

Unremarkable game, A7 does not apply. No sources that indicate notability. — Timneu22 · talk 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, so tagged. I think for an "online flash game" {{db-web}} "article about a web site, blog... browser game, or similar web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" covers it, but I'll leave for another admin so as to get a second pair of eyes. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, my mistake. I should have tagged for A7 because it's a web game. But, based on the comment below, A7 wouldn't have been honored so I guess it's okay that we're here. — Timneu22 · talk 17:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 declined asserts millions of players and multiple awards... though these are completely unreferenced. I've also cleaned up the spelling, grammar, and punctuation a bit. This article has all the hallmarks of being created by a young fan of these games. I'm seeing a lot of Ghits on the game, but none that spring to the fore as clearly RS. This would be a great job for a rescue. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC) - Thank you Mr. Jclemens. Thank you.[reply]
  • Delete as it stands, per complete lack of independent sources, let alone to prove the claim of popularity (the only "notability" claim the article makes). I agree with Jclemens...could be fixable if someone can find some actual WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)- I'll find more sources. I already found one new one.[reply]

Please allow this article stay. This game means alot to people around the world and almost everyone in my community loves it. Please don't delete it! Please! I'm begging you!- tyler775

  • Delete. I took at shot at finding sources, but failed to turn up anything but self-published web content. Doesn't look like this game has ever gotten any attention from reliable sources, unfortunately. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Notability not made by a mile. Also note that Sift heads was deleted about 5 times already and salted (but no AFD, so we might as well develop that consensus now). –MuZemike 00:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G7  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melted Music[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This label having produced zero albums to date is not yet notable. Also, of the references provided, #2 is not independent of the subject, #3 is a blog, #4 is the subject's Twitter site, and I don't recognize the link in #5, but sites ending in .ws typically aren't reliable in my experience.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 13:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 16:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bar None (nightclub)[edit]

Bar None (nightclub) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of notability. The only hint at notability is a notoriety inherited from an earlier establishment at the same address, but no sources can be found to verify that notoriety, and if sources could be found, the article should be written about the former notorious establishment rather than the current non-notable establishment. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was The author removed all content except the AfD notice, and I have speedy-deleted it under CSD G7 (One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchi Dass[edit]

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

nn puff piece Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a very few people in the world who have done something credible in mhealth and those who are need to be featured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.130.179 (talk)
  • Comment – Just saying something is so does not make it true. The article fails to provide adequate reliable sources to support the claim of notability. In addition, please do not remove the AfD notice from the article, it will not stop the process and is considered vandalism. ttonyb (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BVC Airlines[edit]

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

Neutral Was tagged as a CSD, but it does have an assertion of notability. It did find this which seems to indicate that the airline existed, however it is unclear whether they still operate. Travelbird (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Travelbird (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge—Based on a google search it does appear notable.[16][17] They have apparently merged with Saudi Arabian Airlines,[18] so the articles could also be merged.—RJH (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added some content from what appeared at first sight to be reasonable sources, but there is a fishy smell about them. I will check a bit further, but am starting to suspect that the company exists only as a mirage at the place in the Sahara where Libya, Algeria and Nigeria share a common border. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. There is no evidence for existence of Barthe Cortes and BVC Airlines apart from articles placed in websites that appear unreliable such as africacoolpage, whatsupkenya, and sites that give the impression of news sites but always have Cortes on the front page such as observermedianews, [africaheadlines.co.cc/ africaheadlines (WP blacklisted)], thekampalanews, afrikghana, saudiarabicnews etc. Interesting, though. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Elaborate hoax/scam. afrikaghana.com, saudiarabicnews.com are anonymously registered domains, which usually indicates spammers. They are also registered by the same obscure registrar. africaheadlines.co.cc is on the blacklist. The other two have more normal looking registrations, but the lack of a single hit on gnews strongly argues against notability. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The sites look like clones of legitimate sites, with a news article on BVC added. http://saudiarabicnews.com/ is a clone of http://arabnews.com/, http://afrikghana.com/ is a clone of http://www.afrik-news.com/ and so on. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Islamic funeral. NW (Talk) 16:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic view on the human corpse[edit]

Islamic view on the human corpse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research paper Travelbird (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe keep The general topic is certainly notable. Is there another article that gives information on it? Steve Dufour (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned that parts of the text may be copyvio, although I cannot find the original source, a possible giveaway is the sentence: "Muslim jurists allowed dissection of human bodies and autopsy, provi-ded the relatives' consent is obtained" (bolding is mine) which looks like an imported hyphen as the typo is not a plausible one. Assuming that the content is not a copyvio, I think the topic largely overlaps Islamic death rituals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unverified original research. Tarc (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Islamic death rituals, salvage anything not too OR. --JaGatalk 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. I have already pointed the author towards the Islam Wiki. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be WP:OR and possible WP:CFORK of Islamic death rituals. Nothing to merge, and I don't see the value of a redirect as a search term or a need to preserve any history here. (And, ow, the overlinking hurts the eyes. :P) --Kinu t/c 21:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Islamic funeral Someone65 (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Islamic funeral; if nobody can be arsed, redirect it and note on the Islamic funeral talk page Shii (tock) 05:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the article appears to have serious problems as has been pointed out, but it is also 5 days old and has been up for deletion for 2-3 days already. The 23rd was last Sunday. If we have a weekend editor unfamiliar with our processes, they would hardly have time to react to this deletion discussion. Something needs to be done about the lack of citations, but the material is promising. Aquib (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
      • 1) WP:OR The author seems to know what he/she is talking about. However this is essentially a research paper and a such not permissible. Even if it seems as though the editor knows what they are talking about, we have no way of verifying it. To keep up Wikipedia's standards at least a little bit, we cannot allow original research here.
      • 2) Deletion process: The article was originally WP:PRODed. The tag was then removed and it was put up for deletion here. By the end of the process there will have been 10 days for someone to fundamentally re-write the article. Unfortunately we don't have enough people working on new page patrol to actually monitor hundreds of pages for a couple of weeks to see what becomes of them. So we have to insist that if a new article is created, it must pass Wikipedia's quality standards within the period of deletion review which lasts a minimum of 7 days. Travelbird (talk) 21:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note (ctd) I am attempting to contact the author for sources. -Aquib (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My initial reaction was 'Oh, Gawd!' but I mightn't be allowed to say that. My second reaction was, 'Hey, this feller knows what he's talking about'. Unfortunately, the style is a little dogmatic rather than being encyclopaedic. Also, most if not all is already in both Islamic funeral and Islamic death rituals - out of curiosity, why do we have the two of them anyway? I agree with Sjakkalle about that hyphen - I spotted it when reading the article before reading the discussion (my normal practice). It usually indicated a copy and paste from somewhere using fully justified text; left justified text like this should not use hyphenation. [takes professional hat off again] As to the three articles, Islamic funeral is the most NPOV, Islamic death rituals is less encyclopaedic in my view, and perhaps anything of value here ought to be incorporated in one or other of those two - whichever is chosen. Is there a process for deciding which of two rather than a straight delete or not? Peridon (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must add that I liked the use of 'ascendants', but I've delinked it because the target appeared to be some astrological stuff that was hardly likely to be the intended result. Peridon (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whatever the problems with the article are, they can be fixed through editing, and are not a reason for deletion. The subject itself is significant and probably notable. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we've already got two on the subject... Peridon (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I'd see those as articles about closely related, but distinct subjects. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. All of these seem to be to do with when someone of an Islamic persuasion dies. They approach it from a different angle and use different styles, but the basic manual looks to have the same instructions. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, these should be merged into two articles (or one). --JaGatalk 01:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Sphilbrick (talk · contribs); rationale was "A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Somauroo[edit]

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

High school student that won a couple of school and student awards, however not nearly enough to assert real notability. Travelbird (talk) 10:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under A7: No indication of importance. Polyamorph (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Vanity page or a form of resume. Might even be a school exercise - nicely set out and better than most I see. No awards that are really notable. He's a good, hard-working lad who may go far, but he's only starting yet. I wish him luck, anyway. You need that as well as hard work these days... Peridon (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour road[edit]

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

Minor road in Hong Kong. (see [19]. Not sufficiently notable. Travelbird (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted (G11) by OlEnglish. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AZURA[edit]

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

Non notable property development Travelbird (talk) 09:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tahnie Merrey[edit]

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

Actor that played a minor part in several episodes of a drama series in 1996. Doesn't seem to have played any roles since. Travelbird (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Payne[edit]

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

NN candidate for local office. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Travelbird (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Cleaned up the page so reviewers can focus on whether he meets BLP requirements. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Since he hasn't been elected yet, also fails WP:CRYSTAL. And I'm not sure he would be notable even if he were elected to such a humble office. Qworty (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Young mayors may be notable, but young candidates for city council are not. The only source in the article that mentions Payne mentions him as part of wider election coverage, not as a subject in his own right. So even if this were a notable election, WP:BLP1E would apply. -LtNOWIS (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's doubtful if even the elected mayor of a city of under 40,000 population would be considered automatically notable, so a candidate for a place on the city council is way below the bar. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eflak Stancu[edit]

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

Delete - Clearly a hoax. Probably made up by a turkish fan. Mrromaniac (talk) 06:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The question here is not notablility, so however many reliable sources won't help. Our question is, is this topic unified enough as a concept to be encyclopedic? Unfortunately no. The article, as it stands, is inherently WP:OR. As Nipsonanomhmata mentions, the sources must show that such a well-defined concept exists. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somalian Genocide[edit]

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

Personal opinions / OR Travelbird (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the existing article with one which is sourced to BBC, Times, human rights orgs and African media. I also flagged it for rescue. Please take another look and see whether it now should survive the AFD, thanks. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news archive search for "Somalia" AND "genocide" brings up thousands of results. [22] The references added to the article are already enough to prove this exist, and gets coverage. Dream Focus 19:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I too did a Google news archive search for "Somalia genocide" AND "Somalian genocide" and got a maximum of only 60 results. I also did a Google web search for "Somalian genocide" and it initially claimed that there were more than 4,000 results but when I clicked through to the last page there were only 370 results in total and at least 225 of those were spawned out of Wikipedia.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced. The article is certainly a lot better--but it does not clarify, for instance, which killing by which group of which other group in which time is supposed to be called "Somalian genocide." That there are lots of hits for the combination of words is not a surprise considering the area's history, and that there are commentators and NGOs that call events or series of events a genocide is also not very surprising--but that's hardly the same as having a well-documented and objectively established genocide of which, unfortunately, we have plenty. See Armenian Genocide, for instance. Or, for comparison, Croatia–Serbia genocide case, where there is a court case alleging a genocide--that's a far cry from observers and some media calling it by such a proper name. Drmies (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are raising a useful point, but "genocide" is really a term of art and historical usage, and does not require any government or other authority to approve its use. Armenian Genocide is an example of one so-called because enough people have called it that for long enough; no one was ever tried for war crimes and Turkey has never accepted the label. Your concerns go more to weight issues than inclusion, and could be addressed by including a reliable source saying that what's happening in Somalia is not genocide.Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just would like to add that genocide scholars have formally recognised the Armenian genocide. Moreover, many countries, and a number of States in the United States, have also formally recognised the Armenian genocide as fact. Thus far no genocide scholar has claimed that there is a "Somalian genocide" and no country has formally recognised that there has been a "Somalian genocide".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not arguing that people can't use it in this context, far from it. What I'm asking is a sharply-defined definition of the subject of the article supported by reliable sources--more than a Google search or a few mentions. I'll go through some of those references in the next few days, but that's something that the keepers should do as well, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with you Drmies. Genocide is a serious subject that needs to be backed up by genocide scholars. Backing it up with quotes from individuals, newspapers, and the rest of the media isn't enough.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely OR. One particular citation got my attention. The one alleging genocide against "fighters". If they are fighting in a war then it isn't a genocide. But that is only one issue. Unfortunately, it doesn't make a difference how many newspapers or individuals claim genocide. The genocide scholars have to recognise that it is a genocide. If it isn't recognised as a genocide by scholars who specialise in genocide (fully backed up by their citations) then it hasn't been classified as such. When you do a search for "Somalian genocide" on Google Scholar not one scholarly citation is returned that claims there is a "Somalian genocide". Therefore, according to genocide scholars no "Somalian genocide" has been formally recognised yet. If it hasn't been formally recognised as such, even if/when it has happened, then "Somalian genocide" is just an allegation.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 02:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem, Catherne Besteman, professor of anthology at Colby College is already cited in the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Catherne Besteman is not a genocide scholar. She doesn't specialize in the study of genocide. There are scholars who specialize in genocide.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article as stands meets Wikipedia notability amd reliable source requirements. Statements that "its not a genocide" because some professor or another didn't say so, or a professor who did say so is not qualified, are effectively original research and synthesis, unless you have a source to back them up. If you do, suggest we add it to the article. In any event, deleting it is the wrong way to go. If we have a neutral article representing all sides of the issue, people can decide for themselves whether its a genocide or not. No article, they can't. Jonathanwallace (talk) 03:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Republic of Turkey still refers to the officially recognised Armenian Genocide as an alleged genocide (because the government of Turkey is still in denial). However, the Armenian Genocide is formally recognised by genocide scholars and by many nations. If there is to be an article about a "Somalian Genocide" that has not yet been recognised by genocide scholars, or by any country, then the word "alleged" needs to be in the title. Not because I am a denialist but because no formal recognition has yet happened (almost four years after Catherne wrote her article).  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 03:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scholarly book from Indiana University Press with sections on Somalian genocide. Oh, and here's one where Boutros Boutros Ghali in his 1999 memoir refers to a Somalian genocide According to his Wikipedia bio, "was a Fulbright Research Scholar at Columbia University from 1954 to 1955, Director of the Centre of Research of the Hague Academy of International Law from 1963 to 1964, and Visiting Professor at the Faculty of Law at Paris University from 1967 to 1968", before becoming Secretary General of the UN in 1991.Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not one of them is a scholar that specializes in the study of genocide. Here's a book that says that there was no genocide in Somalia [23]. Do a search for "not one of genocide" in the book itself and it will highlight the sentence on page 21 where it says "The Somalian case was, of course, not one of genocide." It makes no difference in any case. No country has yet recognised a "Somalian Genocide" so it doesn't matter what anybody says because they are all just allegations.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 04:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are finding information which belongs in the article, and I will add it--it is not a reason for deletion. Note our Genocide article includes information on disputed instances, such as Sudan. You are now arguing that in order to be notable an alleged genocide must have been recognized as such by one or more other countries, but this is not existing Wikipedia policy.Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a virtual world full of inconsistency and information that is not factual. It's more of a discussion forum than an encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, when we search for things on Google it is information that is stuffed in to Wikipedia that is usually listed first. If Wikipedia says that there is a Somalian genocide then that will convince many people that there was a Somalian genocide. However, if no genocide scholar and no country recognises the fact it is just another allegation listed by Wikipedia that is disguised as fact. I have enjoyed discussing this with you. Thank you for the opportunity.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 13:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Franks[edit]

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

I was unable to find references supporting notability.... PRODed and PROD deleted without any enhancement or comment. Ariconte (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unstable (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music. None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better. VQuakr (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete

Quote:"Lots of sources in the article, but there are either primary sources, places to buy their music, or websites that simply contain the word "unstable" in the title and have nothing to do with music."


Note:I also want to state to you that use of the link of where to buy the album was used to prove the validity that the album is sold on many markets, and sites, and wasn't just a home made ordeal, it's an album. It was unmarked (not listed as 'buy album') it was a source for editors to see, so they could see this was an officially distributed album, and it deserved coverage n the worlds encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Response:Okay that is very disagreeable. Plugging that an album is available is on every single wikipedia band page. That is completely different than saying 'support unstable', 'buy their albums' I don't know where some of the strange sources come from. The bands official webpage came offline on Sunday January 23rd 2011, although an official site should be considered a reliable source. What band doesn't sell their album on an official website? Because it's listed on the same page as information doesn't mean the source is being posted as promotional. It's the page the info came from.[reply]

Quote: "None convey any notability and I am unable to find anything better." Response: The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom.


Quote: "Same is true of Thomas John Stanford and their album and EP." Their releases were released from a licensed independent label, a label that might not be Roadkill Records, however it has significance. Many bands on wikipedia have had releases exclusively on iTunes, which both albums are listed on. They have distribution in Long Island record stores, photo evidence can be supplied of the albums on sale. A band with more than out of house distribution holds significance. To say 'the same holds for their album/EP' is ridiculous. How do the pages self promote? The list the facts, the tracks, and the meaning. Why shouldn't an album written as a concept album be explained on wikipedia? Just because some album pages are blank doesn't make listing the concept and facts (who produced, ect) doesn't make it self promoting, and certainly doesn't discredit it's significance. The Thomas John page tells what a man who has traveled and played music around the world has done. His significance is that he's a solo artist with two upcoming albums (lil Eazy E, who's the son of Eazy E, and before he released an album, wikipedia had him listed a year before either of his albums were released, and listed one as upcoming)and the singer of his band. He indeed screams, raps, and freestyles, just like Kerry King uses a whammy in his guitar solos. It's only a statement of the mans work, not promotion. Look at any artists page, it says these things they're known for. No Clean Singing is proved reliable as an outside source of the band says he does these things on the album he's reviewing, so it's not just stated to make the performer look good. Coming from the slums of Brooklyn and growing up to be an accomplished and uprising artist, who earns a living in music, with a deal with a licensed independent label, sounds like a factual description of the man's history.

No listen, my main response is that this page is desired to be removed because Unstable is not signed to a major label. But here's the deal, the band had a presence in New York, and facts (such as a widely distributed album, that is being secured on other markets by the bands LICENSED independent label, and secured deals in other states, meaning this is not just a 'made it at home' album by a local band) show the band doesn indeed have significance. And with those facts stated, why aren't a lot of bands removed? The only thing that was correct was improper use on one source within the entire article.

Outside of that, what good reason could you have to take the page down than a personal vendetta? -Makk3232 (not logged in before)

  • Don't Delete. Furthermore

7.Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Response:Well give me a way to show verifiability. . .In Long Island the band's following is a result of playing multiple styles of music, like it's a gimmick, like KISS with the face paint, they play a bunch of styles of music. That honestly what there known for. I mean if you listen to there songs its heavy, than the guys rapping, then screaming, I mean c'mon I can't make this stuff up it's in the music. The point is they've built a following, and a label, and there self driven success because they have a following otherwise how, and why would the band waste its time and effort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makk3232 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unable to find independent reliable coverage of this band. Per nom, most sources provided are primary and/or self-promotional. The only source that I thought might be promising is metal-archives.com but in taking a closer look - that site accepts self-submissions. Cannot find any passing criteria for this band at WP:Music. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete

Quote:"Unable to find independent reliable coverage of this band. Per nom, most sources provided are primary and/or self-promotional. The only source that I thought might be promising is metal-archives.com but in taking a closer look - that site accepts self-submissions. Cannot find any passing criteria for this band at WP:Music."

Response: Disagreed and addressed in the previous entry.

Among the sources in the Unstable article is links to a Newspaper interview, Radio appearance, major venue pages in which the band has played and is featured upon the website. (Photos, aka evidence of performance showing it's not some 'claim' making it a necessary, a primary outside the band website, reliable, and and NOT self promotional). I must ask again, where in the world do you see the grounds to call any of the sources self promotional? They in no way promote the band. The use of the album pages (such as amazon link and other store link) where the album is sold was only added as a source to verify that the album is distributed on numerous markets and not 'burn it at home' album. If that use was seen as self promotional I guaranteed it was not the intention.

Because Cricket, yo obviously don't take the time to read before posting I'm reposting my original response to your bogus claim. "The encyclopedia of metal (Metal-Archives) is considered a reliable source for any metal band worth while. Why? The website is very picky about the bands listed, and do not list bands who don't qualify as metal, and bands with no notable releases. Spirit of Metal is the same exact deal. It is a reliable source to look up metal bands with actual releases. A bands official myspace provides a biography with information, album details, links to blogs that are direct from a band, ect. A good example is when you go to a bands wikipedia page and you see "According to the official myspace", however you argue that's not a reliable source... so question, should every article linking to a bands official myspace be deleted? The bands official facebook doesn't even provide room for advertisement. Unstable's is updates from the band directly, videos that evidence big show performances, and list the info used for the source. Use of OFFICIAL venue links to back up and create evidence of performances of big national shows, which the band has indeed played sound like reliable and necessary sources when claiming such things. No Clean Singing, a heavy metal review, and heavy metal band archive is a prestiged European metal website, and they only review bands, once again, that are worthwhile, and where it is sourced is relevant, and backs up the albums large distribution that was claimed, because it wasn't just claimed, it's factual. Once again, photo evidence of Unstable albums in music stores, and hundreds of loose copies (which would be unnecessary is they weren't sold on a large scale) can be provided. Also, you might not find anything better because the band is still establishing itself on more national websites that are considered reliable. Job for a Cowboy up and coming didn't have a huge internet presence, but was recognized on wikipedia because they self produced at the age of 16 the EP Doom. " -Makk3232

Reply: For the record, I do not take deletion reviews lightly sir and am better known in the article rescue arena. I took an hour out of my day yesterday to review all sources provided and did some research on my own, frankly in hopes of saving it. When I took the time to look at the 'About' page at metal-archives.com I did note that they are "picky" about their submissions - but that doesn't matter. A band can still self-submit to the website, point being that the website does not write about a band on their own, they merely list the band's information - and that's all well and fine to get information about a band - but it does not make a band notable because they are listed on a self-submitted website. Same for Myspace, Facebook, ReverbNation, etc. Self-submitted - again - all certainly reliable sources for information - but not to prove notability. All other links provided are trivial mentions of this band. i.e. appearances, etc. Now if there were more extensive independent third-party write-ups of this band in magazines, ezines, newspapers, independent album reviews, and such, I would certainly reconsider. At this time I can only find one "somewhat" independent review at nocleansinging.com. And because anyone can release an album and distribute it, that does not automatically make anyone notable. But in all fairness, I have extended an invitation for a more specialized peer review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I understand you take them seriously as do I. I hope my defense of the article isn't being perceived as personal, my comments are only to back the relevance up. I do appreciate the extension of the article. I'm going to find some more sources on the internet I know are around and I'm going to update the article with the appropriate content. This is life or death to me, I hope you understand my firmness on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely understand your position. I have fought to save many an article. Just in case, please do consider copying the current content from this article into a subpage so when more sources are found and/or this band becomes more notable, the article can be recreated. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:MUSIC, they would need multiple album releases on a notable independent record label. They do not have this. The label itself is not independent of the band, making their sole album self-released (I note the label itself is up for deletion). Metal Archives has never been regarded as passing WP:RS, and even if it did would not constitute extensive coverage that would count towards notability, being a site that exists to catalogue every metal band to ever release an album. NoCleanSinging also fails WP:RS. That leaves nothing whatsoever to support the band's inclusion; the article is essentially here as publicity for a non-notable band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ResponseRead the previous posts before making a statement. All things mentioned have been addressed, and a promise was made to add new sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.101.137 (talk) 07:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above posts have been read (before my original comment) and in fact have been responded to. A promise to find more sources is good, but actually needs to happen; in their absence the conclusion has to be to delete, per WP:MUSIC. Also, sign your posts. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Metal Archive, Spirit of Metal, NoCleanSinging, Myspace, iTunes, etc are not reliable sources. The claim of passing wp:music#7 is not supported by a reliable source. Selling music locally or on iTunes do not satisfy wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the previous delete !votes. Despite Makk's long-winded arguments, the band is still not notable.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP with 2 days left on a BLP prod. If someone wishes to source this article I'll be happy to restore it and reopen the AFD Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Hemion[edit]

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

Non-notable writer who fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. No WP:RS to establish WP:N. He's nothing more than a guy who opened his checkbook five times and paid notorious vanity press iUniverse to print five "books." As WP:SPS, they cannot be used to establish notability. Qworty (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Elizabeth Day[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Adamany Undergraduate Library (UGL) (Wayne State University)[edit]

David Adamany Undergraduate Library (UGL) (Wayne State University) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apart from the fact that it is questionable whether this individual college library is actually notable, the article is entirely original research Travelbird (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Utterly non-notable building. Qworty (talk) 05:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability of this individual building not proven within article, completely unsourced content with no inline citations. Shearonink (talk) 11:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shearonink, though some description of the building might be appropriate as a short entry in Wayne State University Buildings. Borkificator (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as spam. It's as bad as most of the advertising guff that people try to put on here for their lawn maintenance or removals services. Apart from this, it's a university library with no reason shown why it is particularly notable. Some uni libraries are notable because of architecture or history - nothing given here to tell us if there is anything to tell. Peridon (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might not be OR - it could be copy&paste from a university or library guide. Peridon (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Los Angeles (Movie)[edit]

The Battle of Los Angeles (Movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film of questionable notability. The only sources provided are a forum and a promotional website. Travelbird (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More reference have been added, please review before deletion to determin if this page can be saved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remy.range (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Youtube & forums are not reliable third party sources. Travelbird (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I find some evidence that Jose Escamilla might be notable enough to sustain an article (rather than the current redirect to Rod (optics)) but very little in reliable sources to sustain an article about this particular project. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:TOOSOON#Films. Had proper sources been available, the article "could" have been re-titled The Battle of Los Angeles (documentary film) and its promotional tone addressed, but no... as currently there is simply not enough available for this to merit being one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF that could allow consideration of a stand-alone article. Not even IMDB has this one listed... not by itself nor on the director's entry.[24] All that can be found are pieces on UFO forums and on unreliable SPS.[25] What I can put together is that this documentary (is/will be) based upon the actual sourcable events covered in the article Battle of Los Angeles... and as documentaries go, it might earn notability... but WP:NotJustYet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New media journalism[edit]

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

No sources to indicate that this term is used and is notable. All the citations are to sources within the Wikiproject. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It quotes a significant amount of text from another Wiki article. Also, no indication of notability in the article itself. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mandsford 13:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diana West (lactation consultant)[edit]

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

Non-notable, promotional biography. Only claim to notability is as the author of a "national bestselling book" although no citation can be found to support that claim. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment 8 of the 18 references failed verification.TeapotgeorgeTalk 23:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment references added 1/18/11User:Robfalk12
  • Keep - The self-promotional tone needs to be rectified, but it seems like Ms. West is a widely published and recognized expert in her field and is likely to meet WP notability standards. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ms. West is widely regarded as an expert in the field of lactation. She has co-authored the 8th edition of the bible book of breastfeeding "The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding", and is an expert in low milk supply and breastfeeding after breast surgery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.197.59 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC) — 70.53.197.59. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Notable in the field of lactation, specifically lactation for women who have had breast surgery or have low milk production. Needs work, but salvageable. The New Zealand Ministry of Health note that one of her books is considered 'essential reading' for women with breast reduction or augmentation issues. - ManicSpider (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is bucking the tide, perhaps, but I have doubts that the Keep proponents have actually done the research here. A Google News search for West turned up only a similarly named (but unrelated) Washington Post columnist [26]; there are zero hits for this West. In order for a subject to pass WP:AUTHOR, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." I found exactly one such article, by a blogger whose column reviewed nine baby books and gave only two sentences to this one. Another criterion is "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." This can not be assumed; it must be proven by citing reliable sources which explicitly say so, something that the various sources propounded by keep proponents fail to do. If she passes the GNG, there must be multiple reliable sources discussing her (not the book for which she was not, in fact, the lead author, according to that one review) in "significant detail." Where are they, please?  Ravenswing  14:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I've no doubt she speaks at conferences and whatnot, but this has not generated coverage about her. with respect to being the co-author of the 8th edition of an arguably notable book, I would argue that the book probably achieved whatever notability it has prior to the 8th edition. I note that she is not a co-author of the 7th edition. I am of course open to changing my !vote if somebody can present coverage in reliable sources, but I don't see that in the article, and can find none myself. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article provides not a single Reliable Source reference, and I could not find any at Google News or Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep N, RS, V --Katie Sweetmore (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm assuming that N, RS, and V are meant to mean that notability, reliability sourcing and verifiabiility have been met. However, you need to explain how they are met. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Ms. Sweetmore is a SPA who's been spamming AfDs with this self-same vote.  Ravenswing  16:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Beyond all of her other accomplishments, Diana West’s book Defining your Own Success: Breastfeeding After Breast Reduction Surgery’’ is the definitive text on the subject for the worldwide lactation community. For that reason alone, I would expect her to have a page on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.103.188 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — 67.174.103.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP http://www.llli.org/books/bfar.html

KEEP http://www.llli.org/NB/NBNovDec01p222.html

KEEP http://www.llli.org/NB/NBJulAug08p27a.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.103.188 (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — 67.174.103.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

One Keep will do. Citing the book's publisher as a reliable source about the import of this book is hardly useful. (Please review guidelines on primary sources). There is no citation to state that Defining your Own Success... is the definitive text on the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no citation except the one I added yesterday and these ones... - ManicSpider (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which citation you are referring to, since you completely restructured the article making it impossible to see what particular citation you might have added. I don't see that any of the citations in the present article define West's text as the "definitive source" on the topic, and the link you added here merely indicates that the book received some reviews. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the article and click on the tab "View History" you can see all the individual edits, labelled with what I was doing. You can then look at those edits to see what changes I made. The sources were added after the restructure, and are at the top. However, for ease of reference I'm referring specifically to note 14. I admit it doesn't use the exact phrase "definitive source", but I think getting hung up on that phrase is unhelpful as it was a contribution by a participant in this discussion and not something we're required to look for under the guidelines. - ManicSpider (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, not being a member of the subject website, I can't view the contents of that review. I'll assume good faith and stipulate that it is a positive review of the book. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit confused by your comment as I'm not a member of the site either, but I now see that my work has a subscription which is why I'm able to view it. I'll see if I can find a link that is actually useful for other people ^_^ - ManicSpider (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Diana west has made a huge impact on the lives of countless families with her books and her support of breastfeeding after breast reduction. I may be doing this all wrong, but I just want to support keeping this page up. It seems to me what needs to be defined in some way is the value of the information in her books; what she has written. There are lactation reference books available, and Ms. West's are part of that group. Many La Leche League Leaders keep the book Making More Milk for the mothers that show up to their support meetings. IMO what has made her books so valuable and worthy of a page here is the successful intervention they have effected in many struggling nursing dyads. Does the voice of the mother she helps need to get much louder to be heard? I do not claim to know Diane West, but I think Wikipedia would be remiss to leave out such a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinamoon (talk • contribs) 06:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC) — Rinamoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: Do you happen to have any arguments based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to offer?  Ravenswing  15:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Hi, all. I’m Diana West, IBCLC, the person who is the subject of this discussion. Although I did not write the original page, I’m weighing in to address some of the questions about my credentials that have been raised because I probably know the answers best. I did not post earlier because I worried that it would be inappropriate to post on my own behalf, but I have been reassured that it is ok to do if I can provide solid information to address the issues that have been raised.

I can certainly understand your questions about my validity. You’ve never heard of me, probably because you haven’t breastfed personally or you don’t have kids who are breastfed. Or breastfeeding went easily for you or the women in your life. In my field of lactation, though, I’ve have become increasingly well-known over the last 15 years as a leading expert through my publications and lectures because my work has been helpful to breastfeeding women and professionals all over the world. I'm pretty down-to-earth and never make a big deal about it, so, as you can imagine, to have it come into doubt is really surreal.

Interestingly, the book that seems to be best establishing my credibility here is my least known, but it certainly was seminal. Defining Your Own Success: Breastfeeding after Breast Reduction Surgery was the first book to discuss this topic of breastfeeding after breast surgery and to encourage women to breastfeed even when they didn’t have full milk supplies. Although it is ten years old now, it is still the only and best resource on this topic. The review from the Journal of Human Lactation substantiating this fact has already been posted. In 2008, I co-authored with a plastic surgeon, Breastfeeding After Breast and Nipple Procedures, a more extensive clinical monograph for health care professionals addressing and expanding the topic. It was very positively reviewed by the International Lactation Consultant Association,[1] publisher of the Journal of Human Lactation. The accompanying website I created, Breastfeeding After Reduction, was recommended in the most recent edition of the popular What to Expect When You Are Expecting book.[2]

My last two books have been even more successful. The Breastfeeding Mother’s Guide to Making More Milk, by McGraw-Hill[3] is very highly regarded because it was a landmark book -- first ever on the topic of low milk supply and very helpful to many women and lactation professionals. It is ranked highly on Amazon. It was very positively reviewed by the International Lactation Consultant Association,[4] publisher of the Journal of Human Lactation. There are many blogs and websites raving about Making More Milk,[5] including People Magazine’s online blog.[6] It is recommended on About.com,[7] Suite 101,[8] and Blisstree.[9] This book has been referenced four times in the landmark 2010 lactation textbook, Breastfeeding Answers Made Simple by Nancy Mohrbacher.[10] [11] [12] [13] It was included as a top breastfeeding reference book in the 2009 edition of 25 Things Every Nursing Mother Needs to Know by Kathleen Huggins and Jan Ellen Brown, published by Harvard Common Press.[14]

My most recent book, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, 8th edition, by Ballantine Books, a division of Random House,[15] is selling exceptionally well (regularly ranked under 1,000 on Amazon), not because it was already a well-known title from previous editions, but because my co-authors and I completely rewrote it from scratch, expanded it, and brought it into the 21st century with a contemporary, humorous tone. It is the first time it has been published by a true publishing house and it was the first time the authors were credited – which was done because our names are well-known it helps to sell the books. It was a national bestseller in July 2010 in USA Today, the first breastfeeding book to reach this pinnacle.[16] The reviews have been outstanding, clearly establishing it as a leading resource for breastfeeding mothers (Motherwear blog, July, 2010[17]; Breastfeeding Moms Unite blog[18]; Strocel blog[19]; iVillage[20]; and many more). It was listed as a must-have product for new mothers on Pregnancy 360, in Pregnancy Magazine’s website.[21] The professional review by the International Lactation Consultant Association is currently in press and will appear in the next issue.

To address the question about my not being lead author, I'm second only because we had three equal authors and drew straws to see who would be listed first -- it's definitely not that I contributed less that the first listed author. The article that we wrote, Tinker to Evers to Chance in Breastfeeding Today, January, 2010, discussed our writing process.[22]

The Breastfeeding Mother’s Guide to Making More Milk and the 8th edition of The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding were pictured in a photo layout in Pregnancy & Newborn magazine in the August 2010 issue, picturing the most popular books for new mothers.[23]

I've written many articles for large-circulation magazines (Essence Magazine, Lead Article: Maximising Milk Production for Your New Baby, January, 2008; Essence Magazine, Lead Article: Breastfeeding After Breast Surgery, November, 2005[24]; New Beginnings Magazine, Lead Article: How to Get Your Milk Supply Off to a Good Start, July-August, 2005 (co-authored with Lisa Marasco)[25]; Mothering Magazine, Lead Article: The Good News About Lactation After Breast Surgery, October-November, 2004[26]; New Beginnings: Making More Milk, April, 2009[27]; New Beginnings Magazine: Ten Nursing Pitfalls, May, 2009[28]; New Beginnings Magazine, The Womanly Art of Breastfeeding, Excerpt from Chapter Three: Birth!, October, 2009[29]; one of my articles was translated into German in Stillzei Magazine, August 2006; Leaven Magazine, Lead Article: Breastfeeding After Breast Reduction Surgery, August-September, 2002. I am quoted by many others, including Fit Pregnancy.[30]

I am frequently interviewed on radio shows, including recently on Dr. Radio on August 10, 2010. A podcast was recorded of an interview of me for Motherwear’s Breastfeeding Blog[31] and The Vicky and Jen Radio Show.[32]

My publications have led to invitations to lecture all over the world at international conferences (Australia, Austria, Israel, Spain, Taiwan, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada), where only the most prominent leaders in the field are invited, plus hundreds of locations in the US. My visit to Malaysia was announced in their popular Pa & Ma magazine.[33]

I was the Director of Professional Development on the Board of Directors of the International Lactation Consultant Association[34] and the Monetary Investment for Lactation Consultant Certification because of my reputation, publications, and leadership abilities. I'm currently an editor for Clinical Lactation,[35] a peer-reviewed journal, which is no small feat.

I'm definitely not the same person as the Diana West who is the political commentator, but I'm pretty well-known in my own right among mothers and lactation professionals and am quite widely published as my credentials clearly validate.

I hope these citations have helped to clearly establish my credibility. If anything further is required, I will be pleased to provide it. In closing, please let me commend you all very highly on your integrity and critical analysis of the information on Wikipedia. I use it often, but have never seen the development side. I’m deeply impressed and will trust information I read on it even more now. Thank you for your time and devotion to this tremendous worldwide resource. Athena88 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Diana West, IBCLC[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.ilca.org/files/members_only/education_materials/Online%20Reviews/Feb%202009/1%20ILCA%20Burger%20Surgery.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/BFARinWTE.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.mhprofessional.com/product.php?isbn=007159857X
  4. ^ http://www.ilca.org/files/members_only/education_materials/Online%20Reviews/May%202009/3ILCA%20Twiggs%20MMM.pdf
  5. ^ http://makingmoremilk.com/reviews.shtml
  6. ^ http://celebritybabies.people.com/2009/04/20/breastfeeding-mothers-guide-to-making-more-milk
  7. ^ http://pregnancy.about.com/od/breastfeedingproducts/gr/makingmoremilk.htm
  8. ^ www.suite101.com/content/new-research-on-how-to-make-more-breast-milk-a68863
  9. ^ http://blisstree.com/live/book-review-making-more-milk/
  10. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinBAMS.pdf
  11. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/MakingMoreMilkinBAMS-1.pdf
  12. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/MakingMoreMilkinBAMS-2.pdf
  13. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/MakingMoreMilkinBAMS-3.pdf
  14. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestin25Things.pdf
  15. ^ http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780345518446
  16. ^ http://www.llli.org/thewomanlyartofbreastfeeding
  17. ^ http://breastfeeding.blog.motherwear.com/2010/07/book-review-the-womanly-art-of-breastfeeding-8th-edition.html
  18. ^ http://www.breastfeedingmomsunite.com/2010/11/book-review-the-womanly-art-of-breastfeeding
  19. ^ http://www.strocel.com/the-womanly-art-of-breastfeeding
  20. ^ http://forums.ivillage.com/t5/Fodder-for-Debate-Newsstand/Book-Review-The-Womanly-Art-of-Breastfeeding-New-8th-edition/m-p/116173077
  21. ^ http://www.pregnancy360.com/you/11-nursing-must-haves
  22. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/56afe96d#/56afe96d/8
  23. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DWbooks.bmp
  24. ^ http://www.breastfeeding.asn.au/bfinfo/surgery.html
  25. ^ http://www.llli.org/NB/NBJulAug05p142.html
  26. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinMothering.pdf
  27. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/724fa0ad#/724fa0ad/44
  28. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/445c4023#/445c4023/40
  29. ^ http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/17ffcb6d#/17ffcb6d/6
  30. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinFitPreg.pdf
  31. ^ http://breastfeeding.blog.motherwear.com/2008/05/motherwear-podc.html
  32. ^ http://vickyandjen.com/podcast_205.html
  33. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinPa&Ma.pdf
  34. ^ http://www.lowmilksupply.org/images/DW/DianaWestinJHL.pdf
  35. ^ http://media.clinicallactation.org/fall10/ClinicalLactation_FALL.pdf (see page 5)
Reply - Thanks for your input Diana. I'm looking forward to going through those new sources you provided. Just so you're sure, no-one is doubting your credibility as a lactation consultant, just your notability under the Wikipedia guidelines. Personally, I am strongly of the belief that you fulfill WP:CREATIVE#1. Thanks and regards, - ManicSpider (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to Keep: I've looked over some of the links Ms. West provides, and they satisfy me as to her standing as an authority in the field.  Ravenswing  22:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ten seconds on Google alone provides numerous independent and verifiable sources. Maybe the article needs some sort of clean-up tag, but I am unconvinced that the article does not meet the standards of the guidelines.Agent 86 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just noticed that on the Discussion page TeapotGeorge asked for a list of my speaking engagements for this year and last. I added them. ManicSpider, thanks so much for your reassurance about this process. I'm fine with it, but it's so nice that you were so kind with a newcomer.  :)Athena88 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a little surprised this was held over rather than ruled a "Keep" or a "No Consensus." In review, it doesn't seem there is much if any third-party written biographical information out there, BUT it is equally clear that this is a widely published and acknowledged professional in her field. It's a bit of an offbeat pursuit, perhaps, but there does seem to be significant academic and professional work in the field of lactation consultation, including conferences (at which Ms. West has spoken) and journals (in which Ms. West has published). While not a clearcut slam-dunk sort of call, the position of Ms. West as a recognized expert in a legitimate field of academic and scientific endeavor, combined with her extensive publication history (one title being put to 8 editions) seems sufficient to me for an administrator to BOLDLY keep this article — tagged as necessary for improvement. Carrite (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold is a great idea when editing an article. It is often not such a great idea when closing a discussion. As you say there is not a "slam dunk" to keep the article. The hope is that a clearer consensus will develop in the additional week. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the now extensive evidence that she is widely cited as an expert in the field.--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Skip Hollandsworth. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skip hollandsworth[edit]

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

Delete this article because it cannot be renamed using the move function, due to there already being a Skip Hollandsworth article. There are no links to this article because the surname "hollandsworth" isn't capitalized. The correct article Skip Hollandsworth is the article other pages are linked to, not this orphan. — Ztejasdurango · talk 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was changed to redirect; non admin close. — Timneu22 · talk 11:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Life is a Zoo[edit]

My Life is a Zoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable show. No sources that indicate notability. No speedy reason for this. — Timneu22 · talk 03:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The essay WP:Notability (media)#Programming says "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network — either national or regional in scope — of radio or television stations, or on a single cable television network with a national or regional audience." Which this one is--the channel is being broadcast internationally. In addition to New York Times article recently added, a bit more coverage is popping up as this show comes to the air (but only the first of these is really substantive)[27][28][29][30]. Another alternative could be to merge/redirect this to DeYoung Family Zoo until such time as there is more extensive coverage of the show.--Arxiloxos (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fereshta Samah[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Found this with an alternate spelling (Freshta Sama) that I am fairly sure is the same person but the mention is much to trivial to approach the criteria of WP:BASIC. Perhaps there is significant coverage in Persian? J04n(talk page) 14:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think I've made some progress on Persian sources. It appears that BBC Persia did a program (or an episode of a series) on her, which makes me think that someone who actually speaks the language will be able to find another source or two, looks like there's probably more (e.g., a passing ref [31] indicating a television appearance, and [32] ), but this would be a lot easier for someone who wasn't working through the vail of automated translation. Clearly I need to learn a few more languages.  :) --j⚛e deckertalk 22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindroute Incentive[edit]

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

Declined speedy. I am neutral. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Nonnotable software company/product. All ghits go to company's sites and marketing sites. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Should have been speedied. Blatant "solution"-speak advertising. Conflict of interest is obvious from the text. No real claim of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cobb[edit]

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

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources, I suspect that this is a hoax. The article's creator only edit on Wikipedia was the creation of this article 5 years ago. His age does't match well with the text, born in 1963 and a music producer in the 1970s? J04n(talk page) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valery Nikolayevsky[edit]

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

This articled had been reviewed yet and sent to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Valery Nikolayevsky. Then it was immediately recreated by the same User:Jahggy whose contribution makes it quite clear that this user is Mr. Nikolayevsky himself or somebody very close to him. As a sysop of Russian wiki I had deleted the same self-promotional material after detailed investigation of Russian-language sources so that I may insist that this author has absolutely no notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garou Tribes (Werewolf: The Apocalypse)[edit]

Garou Tribes (Werewolf: The Apocalypse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article provides way too much detail on these fictional tribes than is appropriate for Wikipedia. It really belongs in a role-playing wiki. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote 1 looks like a press release of a corporate partnership. Footnote 2 appears to be a one page reference in a big book. Footnote 3 looks like the same. (Mind you, I don't have these books, so can't be sure). The non-footnoted references are the game maker's own website and a fan webpage. Neither are considered reliable. I see two reliable sources, each with one trivial reference. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I"m pretty sure the game makers web page IS considered reliable, just not third party. Mathewignash (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. However, the third-party part is key here. Third party sources would establish a real world significance while primary sources do not. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly acceptable spinout article to keep Werewolf: The Apocalypse from growing too large. Edward321 (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should probably be trimmed, but while there's not the real-life significance of, say Vampire: the Masquerade's vampire clans, which have influenced the art and literature and even real lives of others, there is probably enough to warrant a MODEST article focusing on the real-life significance of the tribes, and a more brief synopsis. As it stands it needs a full re-write to be in line with the guidelines on writing about fiction. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I understand the concept of a spinoff but most of this is pointless WP:FANCRUFT. It could possibly be trimmed but the users who care about such articles usually aren't the type to trim. Since sources are not particularly significant, independent or reliable, I think it's best left to the White Wolf Wiki.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Felts[edit]

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

only self-published sources provided for notably: WP:Notability Grey Wanderer (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John David[edit]

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

Biography, tagged as unsourced since August 2010, a monography which reads like an agent's blurb. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just because the article is tagged as unsourced does not mean it is unsourced. The bbc external link is clearly a reliable source for the information in the article and I have converted it into an inline citation. It is clear that John David has contributed significantly to the success of some notable music, several songs reaching the top 10 of UK popular music charts.Polyamorph (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per my comment above, BLP was not unreferenced, the citation just wasn't formatted correctly. John David clearly meets notability guidelines as one of the most successful Welsh songwriters who has in the past been influencial in the success of many high profile artists.Polyamorph (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - have to agree with Polyamorph,.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2011 (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) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine television shows[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf of an IP who left the following message on the talk page:

There's already a category specifically for programs relating to TV programs shown in the Philippines, so why is there a need for an article about it?

If the reason behind this is to create an article listing programs that has no article in Wikipedia, then I think that's an invalid reason. If there is no article regarding a program, then one must be created for it.

A TV show article with a lengthy details enables others to verify that such program does or might have existed. As such, anyone could add a TV program to this article and clarify just by saying that "it's real" or that they've "seen the program," regardless of the fact that it might be fictitious.

Likewise, I've never heard of the program Alaska Mini-Programa even though it is listed in this list. It doesn't mean that such program did exist but there's also no proof of reference that such show exist. If such program does exist, more details can be added to it creating an article about it.

The listing of shows for certain TV stations are far more accurate and more specific that this listing. Editors of those articles were able to manage to create listing with references and/or create articles pertaining to a TV show. Though, I find it, at times, irksome when editors tend to remove citation requirements that I add whenever there is no verification attached to unlinked programs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.168.178 (talk) 04:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:35, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Noting that as per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates the existence of a category does not preclude a list, and vice versa. If the information is verifiable (I think it is in this case, there exist TV listings and rankings and magazines that can show WP:V and WP:N), discriminate (also true here, there are definitive and verifiable criterion for inclusion: a TV show, from the Philippines) and Notable (sources will determine that, it's hard to imagine an entire nation has no notable TV shows...), then it's a good list. 65.29.47.55 (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 65.29.47.55. I see no problems with this list that cannot be solved by editing, and the existence of a category is irrelevant. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Active and reactive power in electrical circuit with distributed and lumped parameters[edit]

Active and reactive power in electrical circuit with distributed and lumped parameters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy upgraded to PROD, PROD tag removed. Wikipedia is not a textbook. The tone and style is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If this article is not entirely WP:OR, it is redundant with the pertinent sections of AC power. This almost reads like a translation of a thesis. I am unable to verify the sources given as I don't read any Cryllic. It's an impossible search term or link name. We also have an article Transmission line which is a better place to talk about distributed parameters. Wtshymanski (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom or Merge to an appropriate existing article on transmission line modelling. It is similar to materials already covered in related articles. The article is apparently based a Russian textbook on the topic, and is apparently not written by a fluent speaker of English, so it is difficult to follow. Someone who can read the Russian textbook might check to make sure it is not simply a copyvio. Edison (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2011 (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) 00:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Thatch[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable individual. His professional baseball career lasted seven games, his acting career, while existent, does not strike one as "article worthy" and the fact that he was traded for beer, though it is a good factoid, does not in itself merit an article. Alex (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One season in the independent leagues does not make his baseball career notable and his acting career seems to consist of bit parts on television shows.. not notable there either. Spanneraol (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ProBoards[edit]

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

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-Lack of third party sources needed to establish notability, so assertion of "popularity" seems to be WP:OR. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. The references in the actual article are poor, but I did find some fairly extensive coverage in books, including third party how-to and reference books[36][37][38] which would seem to pass the notability hurdle. This software and service is targeted at the general public. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ZetaBoards[edit]

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

No external notability. All sources are from their own site. One random software of many. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could not find significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Johann Gottfried Piefke. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Piefke[edit]

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

Just an article on a word used in German. No indication of any special importance or interesting history. Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jaque Hammer (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2011 (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) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_January_26&oldid=1142638246"