Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 June 8 June >

Purge server cache

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

A Diamond Guitar[edit]

The result was Nomination withdrawn (Non-admin closure). Minima© (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Short Story not notable enough to ever have sufficient content or secondary sources Npd2983 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Breakfast at Tiffany's. Not notable on its own, but part of a notable package. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree not well sourced at present, but as previous comment says part of notable package. Not much mention on the internet is not the same as not much mention anywhere. Look at the way virtually every short story by Isaac Asimov has its own article. PatGallacher (talk) 09:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google books search linked above finds plenty of coverage in reliable sources, such as [1], [2], [3] and [4]. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Okay I agree to keep it based on Phil Bridger's findings. I have checked out every book about Truman Capote from my city's library and couldn't even find a single index entry or publication date for the story. It looks like the Google books search gives something to go on. I am going to remove the flag for deletion business on the article, and put Phil's comments on the talk page for future reference. Thank you. --Npd2983 (talk) 19:25, 9 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 E+4 m³[edit]

1 E+4 m³ (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 is not necessary Mr. Anon515 22:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all to orders of magnitude (volume). This is not encyclopaedic content, and in the normal run of things unencyclopaedic content should be deleted, but there are limited exceptions per WP:5P: Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopaedia. We are also a gazetteer, and (relevant to this discussion) an almanac. As an almanac, one of our roles is to provide clear, tabulated information that's already been worked out, in order to help casual browsers of Wikipedia. Therefore, even though it's unencyclopaedic, it's nevertheless part of our stated mission to provide this information to our users.

    Because this material would be so long if merged, I recommend that it should be placed in collapsed boxes in orders of magnitude (volume) rather than just dumped in there wholesale.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—No reason to delete this range of articles about a common unit.—RJH (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep as is and don't merge. Look at 1 metre and other associated articles. These have existed for a while and provide important content and context. As for merging them all into one (section of an) article, I say that having them split as they are keeps the eye from glazing over on too much information. It's easier to get the data if you aren't being bombard by sensory overload. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these articles are very short and only have one or two tidbits of information (like this). In any case, I believe it is against Wikipedia policy to simply have lists of random information. Mr. Anon515 20:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per UtherSRG. There is too much content in this set of articles to merge; some of the articles may be small, but they will grow over time. There can be no doubt that the concept of size is extremely notable, and even size ranges like this get an enormous number of mentions. -- 202.124.74.166 (talk) 09:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unencyclopaedic content. A list of items with an area of a given magnitude to me seems an indiscriminate collection of information. --Anthem 11:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the functions of Wikipedia is that of an almanac, and this is suitable information of that sort. Same pattern as many other fully accepted articles. We exist in order to be helpful for the reader. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 14 June 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. —DoRD (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shethanas[edit]

Shethanas (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. Self-admitted original research about a fictional deity. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:50, 7 June 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 00:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonver[edit]

Sonver (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 appears to be a non-notable band. Article lacks reliable third party sources and doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for bands. Alpha Quadrant talk 22:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All sourcing in the article is done from primary sources. That's understandable as I can find no coverage about the band in independent reliable sources, nor am I able to find any critical reviews of their various EPs that they put out. -- Whpq (talk) 13:32, 13 June 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muar Municipal Council FC[edit]

Muar Municipal Council FC (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 Prod without improvement in reasoning. Prod Reason was "Unfererenced and questionable notability per WP:NFOOTY team in 2nd tier for nation" Based on the WP:NFOOTY standard this article fails the requirements Hasteur (talk) 22:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - firstly, nomination rationale is factually incorrect, as WP:NFOOTBALL doesn't cover football teams, only football players, so that guideline doesn't apply. Secondly, I have added a reliable source which verifies the team's existence and some claims in the article, and because this team qualifies for the national cup, it meets club notability as set out at WP:FOOTYN. GiantSnowman 00:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep completely invalid deletion rationale, as explained above and in the edit summary for the prod decline.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:FOOTYN per having played in a national cup. - Yk3 talk · contrib 03:08, 9 June 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 UEFA Champions League[edit]

2012–13 UEFA Champions League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contains absolutely no information specific to the assumed 2012-13 event, based entirely on the unsourced assumption that it will be conducted on the same basis as at present. Kevin McE (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, the article has some validity: today specific facts about this edition became known. While I maintain that the article until now merited deletion, there is now something to justify its existence. Kevin McE (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Motion to close debate Given the confirmation of the final venue, I suggest we close the debate and keep the article, so as to remove the AfD infobox from the page. Any discussion on what information to keep in the article will then be taken to the talk page of the article. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is based on earlier articles but may change if the organization changes how it is run. The article is easily changed in that case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - all speculative material should be removed, per WP:CRYSTAL, especially if said information is, as the nominator implies, also factually incorrect. GiantSnowman 00:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but then if that's done, I'm happy for the article to be kept. GiantSnowman 12:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not factually incorrect. There will be a 2012-13 Champions League, and the co-efficients will be what is shown. The only thing that may change is the overall format, and that is shown to just be the norm, not the guarantee. While predictions do violate CRYSTAL, what is in the article is just a summary of the most likely layout based on previous years, and the official websites of each participant entity. SellymeTalk 13:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question regarding the text in the yellow box: Is UEFA really expected to define a completely new scheme of qualifying rounds and teams allocation? Country coefficients of seasons 2006–07 through 2010–11 should determine what country will qualify how many teams to which stage of the competition concerned - for example Ukraine will qualify its champion for the group stage and its runner-up for the third qualifying round. This period is over, so those coefficients can't change any more. All the information that is there in the article is based on them. And season 2011–12 (or 2011 in some countries like Norway) will determine which those teams will actually be - for example if Dynamo become Ukrainian champions, they will enter the group stage, and if Shakhtar finish second, they will enter the third qualifying round. Season 2011–12 commences as soon as a couple of months' time form now; and in those countries (like Norway) whose championships run from spring to autumn it is even nearly halfway finished. So a Norwegian team is now competing in their Premier League and knows that it has to occupy a given position there in order to qualify for a given stage of the CL, but is UEFA still to redefine this scheme and the team's objectives far after the start of their league season? --Theurgist (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be a clear-cut example of why WP:CRYSTAL was written. All the information is what is presumed will happen, with no references verifying it that this will actually be the case. The article can easily be recreated when reliable sources on the 2012–13 tournament come into existence. Jenks24 (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's fairly certain that this event will take place, but there have been no details confirmed about it yet and this article is based on conjecture that the tournament will follow the same structure as previous seasons. It's all guesswork, and like User:Jenks24 says, this is what WP:CRYSTAL was made for. – PeeJay 13:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. The article can be easily recreated when concrete information becomes available. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The issue here is that you can't reference an overwhelming absence of something. i.e. any indication of significant change. The only news we have heard about changes to the format UEFA competitions is that there will be 6 cup winners entering the group stage of the Europa League. As I understand it, the regulations for 2012-13 have been approved but unpublished. If that is the most mentionable piece of news to come out UEFA (or any news outlet) then I believe that both the Champions League and Europa League pages are justified in copying the format of previous years, but with the proviso note that there may be some alterations. I feel that the information is encyclopedically worthy.
However, technically I can't argue with the grounds for a drastic reduction in the page content (fully deleting it is excessive). As I say, there isn't a way to generally reference a complete lack of news as a justification for keeping the full page. And yes, it is possible that there has been a major overhaul of the competition which hasn't been announced or reported at all in footballing circles. Therefore I fear the page will be shortened for a few weeks until the new regulations are published. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't we simply redirect this to UEFA Champions League? Deletion does seem over the top when the content will simply be recreated in a few weeks. Redirecting will allow the content to quickly and easily be retrieved. Valenciano (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps I can agree with the fact that we should not conjecture about the format (even though it is very likely to be the same). But as Theurgist said, the country coefficients have now been fully computed and the ranking of the associations fully established (maybe then somebody may argue that UEFA can just ditch the coefficients?). So this is certainly some information relevant to the competition. The change in the number of spots, e.g. Germany will gain a spot and Italy will lose a spot, are also widely reported in media (see [6] for example). So the article as a whole has already passed the test of having verifiable information already available as sources. So if the contention is WP:CRYSTAL, then we should just delete the format, not the whole article. Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a perfectly reasonable article, is linked to from tonnes of 2011-12 league pages, and is in no way WP:CRYSTAL. It is not Crystal-balling to presume an annual event will continue to be annual in the absence of extenuating circumstances. In any case, most official European league pages have a "Qualification to ..." in their league standings, and that clearly counts as a reliable source. SellymeTalk 09:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: CRYSTAL is related to articles about things that may or may not be. Here are the facts: 1) This event will happen. 2) We don't know the format so that material is speculative, but highly probable. Cyrstal specifically states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place" and does not prohibit this type of article because it will take place. Instead of referencing it, read it and quote where this article is prohibited by it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In short, WP CRYSTAL does not apply to the article about this event. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is already relevant information, because the allocation of places is based on the rankings for the 5 seasons to 2011. It will happen unless (i) the world ends, in which case we won't be any better off for having deleted the article or (ii) European football is hit by a scandal of incomprehensible magnitude, in which case their will probably be lots to say in the article. This sort of nomination displays a reckless disregard for wikipedia's need to recruit and retain editors. How would you like it if you created content in good faith which is realistically certain to exist in wikipedia in a year's time, and it was deleted on a technicality, and you were told to do it all again next year? You might react by quitting for good. Wikipedia cannot afford to alienate editors in that way: the board of wikimedia issued a statement a while back stating that the declining number of editors was the project's biggest problem, and this nomination is a text book example of how to alienate people and make the problem worse. Alex Middleton (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the logic of deleting this page to see it come back in a few months when the new football season starts. Normally someone will make a page of next seasons competition whilst the current one is ongoing. I know this one has jumped the gun, but it would be silly to delete this now. I hear too a decision on the 2013 final venue is due tomorrow (Thursday 16 June 2011) so its not as if this has no information to go off. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I certainly don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here as it's certain this will go ahead (barring the outbreak of World War 3!) - in fact, they're deciding the venue for the final later today. Any incorrect information regarding competition format can be corrected or removed quite easily. —BETTIA— talk 11:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the fact that UEFA have already confirmed where the final will be taking place would suggest that it's not likely that the event will be cancelled. OK, the co-efficiants may move the countries around but I don't think they have any major structural changes planned. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Wembley was confirmed for the 1-fittyth anniversary so this binness has specific inf'mations to 2012-13 fo sho. Stop yo plainin and let the article stay. Check the article on Soccernet dawg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.194.205 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 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. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funimation Channel[edit]

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

Everything in this article is covered on the main Funimation Entertainment page Ke5crz (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article has many more sources than FE page and no real reason for deletion beyond duplication of the lede has been cited. The company and channel are two separate things and because of that, there should be no merge. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nate pretty much sums it up, the two are related but are seperate, article is Notable enough for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Echo of above rationales. --Addihockey10 e-mail 23:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge At the moment, there is just not enough content for a stand-alone article. But deletion is not the answer. —Farix (t | c) 16:16, 10 June 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 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Daniel Cooper[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, doesn't appear to be any more notable then any other police officer's death CTJF83 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A police officer's death in the line of duty is, in itself, notable. --TBM10 (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure? It's probably a daily occurrence somewhere in the world. Are you saying we need an article on every Mexican cop killed by drug gangs, or every Afghanistan/Iraqi/Irani, etc cop killed by insurgent/terrorist/rebel violence? Why would this British cop be any more notable then any of those? CTJF83 21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I'm not saying that. The death of a police officer in the United Kingdom is rare and, especially when in circumstances such as this one was, notable. The article is well-presented and sufficiently-cited (I can present more if needed) and no harm is being caused by its existence. Ironic that WP encourages users to contribute, but within minutes of adding an acceptable article someone wants to delete it. --TBM10 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you said, "A police officer's death in the line of duty is, in itself, notable."...not, a UK officer's death is in itself notable. You got a source saying a cops death in the UK is rare? CTJF83 12:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. The death of a police officer in the UK is unusual and has therefore attracted this level of coverage (e.g. the two separate cited BBC articles). RichardOSmith (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source it's rare? CTJF83 12:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • [7], but it's a distraction from my argument which was that there is sufficient coverage of the event to support an article, per the GNG. I assert that this is likely to be because of its relative rarity, but frankly it doesn't matter what the reason is - the coverage is still there. BTW - my initial reaction on seeing this AfD was that it violates WP:MEMORIAL as others below are suggesting, and the GNG explicitly states that things which violate WP:NOT (which includes that) may well not get their own articles, so I was minded to agree with your nomination. But if you look closely at WP:MEMORIAL, it says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements" (my bolding). It is clear to me that the intent behind WP:MEMORIAL is only to dissuade editors from creating articles about non-notable loved ones and it explicitly limits its scope to people who do not satisfy general notability requirements. But this subject is notable, as measured by the coverage in reliable sources, so WP:MEMORIAL does not apply. Consequently my recommendation was, and remains, keep. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT section 2.9 it reads like a newspaper obituaries and i'm not sure it could be presented in another light. (Ke5crz (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am sorry for his family. While tragic, this was an accident, and such incidents are the bane of police officer's lives, and often causes their deaths. This is a run of the mill yet sad death of a cop on duty. We can't be a memorial for every deceased officer. If it was a murder, or connected with an ongoing reform, or resulted from some other major crime, then it would be significant and should get such coverage. Of course, every cop's death gets on the news, such stories are newsworthy. However, we are not a newsjournal. Protecting the public is inherently dangerous. I know how it is, and empathize; several of my relatives and students have been or are police or peace officers. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Bearian... Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOT NEWS. If that is a meaningful concept at all, this is an excellent example of why we need it. This is in no possible sense encyclopedic material. Almost certainly would not even be notable if he had been killed in a crime, but certainly not in an accident. DGG ( talk ) 21:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, this has been covered by (mostly local) reliable sources, but it is routine news reporting. It's sad, but there's no enduring notability.--BelovedFreak 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whilst an uncommon occurrence, the reporting done it is routine and perfunctory, and the event is not likely to have enduring impact. Compare, for instance, the lack of a similar article on the death of Ronan Kerr, killed shortly beforehand in a terrorist incident, which was much more widely reported. GRAPPLE X 21:59, 14 June 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 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olympians MMA[edit]

Olympians MMA (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 has no independent sources and doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Papaursa (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 20:41, 7 June 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. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 00:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guntupalem[edit]

Guntupalem (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 notable Night of the Big Wind (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — BelovedFreak 00:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per our usual practice with villages. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is far from the worst Indian village article I've ever seen (at least this one is written in coherent English and doesn't glorify the local taxi driver; if you think I'm kidding...). It does need some work, but precedent seems to be to keep articles on any inhabited place. Until there's some agreement otherwise, I don't see any reason to treat this differently than a town in, say, the US, ergo it should be kept. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All villages are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per longstanding convention, all population centers are considered inherently notable.--Oakshade (talk) 20:50, 11 June 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 List of Jiggy McCue books#The Meanest Genie. -- Rcsprinter (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Meanest Genie[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails our book criteria, our general notability criteria, and no sources can be found anywhere. I'm barely sure it exists. — chro • man • cer  22:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. While this book may have not received any illustrious honors there are a few sources (mostly under Maggot Pie, the former title). And it does exist [8]. Froggerlaura (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wasn't saying it didn't. But having a few sources doesn't bring up to WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. I haven't found any serious sources. Has it won any notable awards or anything like that? — chro • man • cer  01:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that the series may be more notable than the individual books and support merging the content onto a single page. There are several that have won minor awards [9]. Froggerlaura (talk) 14:57, 8 June 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 List of Jiggy McCue books#The Snottle. -- Rcsprinter (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Snottle[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Looks to be an excellent book for kids but fails all tests for notability. Sorry.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 7 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 20:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hantuchova–Schnyder rivalry[edit]

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

Rivalries are based on public perception and large media participation. Laver/Rosewall, Evert/Navratilova, Sampras/Agassi, Federer/Nadal... this is not a rivalry. I can't fathom someone actually searching for this page and it should be removed with the pertinent info added to their respective articles. These players were usually ranked in the teens with top rankings of 4 and 7 respectively. Throughout tennis history there have been plenty of the water bottle kicking intensities between players... we certainly don't need an entire article about it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability hangs on the statement " This rivalry is considered to be one of the longest, controversial and most intense on the WTA tour." The cited source didn't even hint at this, and I have removed this extravagant claim. StAnselm (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The press pretty much will call the competitions between any two tennis players rivalries. What would establish notability would be actual coverage about the rivalry rather than the word "rivalry" appearing in routine coverage about matches between the two players. I can find examples of the latter, but none of the former. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 13 June 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) 02:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor Komogovinski[edit]

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

Having done a wp:before search, this appears to me to be a non-notable person. Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unreferenced. nothing in gnews. gbooks just lists LLC Books which uses WP as a reference. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Saints are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a wp rule that -- without more -- individuals who the Holy Assembly of Bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church insert into the list of all Serbs holy martyrs for faith are notable? I wasn't aware, if this is the case -- can you point us to the wp guideline? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of an actual guideline to that effect. However, I think it is generally accepted on Wikipedia that saints are notable. It's certainly my personal opinion. If they're notable nough to be canonised by a mainstream church then presumably they're notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. Normally when an established editor makes such a statement, if he/she is merely voicing a personal opinion, rather than reflecting wp guidelines, I find it helpful for them to clarify that. Especially when it is a sysop speaking -- otherwise, I (and perhaps others as naive as I am) could mistakenly take the sysop to be reflecting wp policy, rather than personal opinion. I also am not aware of any such rule or guideline on wp. I would think that any notable saint or martyr -- whether of the Serbian Orthodox Church, some Muslim offshoot, a Bahai sect, etc. -- if truly notable should be able to satisfy wp's notability criteria, with significant coverage in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - saints are notable. He seems better known in English as Theodore of Komogovina. HeartofaDog (talk) 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same issues as are discussed above seem to plague this, whichever name is used to search for substantial RS support of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Epeefleche (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we may well need someone fluent in Serbian to find evidence of notability, although I'm sure it exists. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I just did some quick edits, adding an alternative and a Serbian name to article, with three new sources. He may also be called Saint Theodore Tyron, based on a comparison of the english version [10] and the Serbian version [11] which contains the text "Светог Теодора Тирон" (Saint Theodore Tyron with Google Translate). He does seem to be notable, perhaps even outside of Serbian Orthodoxy as well if the Theodor Tyron name is him. I cannot contribute further as I must go, but I think the extra search terms I provided would make it easier for other editors to find even more sources. —CodeHydro 15:04, 7 June 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, Spartaz Humbug! 19:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CodeHydro. It looks like the article has been rescued. Certainly, if he's a saint, one would expect him to be notable, and it looks like this has been established. StAnselm (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. I do have to agree with Necrothesp, BTW, that there must be a presumption of notability especially for somebody whose sainthood was proclaimed as recently as 1966. Whether he is known outside the Serbian Orthodox Church should not matter, and guidelines make clear that it is the notability of a person or thing within their particular context that matters, not whether other people have heard or care about them. Sainthood is amongst other things a mark of notability given by a church. Once notable always notable comes into play here as well. --AJHingston (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A major religion has declared him a saint. Notability is obvious by rule of common sense. Dream Focus 11:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Concur that saints at this level are notable, agree that that claim of notability has now been verified through reliable sources. --joe deckertalk to me 15:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm unconvinced that any policy has been pointed to that "saints are notable", the rationale of some here. I think they are notable if there is substantial support for notability, and note that some others believe that is (now) the case. But if people want to create a wp guideline that saints are notable, I suggest they do so -- along with describing what indicia of sainthood suffices, and what religions or sects of religions or religious leaders are sufficient to so denote someone (I note that many terrorists have been declared martyrs, for example, and wonder how slippery these slopes are).--Epeefleche (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I note that many terrorists have been declared martyrs". By a genuine mainstream church? Really? That's the point here. The Serbian Orthodox Church is not an obscure sect, but a mainstream church with a membership of millions. I think we ought to accept the notability of saints canonised by such churches. And also acknowledge, as always, that notability guidelines are not set in stone and that failing to meet a set of rigid criteria is not and never has been (and never should be) a reason for deletion on Wikipedia. Nobody has ever claimed that there is a policy that all saints are notable, but it is common sense to accept that saints acknowledged by major churches are notable. If we insist on only accepting articles on subjects with wide internet coverage (which is not and never has been a Wikipedia policy, incidentally, although many editors with deletionist tendencies seem to have a mysterious and increasingly strident belief otherwise) then we are in danger of becoming an encyclopaedia of modern English-speaking pop culture and not a true global encyclopaedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: (1) When assessing notability of anyone from a country with a Cyrillic alphabet, be sure to search on the Cyrillic name, I've rescued a number of articles using this method. (As always, you must be careful when using Google translate for unfamiliar languages, but you may be able to verify key facts or determine that the subject appears to be notable.) (2) I looked for prior AfDs on saints to see if any general consensus existed. There are a number of articles on fictional saints that have been deleted, just like other non-notable fictional personas. Same for hoaxes,see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Ermintrude of Nard (May 2007). In May 2009, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Evilasius (Executioner), the article was kept (after improvement and name chance helped prove notability. I could not find any verifiable true saint articles that have been deleted.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Did you find any AFDs that were kept where -- as was the case here, at the outset -- the article said that the person was a saint, but lacked substantial RS coverage of the person and failed to meet any other wp notability guidelines? Or were they all articles where GNG or other notability guidelines were met?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:27, 8 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 20:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jankovic – V. Williams rivalry[edit]

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

Rivalries are based on public perception and large media participation. Laver/Rosewall, Evert/Navratilova, Sampras/Agassi, Federer/Nadal... this is not a rivalry and the sources at the bottom do not support it. Those sources say simply that maybe this will become a rivalry (which it didn't). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The source was crystal-balling - we shouldn't. The number of pairings of top-ranked tennis players is enormous - clearly very few of them have notable rivalries. StAnselm (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The source used to support this "rivaly" is speculative. There' not other sources that discuss this rivalry. -- Whpq (talk) 13:53, 13 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of figures in psychiatry[edit]

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

Redundant to List of psychiatrists. Figures who are important but neither strictly psychiatrists nor psychologists can be added to a brief section at the end of either of those lists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 23 May 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) 00:05, 30 May 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, Alpha Quadrant talk 18:13, 7 June 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. Roscelese makes a plausable argument for keeping but there isn't enough participation here to call this a "consensus". Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mecca2Medina[edit]

Mecca2Medina (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 band article was prodded under A7, and the prod was removed without any explanation as to why it met the A7 prod criteria. I've performed a wp:before search, and cannot myself find indicia of notability under wp standards, including sufficient RS coverage. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 23 May 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) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In-depth coverage is a bit scant, but multiple independent reliable sources note that they're essentially the founding group of Muslim hiphop (a notable style per the good amount of coverage), meaning that WP:BAND #7 is satisfied. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:57, 6 June 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, Alpha Quadrant talk 18:13, 7 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 20:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Lines[edit]

Chicken Lines (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. No claim of notability. damiens.rf 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A game someone designed, referenced only to Facebook and websites related to the game designer. No evidence of notability to satisfy WP:N, and no claim of notability.Searching for "chicken lines" has too many unrelated results related to real chickens to be sure no coverage exists; if some independent and reliable sources have significant coverage of this game, now would be a good time to mention them here and/or add them to the article. Edison (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable game; no news reports or industry commentary. Scholarly sources talk only about the process of breeding chickens, not a game. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Wikipedia:N. This page is clearly for propaganda and search engine results show only that website. IMHO, I think the user should warned for advertisement. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above Soupy sautoy (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Guoguo12 (Talk)  02:44, 12 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Illinois, 2014[edit]

United States Senate election in Illinois, 2014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the moment there's very little that we can say (and source) on the subject, and we can't really expect there to be for another year or two. (Contested prod.) – hysteria18 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Way too early to be building this page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It is the very next election for the Senate seat held by Durbin, with no crystal ball required to verify that fact, or to verify it will get extensive coverage (see the previous umpteen US Senate elections). There was significant coverage of the 1998 Illinois Senate election 3 years before: [12]. There was lots of coverage of the 2010 Illinois Senate election, starting right after Obama won the Presidency. If the article were deleted now, it would just be recreated a few months or a year thereafter, as Republicans jockey for the spot to oppose him. Edison (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL way to early for this article. Mo ainm~Talk 18:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see why it is too early - 2014 is the next Senate election for that class. Category:United States Senate elections, 2014 has seven other 2014 senate elections. --B (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because no sources have been provided yet. It's not yet known whether this will be a particularly competitive race or not. (Granted, even a minimally competitive race can have an article created later, but there is no point in creating an article now that has no content worth reading.) Nor have any candidates declared their interest in running yet, not even the incumbent. The article can be re-created when there are reliable sources upon which to base an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Clearly that US Senate race, like all others in recent history, will get significant coverage in a few months to a year, as the election date approaches. If, from some mistaken reading of WP:CRYSTAL the article is deleted, it will be soon resurrected and fleshed out, since Durbin will or will not run for re-election, he might have primary opponents, the Democratic nominee will certainly have one or more opponents from other parties, and the seat is critical to the control of the US Senate. Is temporarily removing this article the most pressing thing Wikipedia has to waste time on? This is not about whether some rock group will or will not issue their 5th studio album at some future date,or whether some actor will star in a movie which may or may not get made. Those are the sort of things which "WP:Crystal" is aimed at. Edison (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, if any, candidates have declared their intention to run in this election? The time for this article is after candidates have filed, not when their names are still matters of sheer speculation. THAT is why WP:CRYSTAL applies...trying to predict who will run and who won't is not Wikipedia's raison d'être. Unless there's at least one filed candidate from each major party (including any independent candidates), the article is premature. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, an election will happen, but since we are currently in 2011 and no reliable sources discussing this election substantively have been produced (and a quick search didn't turn up any), all but the date is crystalballing. Hekerui (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, it will happen. But there is nothing to be said about other than it will happen. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It doesnt appear to violate WP:CRYSTAL because it isn't predicting anything, but there's no content on the page. We're over 3 years away, and the page itself acknowledges (at this time) that there isn't any information regarding the election. For this reason, delete, but by all means recreate when information comes out. If it is kept, I warn that by having the "potential" header on the page, it would probably be violating WP:CRYSTAL if anyone were to put a potential candidate on there. 21troyz (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major event of national significance that is certainly going to happen, and about which there will be increasing content. Of course, we could put it in half a year from now, but it does no conceivable harm at present. As a matter of policy, I think we should always have articles of this nature for national level offices. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 14 June 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) 02:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phonica[edit]

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

Marginally notable remixer that does not meet the requirements of notability in Wikipedia:Notability (music). This article has been speedied and re-created several times, therefore if the article does not meet the requirements, I reccomend salting the name to prevent re-creation without significant guidance. Hasteur (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 24 May 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) 00:01, 30 May 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, Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, nobody has a thought about this after 14 days at AfD? Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 7 June 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, article transwikied, see wikt:weaksauce. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weaksauce[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator. PROD reason was: "Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up" and I still believe that to be an accurate summary of the article. Jenks24 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — BelovedFreak 16:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — BelovedFreak 16:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hie thee to Wiktionary. "Weaksauce" is a reasonably familiar colloquialism; go search for it in any online game forum, and you will find it. I doubt this tale of its origin is reliable even if it were more intelligible. I can't see it ever being the subject of an encyclopedia article, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And get there Speedily... Carrite (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki' per above. A search on Google News shows it is used somewhat regularly. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki per above. Enough to warrant a Wiktionary article, but not an encyclopedic entry. Asteroid1717 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 22:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamworld Resort[edit]

Dreamworld Resort (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. Sources are mainly self-published, or hotel booking sites. No sources have been found that suggest this resort is anything out of the ordinary. Fails WP:ORG Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) is searching for wrong keyword. The place is simply known as Dreamworld in Pakistan but since wikipedia already had an article by this name, the article starter must have used the 2nd best option he /she thought fit. Dreamworld is the biggest entertainment project in Pakistan and deserves a place on wikipedia on this account. Unfortunately Pakistan is a 3rd world country a great many good things don't find their due place on the internet. 115.186.66.196 (talk) 08:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If we were to remove the unreferenced material from this article, we would be left with very little information...and that's not including removing self-published, or hotel booking sites as sources. Fails WP:OR -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 12:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. If it IS self promotion then someone should have turned up by now to say Do NOT Delete! May be we oughta clean whatever we think is wrong and hope someone will add useful information later. 202.70.150.18 (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not allow self promotion. Anyway, I have removed unsourced material from the article, per WP:OR. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk to me) 11:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I live in Pakistan & I have seen this place. Its the biggest resort in Pakistan & therefore this article should not be deleted.202.70.150.18 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried looking for independent sources under various different searches, and found nothing more detailed than this. I couldn't even verify the claim that it's the biggest resort in Pakistan independently. Unless someone can find significant coverage about the resort itself, it's going to fail WP:GNG. Perhaps offline sources exist? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:05, 15 June 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. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 00:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian Project[edit]

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

See Talk:Toronto Maple Leafs#The Guardian Project for rationale. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lame, but certainly notable. Possibly most notable for its complete and utter failure. Coverage includes: CBC.ca, Yahoo (blog), MSN.ca, MTV.ca. I didn't include comic sources, because I have no idea how to gauge what is reliable and what isn't, but there are a lot. Canada Hky (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely reluctant Keep: As a participant in the discussion the nom links, I empathize over the premise of torching this bit of ephemeral fluff - heck, as a stone hockey fan, as a long-time editor on the hockey WikiProject and as a one-time Marvel comic subscriber, I just heard of this yesterday, which says something. Unfortunately, the nom hasn't proffered a valid reason to delete, and this has certainly generated enough media interest to meet WP:V.  Ravenswing  19:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to have gotten more than enough media coverage. And being that it was created by Stan Lee I think that in itself probably gets it up there. -DJSasso (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The "rationale" for deleting this article clearly falls into the I don't like it category. I don't like it either and wish it never happened, but there has been lots of media coverage to establish notability. The article needs to have those references Canada Hky mentioned and links added, but it shouldn't be deleted. Spidey104 14:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There has been enought media coverage to establish notability and verifiability. The hockey wikiproject can discuss and vote a rule to avoid any kind of mention of The Guardian Project in the hockey articles. In my opinion, it is better than trying to delete this article. --Crazy runner (talk) 09:51, 11 June 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 by Dlohcierekim as WP:CSD#G3, blatant hoax. Due diligence on my part and that of others revealed no good version and no Google support for the article. The concerns of an anonymous user 2 years ago went unheard and unheeded. Dlohcierekim 21:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nappier DJ Nate Thomas[edit]

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

Completely unsourced BLP. A Google search shows nothing other than mirrors of this article and social networking sites. No evidence of notability. Possible hoax. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just Blaze seems genuine - maybe some of the content was copied from there. However, concerning that this hasn't been spotted for two years! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Then it seems that this article may just be a complete hoax and needs to be speedy deleted? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that, but User:Nthomas11 removed it. As he isn't the originator of the page, decided to AfD it. However, he seems insistent on blanking the page now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although if you compare the edit history of Special:Contributions/Gumdrop64 and Special:Contributions/Nthomas11 they could be one and the same. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, they're the same user. I've reported User:Nthomas11 for vandalism anyway. Mephtalk 16:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Agreed they are likely the same user. The Gumdrop64 account is stale though, otherwise it would make sense to create a sock report. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete—Obvious hoax and attempt at plagiarism. An unregistered user attempted to warn other editors two years ago: [13]. Unfortunately, the article gathered dust instead. Mephtalk 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant hoax. The original version of Nappier appears to have been lifted straight off this version of Just Blaze. Very little of the substance of the Nappier article has changed since its creation: diff. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm performing my due diligence checks before honoring the CSD. No luck as yet. Dlohcierekim 21:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment Anyone see a resemblance between subject and User:Nthomas11? Getting out the buttons now. Dlohcierekim 21:08, 7 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 20:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Himcinschi[edit]

Fabian Himcinschi (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. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested based on the claim that Liga II is fully pro. When asked, the contester failed to produce sources to support this claim. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Football in the Algarve[edit]

Football in the Algarve (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 attest the notability of this subject. Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 16:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 16:22, 7 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Grosos[edit]

Ramon Grosos (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 few sources seem to be from promotional websites, and I'm not sure the subject meets any of the WP:ARTIST criteria. - Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I could only find trivial mentions of him in two news articles about some single event not really about him [14] [15]. It's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 10 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 22:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Democratic Countries[edit]

List of Democratic Countries (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'm not quite sure we should delete, but perhaps. After all, there are the usual concerns about POV, there not being a single definition of "democracy". Plus, the Freedom House list of electoral democracies is already represented as a map in three articles. And if need be, we could include this list at Freedom in the World. Anyway, if kept, this should be moved to List of electoral democracies or a similar title. - Biruitorul Talk 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is this POV? 'Democracy' has a standard recognized definition. As I've said on the article's talk page, while the FH report is the only source currently used, there are other sources that have similarly classed countries (the same countries in general) as democracies. Isn't the correct solution to add the sources, or give me some time to add them, instead of deleting a validly referenced article? e Robert-Houdin 17:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober-houdin (talk • contribs)
The naivety of the statement that democracy has a standard recognized definition beggars belief. Under what criteria do we include the United Kingdom (with its House of Lords) but not Russia? Or Samoa (where only traditional chiefs, 95% of them male, can be elected to the legislature) but not Venezuela? Or Monaco (with its undemocratically appointed executive) but not Zimbabwe? And how about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or the former German Democratic Republic? Someone's definition of democracy must include those, or they wouldn't have been named that way, so do we include them in the list? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious POV. --XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to the organization whose subjective list this is. There is no standard recognized definition of democracy, so we shouldn't present articles as if there was. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Phil Bridge - you are discussing whether specific sets of facts meet the definition, not the definition itself. The definition of democracy is fairly standard throughout major English language dictionaries. OED, Dictionary.com , Merriam-Webster, even Google. The standard definition running something like this: '1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. 2. A state governed in this way'(Google). As for the examples you've give, Wikipedia would include them if a reliable source calls them democracies. XXPowerMexicoXx , I question the validity of your opinion here in reaching consensus, since your one edit to the article was the un-cited addition of Belarus, Cuba, and Venezuela to the article [1]. Not only does Freedom House not call Cuba and Belarus democracies, neither does the CIA Factbook [2][2]. Venezuela is listed as a 'Federal Republic'[4] , so I would add it to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober-houdin (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my last edit was a little harsh and didn't AGF. How is this article different from [List of Socialist Countries]], list of current constitutional monarchies or the list on Communist State? Or, in principle from List of dictators? --e Robert-Houdin 23:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rober-houdin (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 20:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Felix Taşcă[edit]

George Felix Taşcă (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 man did nothing in particular that was notable; he had a fairly normal career (unreferenced, anyway) and was a genealogy hobbyist. The sources for that include a book for which no page number is given, a lecture Taşcă delivered (...), and a donor list. This forms part of a series of crufty articles on the Taşcă family (itself now gone), and should be deleted. - Biruitorul Talk 15:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The guy was once a bureaucrat in a Romanian ministry (short of WP:POLITICIAN, even contextually), and the scholarly work is of no impact (even contextually). If his claim to fame is belonging to the Romanian Institute of Genealogy and Heraldry "Sever Zotta" (?!), let me note that the institution itself may not be up to notability standards. As Biruitorul notes, this is the leftover cruft from a very inventive but non-encyclopedic attempt to promote a particular patrician clan, whose members were, alas, mostly non-notable as far as entries here go. Dahn (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see nothing in the article that has any chance of leading to a pass of WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 9 June 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. The article was expanded during the discussion, so the earlier "delete" opinions do not necessarily inform consensus, whereas the editors who commented subsequent to the expansion agree that the article should be kept.  Sandstein  05:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egalitarian mortality[edit]

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

"Egalitarian mortality" seems to be WP:OR by the article creator, hanging the topic on a single article that studied a limited population. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article discusses a situation in which women do not outlive men and men do not outlive women. This has been called egalitarian mortality. More can follow. It is a start not a final product. And it is more than a stub. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Article topic is not found in any reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a topic. Article creator is welcome to merge any useful content to Life expectancy on his own initiative. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
  • continuing my 'Keep' vote The references in the article demonstrate the page is neither 'Original research' nor a 'Synthesis' banned by Wikipedia, and that it is a topic found in reliable sources. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, no. This reference discusses inequality in mortality. No source discusses egalitarian mortality; a phrase you apparently made up. The original mentions, briefly, "egalitarian mortality distribution" as a way to discuss equality in mortality. Other sources at Google Scholar mention equality or egalitarianism in mortality as a part of discussions of life expectancy. There is no topic of "egalitarian mortality" taken by itself. Binksternet (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • continuing my 'Keep' vote Actually YES try using "egalitarian mortality" on Google Scholar. There are also others that discuss "quasi-egalitarian mortality". And, again NO it is not 'Original research' or 'Synthesis' as these references demonstrate. By the way, thank you for at least trying the Google Scholar search. The last reference on that search uses the phrase, "in fact, a number of studies show more gender-egalitarian mortality among the poor." So again NO to your conclusions. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • But these scholarly papers are discussing life expectancy and its variables. Sometimes life expectancy is equal between sample populations, sometimes it is not. There is no separate topic reserved for the case where life expectancy is equal.
          By the way, I'm surprised you didn't mention Logan's Run, a famous science fiction book in which mortality is forced to be the same for each individual in an over-populated world. Heh heh... Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for the light-hearted humor. I've added another section to the page dealing with what the author refers to as an 'egalitarian mortality regime'. Quite interesting. Check it out. Yes, they are discussing Life expectancy and are using the term 'egalitarian mortality' in at least two different contexts: a distribution (probably a statistical distribution to represent an 'egalitarian mortality' which is an economics term) and a point or extent of equality in mortality. Both of these are now on the page. Merging the page into the Life expectancy page; however, would dilute the impact and importance of the fact that circumstances, not random ones, produce equality in mortality and hopefully lengthy life insights. Both 'egalitarian mortality' situations described on the page are not about expectancy but are from reality. This is a subtle but important difference. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • continuing my 'Keep' vote Several points have been stated above by the 'Delete's that my recent additions to the page should demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt are not the case; i.e., some authors call 'egalitarian mortality' what others call 'mortality equality' so the page is not original research. Further, the number of references using either phrase to refer to the same or very similar phenomena is at least four. The terms are found in reliable sources, and YES it is a topic. There are some additional forms of these that I will include. But, this should suffice to allow an administrator to close this discussion with a 'Keep'. A title of 'Mortality equality' may be more aesthetically pleasing, but for now 'Egalitarian mortality' seems okay. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the page's creation on 15 May 2011, four editors have contributed. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fully abundant academic sources. The objections seem more to be in the nature of content disputes--or--even more, arguments over the validity of the concept--and such arguments have no place in WikipediaWe go by the sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG: lots of good potential sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:42, 15 June 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 00:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waveney Campus University[edit]

Waveney Campus 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)

Almost certain hoax. Waveney Campus is a planned administrative/laboratory centre/regenration project in Lowestoft with no university element - see BBC article, CEFAS press release and developer website. The article creator may be confused, although similar content was added to the Lowestoft and Waveney pages. I would have prodded it, but the article creators talk page suggests that this may be opposed so it's probably best to go through AfD instead. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but rename to University Campus Suffolk and improve. Delete It took me a while to disentangle this, but this piece in the Waveney Advertiser pointed me to the solution. The Waveney Campus scheme was abandoned at the end of 2009, and this is a different thing. --AJHingston (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that - was in a hurry as I had a visitor. Have changed my vote to delete - probably not a deliberate hoax but a confusion between a scheme that Lowestoft College were discussing (the Waveney Campus) and what actually exists. A candidate for deletion on the grounds that it is just wrong. --AJHingston (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks like a deliberate hoax (author has been blocked as a sockpuppet); in any case, it's clear that though the Waveney Campus development exists there is no suggestion of a university there. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article referred to is from 2008 and was about a planned scheme. However, it was abandoned in 2009[17]. --AJHingston (talk) 16:05, 12 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 23:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violence and sex integration[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:ESSAY. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article discusses Sex integration and violence. The violence is either associated with efforts of sex integration or as a male preserve, which sex integration demonstrates it is not. A simple Google Scholar search using "Violence" and "Sex integration" brings up some of the references and more that can be included in a 'Start' article. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources discuss this topic. Instead, it is a synthesis of various sources, none of which make the argument of the article topic. Binksternet (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the page's creation on 6 May 2010, six editors have contributed. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a disingenuous misrepresentation. Since it was nominated for deletion, only one editor, yourself, has touched it. The link you provided to E. Anderson was probably intended to be this where Anderson says his study suggests "that gender-integrating sports might potentially decrease some of the socionegative outcomes attributed to male team sport athletes, possibly including violence against women." Anderson's wishy-washy wording is not at all conclusive, and his determination comes from comparing men who remain on all-male sports teams through college to men who were on all-male teams in high school but in college they do not make the cut and instead choose to be on cheerleading squads with women. Anderson only talked to the yell leaders, not the men who stayed on all-male sports teams through college. The comparison Anderson makes, weakly, is flawed at its root: he only interviewed one side of the comparison. Even Anderson says "the results are not conclusive". I don't believe the material under discussion has enough of a topic to merit its own article. Delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for acknowledging that Violence and sex integration is a topic discussed by a reliable source and that the page is not synthesis or essay. My comment above is a fact from the 'View history' page, not a misrepresentation. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding Notability, the page has at least six reliable references that discuss the association of sex integration with violence. By Wikipedia's own standards the page is notable. Marshallsumter (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I didn't find User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Binksternet, or User:Jsfouche on the 'View history' record of editing before the nomination for deletion or a vote of 'Deletion' following the usual guidelines. May I suggest that you check 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' rather than resorting to 'Deletion' first. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Synthesis/original research. This might be a fine research paper for academic purposes, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research or for a survey/synthesis type analysis. There is no need to look at "articles not satisfying the notability guidelines" because the issue here is not notability; it is original research/synthesis. And there is no requirement that an editor must actually make an edit to the article in order to express an opinion about whether to keep it in wikipedia or delete it. BTW it looks to me as if user:Marshallsumter has produced a whole series of these "X and sex integration" articles on Wikipedia, and I doubt if any of them meet Wikipedia's rules. To repeat: Wikipedia is NOT the place to publish a research paper, an original survey/synthesis type paper, or any other academic type paper. Wikipedia is only here to report what has been said elsewhere in Reliable Sources. See WP:NOT. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There could be a topic here, but to speak quite frankly, it would need to be handled by a competent editor who can identify a scope and stick with it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Marshallsumter.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. I can imagine a whole string of similar--but I'm not writing them down, because of WP:BEANS. . DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 14 June 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 keep; nomination withdrawn ([18]) and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Creative Farm[edit]

The Creative Farm (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 does not meet the following criteria:

1.The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.

2.Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.

Their own site doesn't contain any text, either. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 14:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The website does contain text, it appeared after about 15 seconds. I am unsure about this deletion because both the page and the website state that it has offices in Brisbane and Singapore. If this can be verified by a third-party source, I believe it would meet both of your points. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, it appears that they are working with a company in the Netherlands. This can be found under the news section.Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a third party sources tag, and am willing to work on the article when I have time. I work 40 hours this week, so it may be sporadic. Ryan Vesey (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you, Ryan. I hadn't noticed that before. Wekn reven i susej eht Talk• Follow 15:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, since you were the original AfD nominator, are you withdrawing the AfD nomination? If so, it can be closed as a speedy keep. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 7 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Achieving sex integration[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS//WP:ESSAY. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep each reference discusses sex integration and its effects and counters against effects. A simple search on Google Scholar using "sex integration" and "achieving" brings up similar and some of the references. "Sex equality" is a similar term though a possible goal of sex integration. Marshallsumter (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article topic is completely absent from reliable sources. Article tone is activist in nature, not neutral, a violation of WP:NPOV. This essay should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 16:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research with neutrality and stylistic issues.

    Moving the minority sex or completely excluded sex into a social endeavor, activity, or society may succeed in achieving sex integration. In a workplace environment promoting investment in sex-neutral skills is a mechanism that may produce sex integration. Attributing relative meaning to gender or sex may transcend a belief in the reality of gender or sex so as to reduce sex segregation and dominance by exclusively males or females.

    If you can explain in English what that last sentence means, you are cleverer than me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • continuing my 'Keep' vote above The article and its references are appropriately included and are reliable authorities. The page is NPOV as it is about 'achieving sex integration'. The Google Scholar search I mentioned demonstrates the page is neither 'Original research' nor a 'Synthesis' as banned by Wikipedia. Oh, and the meaning of the last sentence is simple: using sex and gender for other than biological sex differences are generally irrelevant for most endeavors. It's from the authority referenced. Marshallsumter (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a general rule, please write in simple English when you compose text for Wikipedia. Do not obfuscate a subject, making it harder to understand than it is. If it is actually hard to understand, then complexity in the explanation can be supported. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually you are incorrect. There is a 'Simple English' Wikipedia. Hardness or easiness to understand is often in the mind of the reader. That's the beauty of the 'Discussion' page. Readers can say that something doesn't make sense to them. If you're having trouble that's the place to go. Not here. Just a suggestion. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have already swerved from this specific deletion discussion, but I feel that one clarification is in order: I was saying that you have used obfuscating English in this article, and I have seen the same in your other writings. I was asking you not to employ obfuscation in the future. It does not serve the reader. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • continuing my 'Keep' vote above The problem is not with the wording such as "Attributing relative meaning to gender or sex may transcend a belief in the reality of gender or sex so as to reduce sex segregation and dominance by exclusively males or females." but with the meaning. This phrase is a paraphrase, very close to the statement made by the author of the article from which it came. Neither I nor the author is concealing meaning, making communication confusing, ambiguous, or difficult to interpret. The author discusses Buddhism and the relative meaning of sex or gender. May I suggest that you and User:Ihcoyc check out the reference instead. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • continuing my 'Keep' vote above I've added information to the 'Achieving sex integration' page that should demonstrate it is not synthesis or essay but an encyclopedic page on 'Achieving sex integration'. It is not about what is sex integration but about causes and in some cases deliberate implementation of sex integration. The concern that the topic is absent from reliable sources should be quelled by the section 'Sex integration or sanitation'. The additional sections should also demonstrate the topic is not original research but an encyclopedic article about an area of ongoing social change or experimentation. I do not believe the POV comment is appropriate or correct. Ditto stylistic issues. While some may believe that religions deal in obfuscation, I believe they fulfill as best they can a real need. I hope this helps additional readers and any admin that stops by to hopefully confirm that the page should NOT be deleted. Marshallsumter (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike in the other AfDs for articles by this user, there actually is a topic here, but a) it's redundant to Sex integration (integration is the state of being integrated, but also the process of achieving that state) and b) it's an unsalvageable mess. Blow it up and get some other users down to Sex integration to knock that article into shape. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • continuing my 'Keep' vote above Thank you for acknowledging that Achieving sex integration is a topic. If it takes a quote from an author who differentiates Sex integration from Achieving sex integration to demonstrate that fact I am happy to oblige. Marshallsumter (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since the article's creation on 17 April 2010, nine editors and bots have contributed to the page. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only person who has touched it since it was nominated for deletion is you, and you have not materially improved it, not enough for me to change my stance from delete. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for noticing that although more than a dozen authors have discussed achieving sex integration, none of the above 'Delete'rs, has made any effort to edit at all or constructively even though the page meets Wikipedia's Notability criteria. May I suggest that you check 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' rather than resorting to 'Deletion' first. Marshallsumter (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge worthwhile content to Sex integration (assuming the latter article is felt to be viable). I cannot see that we need both articles. 86.180.160.89 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide - even for social topics like sex integration. It is uncommon to have a verb in the article's title (unless the verb is part of a proper noun) because the "how to", to the extent it is encyclopedic, should usually be part of that title's subject article (in this case sex integration). In this case sex integration is the subject and relevant content from this article should be added there. I am not supporting a merge, because this article's content is to scattered to simply incorporate it into the subject article, but (in plain English) the useful content from here should be in there. Wikipeterproject (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. "Achieving" could go before any concept at all & form a similar article. It's just an excuse for writing an essay DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 14 June 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 snow keep. BencherliteTalk 08:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence)[edit]

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) (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 sequel section on the page for the first film is the exact same text, word for word, of this page. It should be merged with it for now. As more information about the film is available, we may need to restore it but until then, I suggest deletion. Heyitsme22 (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously I should declare an interest here, I have been heavily involved in both articles, however, I should stress that I firmly feel the time has now arrived where it is suitable to have a separate article for the sequel, as the sequel has recieved a great deal of standalone news coverage in reliable sources (including The Guardian and Daily Mail) due to the banning of the film in the UK by the BBFC. Whilst I admit that when first creating the sequel article I copied and pasted bits from the first article to get things started, the sequel article now expands on the content in the first films article to an extent that would not be appropriate to include in full on the article about the first film. Interested editors should compare The Human Centipede (First Sequence)#Sequel and The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence). Regards Coolug (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article surely has enough good information to keep, no? LowSelfEstidle (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Heyitsme22 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is highly unusual for the BBFC to refuse to classify a film, and in this case the Board's reason (that it would be wrong to give a classification to a film that might contravene the Obscene Publications Act) gives this film a significance that merits its own entry. Historical notability is a prima facie criterion for Notability in Film. Sordel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep In its current form, there is plenty difference from the original article. I'm usually quick to go with WP:CRYSTAL on unreleased films etc, but that just doesn't apply here. It has more than enough coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep First banned film in the UK for a long while. Clearly notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sequel is highly notable in its own right. Pointless, perhaps; a waste of celluloid, probably; but still notable. bobrayner (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Apart from being part of a controversial and relatively well-known film trilogy, the BBFC's decision to not grade it makes it especially notable. To address the original reason for the deletion, as of 07.06.11 the comment no longer is relavant as the content is distinct. P.Marlow (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wrong. Only 4 are banned in the UK at present 129.11.77.198 (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - first banned film in the UK for a very long time. Sick yes, notable yes.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable - sequel to a very notable movie and banned in the UK. Dibs on front! 86.41.42.129 (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - notable due to UK ban coverage. hope they show it publically, would be nice to see something push the obscene pubs. act back into its outdated box 129.11.77.198 (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whether or not it's banned is tangential to whether or not we should have an article on the subject. It would be helpful to frame keeps and opposes in terms of wikipedia policy, or the deletion nomination itself. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'fraid not, it's the ban which has made it notable as per Wikipedia:Notability. 'Significant coverage' - check, BBC radio, the Independent and the Guardian already, 'Reliable' - check, 'Sources' -plenty of 2ndary sources, 'Independent' - check, 'Presumed' - ticks all of the caveats on 'What Wikipedia is not'. That it is only the 11th film banned in Britain in 98 years of the BBFC - and every other film has a page here - also ticks the presumption box. 129.11.77.198 (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The fact that it is one of only four films currently banned in the UK makes it notable right there. The reason given in the nomination—that it's the same as a section in a different article—is a silly reason. It will be edited more as time goes on.—Chowbok ☠ 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia:Notability, I came to the article from a CNN piece on the UK banning. If it is the content in dispute for being too similar to the original film's entry, then the article needs works. It has no reflection the importance of keeping the article. --DizFreak talk Contributions 01:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of independent coverage of this already. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I have nominated this article for "Did You Know" so would it be possible for a decision to be made about this article sooner rather than later? There seem to be plenty of comments, if the article is to be deleted could we get on with it and delete it, otherwise can we close this discussion? I should stress that an anonymous IP user did remove the banner from the article, but I have replaced it as I don't think wikipedia policy would have allowed that. Incidentally, over 30 thousand people viewed the article yesterday, I don't know how that deletion banner makes wikipedia look to these users. Coolug (talk) 08:52, 8 June 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 G10 / G3. A neutral, well-sourced article about the incident and resulting media reaction may be appropriate. This piece of satire is not. --B (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarah Palin Bell[edit]

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

It is utter trivia and written in an irretrievably POV style. A minor political gaffe among many political gaffes. Could be better covered (if at all) in the Palin article. A non-notable ephemeral news story. PROD was removed. Sitush (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • What seems to me as utterly trivial is trying to protect a wiki site's encyclopedic integrity when there is no encyclopedic integrity to begin with. Your attempt to destroy my wiki page will succeed only because it, like this entire site, is a joke not to be taken seriously. And your(comment above) attempt to protect the continuity of it's content is utterly pitiful. To protect that which no one can be held responsibile for is like protected a construction worker's advice on a medical procedure, it's ridiculous. To think that anyone cares about your boring self-serving criticism is laughable. You are a joke to those who are true scholars of knowledge and academic respect. Nothing you have ever contributed to this site's articles or edits will be respected or acknowledged to any level of the educated. You are a mere troll, pretending your time here means something to someone or that you indeed are contributing to something much greater than yourself. In truth, this site is pure entertainment; something to do between the hours of Facebook and Youtube. Much more insignificant than anyone wishes to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Probably nonnotable; prose in current form is irreparable in terms of POV issues even if it were. Martinp (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is satire about a politician's comments, not a description of something that actually exists. Palin's comments on Paul Revere might merit at most a couple of sentences in an existing Palin-related article, but certainly not an article like this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above.  Badgernet  ₪  14:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be two objections: (1) the discussion could be merged into Palin's page, and (2) the style is not sufficiently academic. The first objection is meritless. This page discusses a distinct issue surrounding Palin, much like the "birth certificate" issue surrounding Obama deserves a separate entry from the generic "Barack Obama" web page. The "bell" issue, all by itself, has generated so much discussion (e.g., on the stories that policitians make up, on the inability of politicians to admit mistakes, on the tendency of a politician's supporters to rally around the politician in the face of overwhelming evidence) that it deserves its own page. Thus, I strenuously disagree with Metropolitan90s comments. The fact is that the political event that this article discusses "actually exists," even if the bell does not. (By the way, using that logic, should entries for all fictional people, places, and things be deleted? Of course not.) Regarding the second objection, the tone and content of the article can be improved using traditional wikipedia processes instead of outright deleting the page. --67.200.173.53 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV drivel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whether satire, hoax or drivel - something not assuaged or cured by the creator's comments above - it is clear that this is definitely a WP:BULLSHIT case.  Ravenswing  19:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 7 June 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: recreation of speedy-deleted Prince Joél I

Prince Joél I (Joél Filsaime)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable self-proclaimed "prince" apparently with zero Google footprint: possible hoax article? The Anome (talk) 11:30, 7 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways in the United States[edit]

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

Roadcruft, pure and simple. WP:NOT says that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and yet this list is the epitome of that. Most of this list is sourced to "roadgeek" websites like aaroads.com that are not reliable sources under the Wikipedia definition of the term. The rest is pushing the definition of original research as well. Imzadi 1979 → 19:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Categorize and move the info to the respective articles. --Rschen7754 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought it was an interesting article. It doesn't seem indiscriminate to me. And it also has a lot of references. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move information from this article and any subarticles to the articles of the roads involved. Delete the list. Dough4872 03:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this list once the information is moved elsewhere. The specific examples in this list should be moved to the relevant articles. The information in the state unused highway lists should be moved to the relevant articles.  VC  04:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't move and delete. No opinion on keeping or deleting, but attribution requirements prohibit us from moving information from one article to another and then deleting the first. If we merge information from one article to another, we have to keep the first one in order to maintain a contribution history for attribution purposes. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Attribution requirements prohibit us from moving creative expressions of information, which is copyrightable and therefore needs a license, not information in and of itself, which is not copyrightable and therefore doesn't need a license. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed . Which is also why we can take information from reliable sources in the first place to write an article but can't just copy those sources wholesale. postdlf (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And if text is copied from the article directly, a listing on the talk page of the target article of the contributors to the source article also satisfies attribution, even if the source article is deleted. But if the information itself is copied without moving the exact text, i.e. an editor copies the citation and writes new text from scratch, then there's no attribution requirements. Imzadi 1979 → 13:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Move information from this article" sounds like "Copy/paste this text". Of course we don't need to keep this article for attribution purposes if we simply write a new account of the same facts in the other articles. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Impossible to maintain and adds little to no value to the encyclopedia Dave (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 16:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Imzadi 1979 → 16:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IFF (if and only if) the copyright and attribution issues can be resolved, I would not be against smerging, deleting this, and creating a category instead. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain the copyright issues that are at play in this article? The only previous mention of copyright in this discussion appears to have been brought up tangentially and already addressed.  VC  03:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, then I am in favor of a merger. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in Michigan was closed as keep. Dough4872 15:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That presents one of the problems with deleting this list alone: it functions as a list of lists for states that have their own stand-alone lists, and as a list of content for those that don't. postdlf (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do not need to delete this list the moment consensus is reached that we should delete the list. It will take time, perhaps months or years, before all the information is incorporated elsewhere. We can reach consensus now that the list should be deleted and make the appropriate preparations pursuant to that consensus.  VC  02:58, 4 June 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, Spartaz Humbug! 11:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Facilitates browsing, which is one of the purposes of an encyclopedia. There are many corresponding state articles, so this is just a guide to them plus a place for the content where specific articles have not yet been made. The abandonment of a significant highway is a public even of major environmental importance, about which there are always sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DGG's explanation for "encyclopedicity" is a good one. I also fail to understand how this list could be regarded as "indiscriminate" information - it's not like an extract from a telephone directory, its inclusion criteria are well-defined and focused. TheGrappler (talk) 16:14, 15 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 20:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australia Times[edit]

Australia Times (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 sources provided are all self-published, and I can't find any reliable sources myself. The "online newspaper" itself appears just to link to BBC articles, rather than exist as creative journalistic entity. WP:ORG. Contested prod. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 7 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 20:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia Australia[edit]

Multimedia Australia (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 sources provided are either self-published or do not mention the company, and I can not find any reliable sources myself. The article claims the "company is primarily known for its role in establishing the Software Industry Professionals", but I can't find any reliable sources for Software Industry Professionals either. Much puffery, but nothing to indicate it could meet WP:ORG. Contested prod. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A glorified web design firm with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP. John Vandenberg's search proves no reliable sources exist. LibStar (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to lack significant independent coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:48, 14 June 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. There is a strong consensus here not to delete the content of this page, although consensus is less strong on the question whether to keep this as a separate article or to merge/redirect the content to the main article. This is not a question to be decided at AFD though, so this discussion can be closed with the advice to take the discussion whether to redirect and/or merge the content to the article's talk page. Regards SoWhy 20:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Weiner sexting scandal[edit]

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

PRODded on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS. PROD was heavily contested. This nomination should not be taken as a vote on my part for deletion; I am listing as an AFD because the PROD was heavily contested. —Lowellian (reply) 10:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The PROD was "heavily contested", but if you read the talk page where IP's stated their reason... well, you can see they aren't exactly using the soundest arguments. My favorites are to keep "because subject is news" and "This page should not be speedy deleted because it's about a penis, which is fucking hilarious!" Those are direct quotes. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The page has evolved into an amplification of base facts in the main article rather than just a reiteration of those facts. As such, it serves two useful purposes: to keep the main article concise and to provide specific details fundamental to the base facts.--WriterIN (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is getting more than minimal traction, and because it is a unique case, is very likely to have a lasting effect. The event has gotten bigger than being just news at this point. As for the PROD, if you don't think it should be deleted, then you shouldn't be listing it at AFD. PRODs are for uncontested deletions. If it is contested, let someone who really wants it to go to AFD to send it. Dennis Brown (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This page should redirect to Anthony Weiner because it does not expand upon, detail or improve information within the biography of the congressman. Have a look at John_Edwards_extramarital_affair and tell me that this scandal passes WP:NOTSCANDAL. John Edwards was just indicted by a federal grand jury. His name yields about 10,000 hits in Google news.[19]. Anthony Weiner's name yields about 5,000 hits in Google news.[20] The term "Weinergate" yields about 500 hits in Google news.[21] Let's please have some sense of proportion regarding notability. So far there is nothing that can be said in this article that can't in the main article. Furthermore, there hasn't been enough time to see how it will affect his career, whether there will be lasting effects how political leaders use the internet and social media. All the things people are clamoring for is in the context of Wikipedia, either original research or looking into a crystal ball. I also think the article would be use by editors pushing a certain point of view, whether this is people giving a coatrack to his critics or trying to downplay the scandal. It's just too soon to see how it all plays out, and we can't see the future. Wikipedia isn't a current events newswire. There are plenty of places to go for up to the minute news, punditry, and editorializing, but Wikipedia isn't it. Have some patience. Given time, the implications of this scandal will be made clear. If they are far-reaching beyond his marriage and career, then a separate article will be appropriate. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSCANDAL deals with rumormongering and hearsay. But no one denies the central facts of the case, the nature of the published photos, or that Weiner himself held a press conference to admit his actions. Hardly rumors and hearsay. μηδείς (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTSCANDAL also reads, "Articles should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." It is clear, particularly with the expansion at the Weiner bio to include a section about "responses" that the intention is to pile punditry. Noting Minority Leader Pelosi's pledge to seek an investigation is appropriate, and there may be some other notable response or there may not be. The point is that we are condoning the creation of articles and sections in advance of the things actually justifying those things. So people will start filling them in with all the inanity they can cite, because there's a section for it, or a whole article page and they want to remove the "stub" tag, rather than because this is actually materially relevant to concise encyclopedic coverage of what happened and the result. At the moment, this is simply a scandal about sending photos and other communication between people who had never met. We make it more after it becomes more, not before. Abrazame (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Political commentators in various news organizations seem to be of the collective opinion that this event has already changed the landscape of the New York City mayoral election, 2013 (see below). That makes it notable. The content you're complaining about can be fixed by editing. We're only debating here whether the article stays, or not. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, but they had all those political commentators in ostensibly to talk about Romney entering the race yet with all this recentism what the hell else at various news organizations did they get asked this week? I'd like to hear their collective opinion about a 2013 mayoral election some time in 2012; in mid 2011, it's idle speculation and not even remotely a serious argument for encyclopedic notability. As others have said, if it becomes that, then we can deal with it that way at that point down the road. Abrazame (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's flippant to call the analysis of multiple political commentators in the mainstream media "idle speculation". The standard you're setting here is to effectively "prove a negative". Say he doesn't run. Short of him saying that he didn't run because of this scandal (which he would be highly unlikely to do), one couldn't prove that was the reason. Say he does run and looses. Again, would be hard-pressed to proove it was because of this. I think what we're saying here is that there are many WP:RS from professionals that now agree that this event has changed the landscape of the New York City mayoral election, 2013, and that is notable. Agricola44 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
There's no question that this particular matter of Weiner's life and career is a wp:standalone subject and is definitely "wp:notable". And appealing to "WP:SCANDAL" is silly, as the policy on that clearly says "scandal mongering from stuff heard through the grapevine" and should not be "libelous" etc. This is not libelous at all, but simply factual summation of what's happened, and what's involved. If other sex scandals involving politicians have their own articles (which they do) there's no reason at all for this one not to exist. This is NOT just a news story, but has become an actual "topic". Bigger and separate than just Weiner's life or career in general. This situation is overwhelmingly sourced (reliably), and is definitely a separate and stand-alone topic. Not just regular "news", but an actual topic now. Deserving its own separate WP article. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Promulgating the musing that this may affect his chances in a future election he has not yet declared himself to be running in is WP:CRYSTAL based on recentist speculation the very day of his admission. They're allowed to go on TV and fill a 20-minute segment (and another, and another, and...) with it, but we're supposed to consider only what is encyclopedic, and only after it has happened. In a WP:BLP it is an attack to the person's reputation to say that some episode may or has been said could possibly or think likely to damage his prospects for some future election. I find it absurd to say we would have to "prove a negative", because the point here is that, should he run and lose, or should he not run, at that point in time there will be someone who will opine that the reason for this was, to whatever degree, this scandal, and then we might well include that. Because we will not be promoting a prediction, we will be attributing notably sourced opinions on causality to an historical event. There would likely be polls by then, for example, or at least exit polling, where we could learn X% expressed this as having changed their opinion of his fitness for service, while X% said they were happy with his service and thought this no reason to vote for the other guy. So their opinion wouldn't be idle speculation, but based in what the electorate of Weiner's district actually did, and what they said about why they did it. Yesterday morning, C-SPAN had an hour or so of Democrat and Independent NY callers (those already not inclined against him in the abstract), where only three callers expressed that they would not now vote for him. Then they opened the calls up to the whole country and there were plenty of Southern Republicans who found this grounds for impeachment. I don't think the jury is in on Weiner's electability, and I don't think it's encyclopedically responsible for us to present one, or even both, sides of that question until there is some historical perspective, like not being two years ahead of the thing. Abrazame (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't say that this will necessarily "damage his prospects". Even if others have said that, that's not my point. But that just as the situation stands NOW, it's a stand-alone topic, and copiously sourced. Something that is arguably bigger and more separate than just Anthony Weiner or his life. It's a separate situation, and quite notable. As it stands now. Regardless of what may happen in the future regarding it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, has no wider significance outside of his own career. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - The original article Anthony Weiner is still short enough to absorb the everything there is to say about the subject without giving undue weight. In my searches of the subject I have not been able to find enough additional information that comes from reliable sources that would expand the current subject much beyond what it says at this point. At such time that the article is reaching 100k of readable prose then the article should be split into subsections. We gain nothing from splitting this off now. GB fan (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - Looking at the new information and the arguments on this page, There is information that should be merged back into the Anthony Weiner and then this should be redirected back there. GB fan (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:SNOW. Fulfills all criteria. The article has so much room for expansion and shouldn't be judged by how it compares to what's on Anthony Weiner's biographical page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • When there are two redirects and two keeps (including your vote), the AfD is far below criteria for a SNOW close. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. This is a blurb in Weiner's biography, but there is no indication this needs a separate page. In fact, it should be noted that there was clear consensus not to create a fork for this on Talk:Anthony Weiner, but someone went ahead and did it anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect this page It is simply copying what is already on Weiner's page.--Politicsislife (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though the article title leaves something to be desired. I'm something of an eventualist ... it's eventually going to have an article, so why bother deleting it? See Mark Foley congressional page incident, Larry Craig scandal. --B (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So through your crystal ball, you're sure this will reach those same levels? – Muboshgu (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Mark Foley article was created the day after the story broke. [22] --B (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument doesn't work. That was Foley messing around with underage congressional pages, this is Weiner sexting some randoms. Foley's situation contributed to the 2006 election results, including the loss of Foley's seat. There is no indication this event is anything more than a blip in Weiner's career. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you were able to predict the day after the scandal broke that Foleygate would contribute to the 2006 election results? --B (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Foley scandal may or may not be a good model for this, but the distinction is that the allegation about Foley was that he invited an under-age subordinate to his home in exchange for oral sex, among a pattern of other such incidents including asking teens to send him a picture of their erect penis. Beyond the obvious illegality and abuse of power there that is not present in the Weiner scandal is the fact that, as it says in that article which I've just for the first time clicked on now, "Foley was chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which introduced legislation targeting sexual predators". Abrazame (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This can affect a popular and potential New York City Mayoral candidate's political career's future. Why this is even on the deletion policy is beyond me, but then again, Wikipedia took weeks to rename the Libya War article to Libyan Civil War, so I've come to expect this. This is a newsworthy story, and there will be an ethics committeee investigation. This is big. --24.192.70.167 (talk) 13:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is going to be an investigation, and will decide the future of Anthony Weiner. We all know this. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CRYSTAL, and tell David Vitter that a sex scandal will decide his future. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you read WP:CRYSTAL? It says that we don't include speculative content in articles, nor do we include articles about purely speculative topics. It does NOT by any remote stretch of the imagination state that Wikipedians cannot use speculation in formulating their own opinions about what articles we should retain. Rather, attempting to weigh the historical significance of a topic is exactly what we should be doing. --B (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pelosi has confirmed that there WILL be an investigation. [23] --RaptorHunter (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where WP:CRYSTAL comes in, as I'm disappointed in editors for ignoring, is not in whether there will be an investigation, but in User:Muboshgu's personal conclusion not only that it "will decide the future of Anthony Weiner," but his projection of this personal speculation on everyone else with "We all know this". What we all ought to know is that there was an investigation about Charlie Rangel that ran for a couple of years, he received an unusually stiff sentence, and that sentence was largely limited to being reprimanded on the House floor. Rangel won re-election with 80% of the vote. Rangel's district is a stone's throw from Weiner's. Yesterday morning Democrat and Independent callers to C-SPAN overwhelmingly supported Weiner. Maybe we didn't all know this, and that's why so many of us are so insistent upon inserting negative speculation about the future? Or maybe we did, and some of us are POV-ing this into these articles in the hopes of turning the tide against him. Abrazame (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Basing a vote you call "strong keep" on the phrase "...an investigation...will decide the future of Anthony Weiner. We all know this" is not at all a strong justification, and that is what is WP:CRYSTAL. We might all have assumed the long-married, family values Republican Vitter going to prostitutes would have ended his career too; we'd have been wrong. And that's the point. Say what it was that happened, and leave the soothsaying and the punditry for the talk shows. Abrazame (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a merge discussion on the talk page. Yes this is a news story, and for me, it falls somewhere on the edge between the tabloidy stuff that WP:NOTNEWS suggests be deleted, and a legitimate encyclopedic topic. For now, I just don't think there's enough for any sort of distinct article, and would be best covered under Wiener's own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge without prejudice The only real question is, is there too much info for the main article. IMHO it's right on the borderline at the moment. If we merge it back it should be with the understanding that it's likely (although not a certainty) that further developments will require the article to be re-broken out to allow for expansion.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Those who continue to cite WP:NOTNEWS should understand that blurb is meant to cover "breaking news", or one time coverage. In this case, this story has been enduring and there is way more then breaking news coverage to sufficiently create an article. According to WP:NEWSEVENT this article fits into inclusion criteria number 2: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" -Marcusmax(speak) 14:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect - Far from notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia page. Does it have consequences beyond what might happen to Rep. Weiner in the future? If no, then the incident should be covered on Weiner's page. Educatedseacucumber (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article will continue to expand with the ongoing fallout from Weiner's wiener.--RaptorHunter (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:NEWSEVENT. This has even been heavily covered internationally not just in the US due to all the trouble Twitter is involved with. IJA (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:SNOW.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect - Anthony Weiner photo scandal doesn't have enough useful information to merit its own article. I say it should be redirected to Anthony Weiner#Twitter photo scandal. The same should be done for Weinergate, which is how I found Anthony Weiner photo scandal in the first place. Macai (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NOTNEWS, and due to BLP concerns. This is an event which may merit mention in the subjects biography, but there is no indication (yet) that this will be notable in its own right. In the meanwhile, BLP trumps eventualism. Martinp (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event is currently receiving too much news coverage to justify deleting it at this time. I decided to check and see how much coverage it is receiving on Google News. I found that the current lead story there is "Will constitutents forgive Weiner?" (from CNN International), and below that it says "See all 2,507 sources". If the coverage dies down and Weiner experiences no long-term repercussions from this event, then we can consider merging this article back into Anthony Weiner later on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The question is, does this have any significance beyond his own career. Thus far, no evidence of that at all. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If not, then as a second choice, merge the entire article into Anthony Weiner. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Just another minor incident relating to a Representative. Deserves a paragraph on his own article. —Diiscool (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was neutral, the only argument that made any sense was merge, but the verifiable information is now too much to justify cramming into the weiner article. μηδείς (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This has become pretty huge, I think. Perhaps a merge, later, but for right now I think it should be kept. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP - per SNOW. How silly that this is even being considered for deletion. Come now ... really? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. This is way past WP:NOTNEWS already and is now affecting the political landscape. For example, The Washington Post ran an article today in which Jason Horowitz says that the event "is a devastating blow to Weiner’s mayoral ambitions in New York, which seemed highly realistic only a few days ago". I think it's nonsense to claim that an event that affects the leadership of NYC in a fundamental way is not notable on its own – uncontroversial "keep". Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • In another article at CBS news, Chris Smith, a columnist at New York magazine said "I think his chances of running for Mayor are zero. It's pretty simple. He was the frontrunner until two weeks ago". Seems pretty conclusive that political commentators collectively believe that the NYC political landscape has already been changed by this specific event, nevermind that Weiner may ultimately be forced to resign his current post, as well. Agricola44 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep This is a historically significant scandal in that it is one of the first where Twitter is central, and it also illustrates the perils of the "I've been hacked" defense. We also have a US Congressman lying repeatedly, and a pending investigation by the US House. There are multiple people involved now, and is just too large to include in his biography. By any reasonable standard this article should be kept, and the improvements over the last few hours suggest there is plenty of verifiable info to include. Tbear1234 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This will occupy the attention of the US political media and blogosphere for maybe two weeks. Come the dawn, it will be as forgotten as Earl Butz's joke, or Wilbur Mills making like Anita Ekberg in a Washington fountain. Probably merits coverage in Anthony Wiener, but not a standalone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's precedent. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Fully notable, but requires expansion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efcmagnew (talk • contribs) 17:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect Not everything that happens in the world is a universe unto itself, despite how many media outlets depend upon their audience to be inclined or lured to that impression by hourly updates every day of the week. If what we know now is basically all there is, a handful of lewd extramarital flirtations, then editors should not be allowed to breathlessly anticipate it becoming more than that. And if what we know now is not the whole story, it won't be for lack of a Wikipedia article devoted to the subject that we'd learn this. We're not here to break tabloid news, we're here to write a brief encyclopedic coverage of notables. Material already tells us "ABC News also reported the identity of another of Weiner's social media contacts..." This is the sort of unnecessary, unencyclopedic, tabloidesque elaboration that its own article begs us to include. Shame on ABC News for either violating the woman's privacy or giving her a platform to instant smarmy infamy, whichever the case may be, but that isn't the point about how an encyclopedia ought to present the information. When all is said and done, if one of these women becomes Jessica Hahn, posing in Penthouse, then we can present that. When all is said and done if one of these women is driven to suicide because of the attention, then God help us we wouldn't be party to that ahead of the fact. But while the basic facts are clearly relevant to Weiner biographically, this sort of excess, dripping with prurience and laden with attack, is the sort of things guidelines should be helping us responsibly minimize, not spin off into its own ever-expanding universe. Abrazame (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where's the attack? What makes it less notable than the John Edwards scandal, where no laws were broken in either incident?Efcmagnew (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, John Edwards faces thirty years in prison. Liberal Classic (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not to chime in here too much, but as far as what you said about Edwards, it's argued by experts that he probably did NOT break any laws, and that this is just prosecutorial over-reach. Just because he was indicted or whatever, does not mean Edwards technically broke any laws. He may actually NOT have. And many legal experts don't think he really did. The issue, as the other editor below stated, is that there was already a separate WP article on the Edwards sex scandal way before (years before) any indictment...that only recently happened, and that is arguably flimsy. It's yet to be really proven that Edwards broke any laws. And it doesn't matter, his whole thing with Hunter warranted a stand-alone WP article, either way, as does this whole Weiner scandal. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to correct this line of debate. The Edwards indictment came only a few days ago and could hardly be more recent. The Edwards scandal article was created here on WP in August 2008 – the same time Edwards "came clean" to the public and almost 3 years before indictment. The corresponding timing of these WP articles to their respective events are remarkably similar. Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
        • The above comments clear up my previous comment, I hadn't worded it well. The act of cheating on a spouse isn't illegal, and the John Edwards page existed long before the ethics allegations arose. Of course, that page was nominated unfoundedly for deletion just like this one, but a better parallel argument as far as notability goes for this page would be the Larry Craig scandal article. Cheers Efcmagnew (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it has taken this long for all the ramifications of Edwards' scandal to emerge and be covered by secondary sources. His scandal page has a single paragraph documenting the grand jury indictment. As far as the Weiner scandal on the other hand, Wikipedia has become a part of the media circus. Instead of documenting the event dispassionately, editors have gotten wrapped up in the frenzy and as a result the article has lost objectivity. This is has been the sum of my argument on the talk page for Weiner's bio, the talk page for the article, and this AfD. I'd be willing to change my vote to keep, except the Weinergate article is too tabloidesque. I call it a POV fork because the scandal section in the main bio article was much better regulated. Liberal Classic (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, but no. There were numerous sources in the original version of the Edwards article, which was quite lengthy, just as there are numerous ones for this article. Edwards' newfound indictment has been totally irrelevant to the existence of that article for its almost 3-year history. Again, the histories of these two articles in relation to the events they actually document are remarkably similar, which further supports the argument that this one should be kept. Agricola44 (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
              • With all due respect, the allegations were first published by the Enquirer the year before that article was created, and the news broke in the mainstream press the previous week. This fork was started within hours of Weiner's admission. The point about the grand jury indictment is that it takes years for everything to play out. The felony charges are the result of a long investigation and are themselves important news, yet they only rate a paragraph in the scandal article. All I am saying in all most posts on this topic is to be cautious, pay careful attention to BLP (both for Weiner and his online paramours), NPOV, etc. Things that editors are not doing, IMO. The scandal section in the main bio article was well-regulated, but once the POV fork started it got way out of control. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 17:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Thanks for clarification, but it sounds distinctly to me that your concerns are more with the content of the article, rather than its existence. In my mind, it doesn't make a whole bunch of difference how soon beforehand the story broke. That is, we don't have any policy-based waiting period, as far as I'm aware. It only matters whether there are sources, and there are indeed many here. Would you agree? I think it's critically important that the WP article be accurate and not written so as to feed reader prurience, but the fact that there are so many sources in mainstream media make it very difficult to explain away the claim this article makes for existence. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    • You seem to be making essentially a moral argument for deletion rather than one based on the notability of the subject. Agricola44 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
      • If that's the way it seems to you, then I invite you to re-read my comments immediately above and throughout this discussion. The argument against giving this its own article is to prevent excessive tabloid detail from making us get out in front of the encyclopedic aspect of this story. Throughout these comments, people are expressing their mistaken and unencyclopedic opinions that because this is major news for a couple of weeks, then it deserves its own article, contrary to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Throughout these comments, people express their mistaken impression that it is encyclopedically notable or appropriate to print speculation about Weiner's future electability, contrary to WP:BLP and WP:CRYSTAL — as well as WP:RECENTISM, because the very day he admits to sending a lewd photo this opinion is dispensed, with absolutely no regard to the opinion of Weiner's electorate and two years in advance of the election in question. This is getting out ahead of a story, and the only possible benefit to presenting such a prediction now seems itself to be a moral argument against electability. Why else would someone say such a thing when there are two years for somewhat liberal NYC voters to digest this? What else but the sexual morality aspect would cause someone say such a thing when Charlie Rangel, after a major two-year investigation that resulted in the very strong (for the House) punishment of public censure, won reelection with 80% of the vote in a district a stone's throw from Weiner's? Indeed, your comment about morality judgments seems to say more about the arguments for this page than the argument against. The notable aspects of this at this time before such findings as the investigation may result in, and before the next election, can be covered in two paragraphs at Weiner's bio. The rest, and I submit the article as it stands at the moment, even prior to what people pile on about other photos and the lives of the women in question, is encyclopedically extraneous and irresponsible, and seems to exist more to delve into unencyclopedic aspects of the story rather than to ensure a cogent and NPOV coverage of why this episode is an encyclopedically notable chapter of Weiner's public life. Abrazame (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comment is clear to anyone who reads it, professor. Statements like "Shame on ABC News for either violating the woman's privacy" and "if one of these women is driven to suicide because of the attention, then God help us" are moral imperatives to delete this article. Do you have any substantive, on topic argument regarding the subject's notability? That is the only issue for debate here. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
          • Violation of privacy and warning against linking to articles that give the name of people who did not choose to be public figures — much less boasting proudly in article text about such naming — are against the policies of Wikipedia and the editorial responsibilities at an encyclopedia, and your focus on the moral aspect of that rather than the legal and encyclopedic ones is either persistent myopia or purposeful obfuscation. As you go on to write "Do you have any substantive, on topic argument" despite the fact that I linked several other policies in the above comment and elsewhere is equally tone-deaf. Helpful to the discussion would be if you would respond to the substantive arguments and ignore what you perceive as the moralism, rather than responding to your perception of the moralism and feigning blindness to the substantive arguments. Abrazame (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I feel the same about your (in)ability to hear and I'm trying to understand all those large words:) It's crucial that you understand that it is not we who are violating privacy. The "players" in this episode have all already been copiously documented by the mainstream media. That means there are sources, which is what is need and which demonstrate nobility. That is the crux. None of this is WP:OR, but rather WP:RS, as required by policy. Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
              • It's crucial that you understand that we do not have to note that the woman's name has been reported, nor link to a source that does so, just because that source has done so. By doing so, we have become part of the problem, and we have become one of the players, not some time after the fact with some encyclopedic perspective, but breathlessly for no good or considered reason as soon as somebody throws it up the same day, adding to the tide of hits and directing traffic to that kind of aspect. Do you all really think that the crux, and the only threshold for us, and the arbiter of encyclopedic notability, is that some reliable source caught up in the thrall of the media circus has reported it? That is not at all so; no responsible editor is going to "hear" this your way in that regard. Abrazame (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Back to arguing morals again, I see. If you don't like that part of the content, then be bold and remove it. You are still not making any sort of the convincing argument against the existence of the article itself. Agricola44 (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - A couple days ago I could see the NOTNEWS argument. At a certain point these things gain critical mass as historical events. This one is getting close to that. There's not a good solution, if the info is integrated into his biography the latter will capsize. Grit teeth and keep, I suppose. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect. As the guidelines instructs us, "This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a recently created article with no relevant page history that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within the existing article(s) on the subject, Anthony Weiner." This is pretty much the poster child of an A10. A completely identical re-pasting of an existing article. After it failed to garner consensus support on the AW page, to boot. This page was created in the face of lack of support for it at the Anthony Weiner talk page. Very poor form on the part of the creator, as he was apparently aware of that -- having posted to that discussion. In addition to deletion (for the moment, at least), a TROUTING is in order. wp:consensus is a core principle of the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is now no longer an exact/identical cut-and-paste of the AW article, as it was initially. It was not appropriate to keep in the form that it was originally created, but is appropriate to keep at this point in time.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to have no problem with support here. Running about 2 to 1 at the moment for "keep". I don't think we're debating the creator's motivation or form here either. Agricola44 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:NEWSEVENT. The event is now much bigger than just Weiner. it is involving Yfrog and Twitter spokesmen weighing in on their security. There is also the involvement of Breitbart, and of ABC news obtaining the story weeks earlier and obtaining a "license" (and possibly paying a fee) for information and images from at least one of the women involved. Coupled with an ethics probe and possible misuse of government property, this is now beyond of the scope of a generic Anthony Weiner article. Dwcarless (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only eleven listings for it? That doesn't seem like nearly enough. --B (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, essentially agree with above comments stated quite well by Dwcarless (talk · contribs), Efcmagnew (talk · contribs), Tbear1234 (talk · contribs), and Agricola44 (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable story, despite its complete vacuous nature. I wonder what Tarc thinks about this one, honestly.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The content of the child article remains substantially the same as that of the section from the parent article. There's virtually no new information presented in the fork, and almost all the citations in the child already exist in the parent. About the only real difference in the inclusion of conservative publisher and commentator Andrew Breitbart. This is why I make the case this scandal is adequately represented in the congressman's bio. It isn't that the scandal isn't notable. It is. But there hasn't been enough time for the fallout from the scandal to have hit secondary sources yet. WP:BLP holds articles to a higher standard, one that I fear this article does not meet. I recognize I am in the minority here, but currently I feel the article is kind of coatracky. Best wishes, Liberal Classic (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has only existed for a day. The fact that it hasn't yet grown much beyond a stub isn't a reason in and of itself to delete it. --B (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To the contrary, that the child article is a copy of the content from the section in the parent article is an adequate reason to delete it. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's how forks start. Articles start off small. They grow. If the child article hasn't been expanded in a month, then you will have a reasonable argument. In any event, from eyeballing it, the child article looks like it is about twice as long as the corresponding section in the parent article as of right now. Also, having the child article would allow some of the content to be removed from the parent article. The parent article is a BLP and this one incident in Weiner's life should not consume his BLP. --B (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • The child article is fluffed up like a high-school book report. :) In my opinion, it doesn't look like his biography is overpowered by the inclusion of the scandal. There's only so much Wikipedia can say on the scandal at this juncture. But if people insist on a Weinergate article, the parent section ought to be trimmed down to a paragraph and the child needs considerable tightening up to about what the parent section looks like now. I really think WP:RECENT and WP:10YT apply here. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Totally agree with LiberalClassic here. The argument by User:B that "The article has only existed for a day" is precisely the reason it does not belong here. The article was created the same day Weiner admitted to sending lewd photos to a handful of adult women. The article was created with the same material in the parent article, and has only been padded with unencyclopedic elaboration that serves to very irresponsibly give details about these women that are not helpful to an understanding of the issue. Standing on its own at this point, this article is begging to violate the privacy of those women, some of whom have already stated that they do not welcome the attention of the national and social media. Until such time as an investigation may submit its findings and recommendations, and barring any fundamental change or development in the story (not as in merely, ooh, there's another photo, or we've learned the identity of another sexting partner), this is not served by fluffing this up to appear bigger than it is, no pun intended. Abrazame (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP This event is historic and needs proper documentation in Wikipedia as a stand-alone article. Keep it non-partisan, well-referenced, and fact-based.... but keep it. All arguments for deletion are very suspect and seriously jeopardize Wikipedia's reputation as a balanced source for facts on ALL subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.84.201 (talk • contribs) 15:46, 7 June 2011
  • Keep This a very notable event, concerning a sitting member of the U.S. House of Representatives. the existence of this page is consistent with precedent and most of the relevant policy. In addition, with increasing press coverage, the article and the main article will likely see a significant uptick in hits as the Weinergate scandal unfolds. Ronk01 talk 21:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-it is in the Public interest to be informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.150.206 (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This event easily meets all the criteria for WP:EVENT as a Keep. The votes above other-than-Keep are assertions and not argued at all. Recall what notable actually means here: third party coverage in reliable sources WP:GNG. I call WP:SNOW on this. If there was a persuasive case to be made for other than Keep, it would have been made already. patsw (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree, WP:SNOW this one. Approx. 70% Keep with some very persuasive policy- and precedent-based arguments to that point, and no strong arguments for delete. Ronk01 talk 23:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But the article is useless without pics! ;-) 67.187.111.177 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a perfect example of what is motivating so much of these "Keep" votes, and precisely what is unencyclopedic about the prurient desire to delve deeper into the smarmy, porny aspect for its own sake. There are other places on the web to see the penises of famous men. Abrazame (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why we would be any more nor less likely to include the photo in a standalone article than we would in the appropriate section of the main Anthony Weiner article. I don't think we need to include the photo anywhere (see WP:NFCC#8 - the lack of a weiner pic is not detrimental to the reader's understanding) but someone who just wants to show the photo can make their case at Anthony Weiner - you don't need a separate article for that. --B (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not like scandal articles, but they exist on WP, and so that must be weighed to a certain extent. The issue thus devolves on notability - and right now this has been covered in the worldwide press, not just the US. That said, the article should be written with BLP in mind at all times (I think my sole edit there shows my position). Collect (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep same as Bigotsgate - *cough* *cough* welcome to wonkyipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To expand the KEEP above with reasoning:

WP:NEWSEVENT applies rather then WP:NOTNEWS because the inclusion criteria WP:INDEPTH and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE apply.
WP:NOTCENSORED is of importance because the material belongs somewhere and due to the amount of referenced material is will not fit into the Anthony Weiner article.
WP:NotEarly applies, anything less could imply CENSORship and political conflict of interest as appeared to occur with Bigotsgate. AFD to run 7 full days and not less(unless SNOW applies). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bigotsgate (this is the first I've heard of that—I did see the Brown comments about the woman on CNN) — which links to a section of an article about an election and not its own article (for those who don't understand) — was an issue of a pattern of comments by a number of elected officials specifically about their own constituencies. Those statements go directly to the state of mind about the obligation or lack thereof they perceive they have to these people as their elected public representatives. This story has absolutely none of that relevancy to service element. Similarly, if the argument is that we need to examine the ways that technology like e-mails or social media like Twitter is not as private as their users in the public eye seem to believe, then that should be the article, as Bigotsgate was not specifically about one person's comments precisely because none of those comments was in and of itself relevant beyond their own biography, but when taken as a whole were perceived to be a significant phenomenon, sign-of-the-times, political attitude, or what-have-you. Because if there were a broader article about some encyclopedically responsible analysis of this aspect of the Weiner sexting scandal as part of a broader look at these issues of the publicness of e-mails, texts and social media, then I'd be all for that. Show me where to support that kind of approach. But that's not specifically relevant to this one scandal alone, and is not the raison d'etre for this article, which exists to provide sordid details that are not materially relevant, in the interest of prurience and political smearing. To WP:NOTCENSORED, what element currently or likely to go into this subject's own article do you think has been or is likely to be censored from its coverage in the biography? Isn't that the point of WP:COATRACK, that the encyclopedia is only supposed to cover the encyclopedically responsible aspect of the story, and not spin it off to be piled with every sordid detail and self-interested response? Just what material is it that you believe "belongs somewhere" but was not at the bio? Abrazame (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe much of the photo scandal articles content isn't required gain consensus and get it removed from the article. If that happened I may support a merge. I doubt you would get consensus for removal of content and hence the article can't be merged. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You haven't answered my question. You seem like a fairly neutral individual who also happens to have some personal perspective to bring to bear on a scandal AfD/merge. What of the material at that article that you believe is really essential to an understanding of this issue do you think is inappropriate or unlikely to be added to the bio in the event of an article deletion? Don't misunderstand, I don't mean what excessive detail or redundant treatment, I mean what essential and relevant element? Abrazame (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per what was mentioned above. It's now clear that this is an event that will be discussed and refereed for some time and is (obviously) highly notable. The article has already grown large enough that merging back into Anthony Weiner is pointless, a merge out of this information is inevitable. Based on the information gleened for the Larry Craig article, expect the article will expand, maybe even double in size (and still be properly references to reliable news sources). Danski14(talk) 00:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Per reasons given above by others. Michael5046 (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is of a much lower importance than Arnold_Schwarzenegger#Infidelity Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Anthony Weiner --The Σ talkcontribs 02:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion is not a vote. Please explain the reasoning behind your suggestion. Quigley (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's notable, but not enough for its own article, and should therefore have a paragraph or a section in the representative's article. --The Σ talkcontribs 01:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article does not describe a one-day news event; the subject is a complex case with long-lasting implications that are just starting to be studied about the effects of social media, sexting, and network security on political careers. A relevant recent precedent for keeping this article can be found on the AfD for the Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case. Quigley (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's absurd! DSK was accused of rape, picked out of a lineup, charged with the crime, held at Riker's Island, paid a $6 million bail, prevented from leaving the country, forced to take up residence in NYC to stand a criminal trial, and, oh yes, stripped of his job and forced to abandon his hopes for the presidency of France, for which he was considered a shoo-in. Do you really see the argument for an article to cover all of those monumental developments as akin to Weiner sexting smutty photos of himself? Please, someone, tell me that Wikipedians have a more rational perspective on the relative encyclopedic notability. The very corollary is POV in that you're connecting a violent crime punishable by 20 years in prison with a skeezy habit of texting raunchy photos to women who are not your wife. There will unquestionably be a trial of DSK, which will either exculpate or convict him. The sort of ethics investigation that the House of Representatives does is not at all the same sort of adjudication; even those that find wrongdoing end with a slap on the wrist that has no affect on electability much less legal consequences like prison. Further, unlike a public criminal trial, ethics investigations are largely sealed until the final decision, and even then they remain sealed unless the subject wants to contest them. Meaning that it is likely that we will learn little to nothing about the House investigation, again, entirely night and day from DSK's criminal trial. Abrazame (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The AfD was argued and closed as keep before the trial, lineup, Riker's Island, $6 million bail, or any of that. The community was able to sniff out a lasting story then, and it is able to sniff out a lasting story now. Quigley (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The community" is not always right about these things, but perhaps you would humor me on the relevant aspect you only hint at here: what precisely is the lasting aspect of a story that involves no crime, has no victim, and for which investigation there can be only symbolic punishment? And I don't believe the DSK AfD could have been before the lineup, because that was pretty much the first night's detail. "He raped me" — accusation of major crime the same day it happened — then take him into custody by pulling him off a plane bound for Europe — arrest the same day it happened — then question him and put him in a lineup — and presumably hold him overnight in a cell — or do I have that first day's events wrong? I didn't participate in any way in that article or AfD, but that's the story from the first day as I remember it. Even when you take this from the first day of Weiner's admission, you have the sexting of lewd pictures denied, then admitted to, including e-mail and phone contact; then you have Pelosi calling for an investigation; then you have nothing but yammering and jokes and invasions of privacy of the women in question. Abrazame (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I personally think the issue is stupid and not worthy of news coverage--that doesn't matter because it DOES have the news coverage, and that coverage is extensive in reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nancy Pelosi (the most prominent Representative of Weiner's own party) is calling for a formal investigation, which is evidence that this issue has gained significant traction and thus I see no need to speculate as per WP:CRYSTAL - this has already become a major scandal deserving of an article. Kansan (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: There's no question that this particular matter of Weiner's life and career is a wp:standalone subject and is definitely "wp:notable". And appealing to "WP:SCANDAL" is silly, as the policy on that clearly says "scandal mongering from stuff heard through the grapevine" and should not be "libelous" etc. This is not libelous at all, but simply factual summation of what's happened, and what's involved. If other sex scandals involving politicians have their own articles (which they do) there's no reason at all for this one not to exist. This is NOT just a news story, but has become an actual "topic". Bigger and separate than just Weiner's life or career in general. This situation is overwhelmingly sourced (reliably), and is definitely a separate and stand-alone topic. Not just regular "news", but an actual topic now. Deserving its own separate WP article. Hashem sfarim (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I already !voted Delete above). While clearly there are more Keep voices in this debate, in many cases the rationales they provide are quite flimsy and in fact are perfect arguments for Deleting instead. Some examples: "can affect a popular and potential New York City Mayoral candidate's political career's future" and "Will decide the future of Anthony Weiner. We all know this" → actually an argument for deletion (CRYSTAL, BLP). "This article will continue to expand with the ongoing fallout", "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" (quote from policy) → the operative word is "afterwards", for now claims of lasting significance are WP:CRYSTAL. "Obviously notable story" and "This event is currently receiving too much news coverage to justify deleting it at this time." → we are an encyclopedia of notable topics, not a news aggregator service of notable stories. Finally, "WP:SNOW" - clearly not applicable, given there is a significant minority of voices arguing deletion. That is why we discuss something for a period of time. Martinp (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You said that "WP:SNOW" is clearly not applicable here. That is so silly. Yes, "WP:SNOW" is CLEARLY and unmistakably applicable here, because let's face it, there is NOT a snowball's chance in hell that this article will get deleted. Who are we kidding here? The vast majority (WP:CONSENSUS) have voiced clearly (giving irrefutable reasons) why this topic is stand-alone, notable, overwhelmingly sourced, and it undeniably warrants a separate WP article. If other sex scandals involving politicians have their own articles (which they do) there's no reason at all for this one not to exist. This is NOT just a news story, but has become an actual "topic". Bigger and separate than just Weiner's life or career in general. Not sure why you can't see that (maybe you don't want to see it that way.) Also, I don't say that this will necessarily "damage his prospects". Or even consider any future anything regarding it. Even if others have said that, that's not my point. But that just as the situation stands NOW, it's a stand-alone topic, and copiously sourced. Something that is arguably bigger and more separate than just Anthony Weiner or his life. It's a separate situation, and quite notable. As it stands now. Regardless of what may happen in the future regarding it. So yes, there is not a snow-ball's chance in hell that this article will disappear, despite the whiny wishes of a FEW that it should, for whatever uptight reasons. Let's get real here. (Anything is possible, but let's be real about the snowball situation...how many people would even tolerate this article being deleted?) Especially with the way the article has grown and developed. SNOW is so applicable here, it's like not funny. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, and I'll explain the reasons for and against keeping this article as I see them:
  • Keep:
  • A groundbreaking story in that it illustrates the rise of social media into today's modern culture and place in the lifestyles of people from many walks of life, from congressmen to middle-Americans, and the question of whether Internet affairs are equivalent to infidelity [24]
  • Weiner was a rising star in the Democratic party and possible candidate for future high-profile offices and this has effected future races [25]
  • The media has compared and contrasted the response by the Democrats to this incident with those of high-profile Republicans caught engaging in similar behavior
  • Pelosi has called for an ethics investigation into Weiner's behavior
  • High-profile colleagues and friends of Weiner who hold elected office have commented publicly on the incident
  • Weiner is a public figure and employee (as an elected legislature whose salary is paid by the taxpayers) and therefore accountable to the public, with no right to privacy, for behavior which reflects on his performance or suitability for public office
  • Weiner may have used government equipment for the acts, including computers, phones, and office space
  • The incident has given a great deal of publicity to a conservative blogger, who commandeered the microphone before Weiner's press statement, which was reported on in the media
  • More women are coming forward with hundreds of emails and photographs [26]
  • The incident has been center stage for jokes and humor on American evening talk shows like the Daily Show, Tonight Show, etc, so is a major pop-culture incident
  • Delete
  • It's one of many hundreds of these type of scandals that surface from time to time and then are usually quickly forgotten
  • Weiner has not resigned or been fired
  • NOTNEWS Cla68 (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable political scandal.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm partisan, and I just don't want an article about a scandal involving a politician I otherwise agree with kept on Wikipedia. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect without prejudice - This incident merits a section in Weiner's article, but as it stands does not warrant a standalone article. That could change in the future, but since the vote is now, the article needs to be judged on what it is, not on what it might become. I would change my vote if he resigned over this, or if it leads to criminal charges though. SeaphotoTalk 07:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the congressman. The event provides a lot of material for stand-up comedians to comment on, but it is at the end of the day a news story without all that major consequences. As a representative in the House, Anthony Weiner was not really a really high profile politician as a governor or president is, until this came to light I believe most people had never heard of Anthony Weiner. The long-term consequences are mostly limited to the person's career, and it is unlikely that it will cause a major shake-up in government. By comparison, the events that got James Traficant expelled from the House were more serious (but less amusing for comedians), yet those are all covered in the bio on Traficant. I see no reason why a more embarrassing, but less serious scandal of this nature should be treated with a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since Pelosi has called for Weiner's resignation, the consequences have started to become more substantial, and a standalone article may be justified. Therefore, changing to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All things being equal, the level of coverage would suggest that this event/scandal is notable. Once things have settled down, and the scandal is resolved one way or the other (Resignation / people quit talking about it), we can make a better determination. Note also that Google News is linking this article, at least when I load the main news.google.com page - so having a big-ass deletion notice is a bit embarassing to the project. If this can be closed early, if only to reconsider in a few weeks when everything dies down, I'd be all for that. (Hell, I almost did it myself.) UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. Scandalous, TMZ-ish tabloid zeal does not belong in the Wikipedia. Worth a small section in Weiner's bio, not an entire article. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - a scandal of historical significance because it is the first scandal in which a senior public official made use of a social media network for sexual purposes. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are the scholarly sources studying the impact of social media on political scandals as a result of this incident? Where are the secondary sources reporting on the phenomenon? I don't disagree that this is the first congressional twitter scandal, and that such a thing may be notable and may have an impact on future use of social networks by political leaders. But this constitutes looking into the crystal ball and original research. Look at the section for Reaction -> Media. There isn't any reporting about the media's reaction to the scandal or involvement in the circuis surrounding scandal. It's just more fluff. Article should be merged back into his bio until something notable and verifiable happens that is beyond the scope of Weiner's marriage and career. If the consensus is to keep, article should be stubbed and re-written. Liberal Classic (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All sources do not have to be "scholarly" about an event for the event to be notable enough for inclusion. As for where do you find the secondary sources reporting on the phenomenon, I have another question: Where do you go to get away from the secondary sources reporting on the phenomenon!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article covers an entirely notable subject, and contains a great deal more sourced content than would be 'due weight' within the Weiner biography. There are already interesting facets of the case that aren't being covered by the article, and which aren't likely to be until the sound and fury dies down a bit. I envy the closer.. Nevard (talk) 14:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep So Larry Craig and Mark Foley can have a scandal article of their own, but Anthony Weiner can't? You never know, this could get serious. Booyahhayoob (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This could get serious" is the gist of much of the keep arguments, and is hardly a strong argument. We create articles after something gets serious, not before, and the very fact that so many people expect there to be further developments without any evidence thereof is one of this discussion's best arguments for deleting, not for keeping. If "this" gets "serious", that's the time to seriously propose its own article. As of now, this is not serious. Abrazame (talk) 15:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To re-iterate, and not sure why you're not getting this simple fact. I don't say that this will necessarily "damage his prospects". Even if others have said that, that's not my point. But that just as the situation stands NOW, it's a stand-alone topic, and copiously sourced. Something that is arguably bigger and more separate than just Anthony Weiner or his life. It's a separate situation, and quite notable. As it stands now. Regardless of what may happen in the future regarding it. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He wasn't talking to you. And you've never really backed up your opinion that it's notable on its own other than citing WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Morgan Wick (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if he wasn't talking to me. I commented to it anyway. Plus he WAS talking to me further above, when I was not talking to him. Yet I don't see you griping at him about it. (Plus, I wasn't talking to you, yet that didn't stop you from snarling at me just now, did it? And it's fine that you did, as this is supposed to be an open exchange, etc.) Also, you say that I have not really backed up my "opinion" (it's not an opinion, but a FACT) that it's notable. You obviously see what you want to see, and ignore what you want to. This topic is stand-alone, notable, overwhelmingly sourced, and it undeniably warrants a separate WP article. If other sex scandals involving politicians have their own articles (which they do) there's no reason at all for this one not to exist. This is NOT just a news story, but has become an actual "topic". Bigger and separate than just Weiner's life or career in general. Not sure why you can't see that (maybe you don't want to see it that way.) Also, again, to repeat, and this is NOT just pointing to WP policy like you said I did (which, by the way, should theoretically make its point anyway...though I did a bit more than just that)...I don't say that this will necessarily "damage his prospects". Or even consider any future anything regarding it. Even if others have said that, that's not my point. But that just as the situation stands NOW, it's a stand-alone topic, and copiously sourced. Something that is arguably bigger and more separate than just Anthony Weiner or his life. It's a separate situation, and quite notable. As it stands now. Regardless of what may happen in the future regarding it. So yes, there is not a snow-ball's chance in hell that this article will disappear, despite the whiny wishes of a FEW that it should, for whatever uptight reasons. Let's get real here. (Anything is possible, but let's be real about the snowball situation...how many people would even tolerate this article being deleted?) Especially with the way the article has grown and developed. SNOW is so applicable here, it's like not funny. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why I "snarl[ed] at you" was that you assumed he was referring to you, and claimed that you weren't saying anything about WP:CRYSTAL at all, when it wasn't clear from his remarks that you were who he was referring to. Clearly people have a different reading of the relevant notability policies than you do, so it's not as clear-cut a "FACT" as you're making it out to be, and you haven't helped your case by not showing why it's a "FACT", instead citing WP:JUSTAPOLICY while ignoring that people are missing what you're allegedly pointing to. And the only thing new that you've introduced here is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for the more general gist of your argument, see below. Morgan Wick (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither were Larry Craig and Mark Foley's scandals, and yet their articles were kept and developed. Booyahhayoob (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. The name of this article is kind of silly. Maybe Anthony Weiner photo incident sounds better than scandal. The scandal here was that he lied. Who doesn't send lewd pics nowadays?. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody with half a brain. Opps, he is a congressman, you are right. --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, strong keep 167.225.107.17 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is not a vote. Please state your reasons to keep or delete. Morgan Wick (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable. -Leonard (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment. It's hard to check whether this fails WP:NOTNEWS at the moment. In a few months it should be clear whether it's had a significant impact or not. Anthem 17:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable issue, widely covered. A breakout article is better than overwhelming his bio with this matter in violation of WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe this warrants a couple of paragraphs in Weiner's article, but it is a minor scandal and does not warrant a full article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Anthony Weiner#Twitter photo scandal, this incident just needs a short section not an entire article. Dreadstar ☥ 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a current, newsworthy event that will set a precedence for the inevitable future mesh of politicians and social media. It should not be deleted because some liberal editors dont want their ideology to look tarnished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.166.138 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Covered everywhere. Notable.--76.31.116.153 (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. - A prominent scandal such as this deserves its own article. Other scandals similar to this one have their own articles. -- Evans1982 (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Cough* *Cough* Bigotsgate. Okay, I see. US scandals deserve their own articles while UK ones don't. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That there may not be articles currently existing on subjects of equivalent, or greater, notability is really not a good reason to delete this article. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep What the heck are you going to merge it to? Marcus Qwertyus 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Many days I am unable to catch television news. Therefore I like to view some selected topics on-line, often via Wikipedia. I found this article, with a time-line of events, and the late-breaking news portion, very helpful. I do not understand why this article is being considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.167.135 (talk) 01:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.152.105 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • AfD is not a vote. Please indicate your reasons to keep or delete. Morgan Wick (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is a wide variety of sources for this article and there is a great deal of interest in it especially in the US. At worst, it should be merged with Anthony Weiner. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am sick of hearing about this story, but the fact that I don't like it isn't grounds to delete the article. Overall I think that the amount of coverage Weiner has received exceeds that which we typically require for an article. WP:NOTNEWS is a frequently misunderstood guideline, it refers to routine news events and doesn't say that subjects currently in the news are completely ineligible for articles. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider merging later into his article and into an article on the general topic of sexting, or whatever. User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As many others have already said, this meets the Notability criteria for inclusion, and fails the WP:NOTNEWS criteria for deletion. Victor Victoria (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It's a very notable event, the news coverage as been significant. Weiner is one of the better-known members of Congress, until now considered one of the younger shining stars of the Democratic party. It has significantly affected his career, in that he will have difficulty running for Mayor of New York. In addition, it has garnished incerased attention to Andrew Breitbart and others. I don't think a merge is appropriate at this time, given the lenth of the article and the bizare way the story broke.Roodog2k (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to "Anthony Weiner sexting scandal," because that seems to be the focus that coverage has evolved to; the photo is nowhere near as important as the way it was distributed or the parallel associated conduct by this Congressbozo chosen representative of his constituency.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE or at least remove the word "Scandal" from the title. We are WP:NOTNEWS and no laws were broken, he did not resign, etc. Its just an interesting press conference on national TV, unless we think that all major press conferences are notable? If so, let's write an article on Address by President Obama after killing of Osama Bin Laden. bW 04:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Dictionary.com: scan-dal (noun): (1) a disgraceful or discreditable action, circumstance, etc. (2) an offense caused by a fault or misdeed. (3) damage to reputation; public disgrace.
So, you feel it is debatable whether the Representatives mistatements for a week and a half constitute something discreditable, a fault, damaging to reputation, is that correct. At what point do you feel such a designation to be applicable? A WP article on the Lewinski affair? the Teapot dome affair? Please explain.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My goodness, you really believe this is all about a press conference? Truthsort (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) The subject of this article now clearly passes WP:GNG, and WP:NEWSEVENT. If their is consensus that it is not notable to have an article on its own, then it could be argued to be merged and redirected back to the article regarding the Representative. If that is the case it can be argued that due to the size of the content, much of it supported by reliable sources, that it should be spun out due to the size of the article that would be caused by the merger. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The scandal has received a significant amount of coverage in reliable sources and as the user above points out, satisfies WP:GNG. Anyone arguing WP:NOTNEWS is just wasting their time as we have gone way past that. Just because laws were not broken does not change the fact that this meets WP:GNG. Truthsort (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The event obviously has significant coverage that indicate its notability. Moray An Par (talk) 05:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Weiner's article, per other arguments made above, most significantly per Liberal Classic (verbose) and Jzg (Guy) (succinct). KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 07:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability is obvious. Merging is not a solution - merged articleas are subject to slow wiki rot due to countless minor edits of involved parties or their agents, it's easy to keep the controversial articles relatively intact and informative if they are separate from the main body. Tiphareth (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This scandal is now definitely wiki-notable, and at this stage any decent coverage would overwhelm the Anthony Weiner article, so we should cover the scandal in a separate article. But I can imagine !voting for merge in a few months, once things have settled down and we have a better idea which details are important. CWC 16:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There's enough material for a separate article so merging is supboptimal. The scandal itself meets notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per Tarc, Liberal Classic, Jzg (Guy), and Fred Bauder's line of thinking. Those who feel we're "past" the WP:NOTNEWS perhaps misinterpret that policy. While I may like that someone of this character has been called to account for his actions, I also interpret WP:COATRACK to be a more valid line of thought for an encyclopedia article. Perhaps it's a bit of a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS comment, but: While self-inflicted here would make it a huge distinction, I also see this as a similar case to the santorum (WP:NEO) style of article creation; and as such, I don't believe this to be in line with our general purpose here. — Ched :  ?  20:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I did not misinterpret the policy. There is a considerable amount of significant coverage for this event and has the enduring notability that meets the criteria for an article. It is not as if this is some sort of routine news event that occurs on a regular basis. Truthsort (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Twitter scandal has become so much more than a kitty being caught in a tree and the local Fire-Department being sent in to rescue her. This isn't something that appeared on the 6 o'clock news and that's it. It can have a major effect on Weiner's political future, as well as that of NYC, where it is/was rumored that Weiner would be running for the city's mayoral office.--White Shadows Stuck in square one 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notability is self evident within the article, if only for the scandal, which will have knock-on effects beyond just Weiner's sullied reputation. I fail to see why this was even nominated for deletion given that the PROD was heavily contested. Why then proceed with an AFD you don't even agree with? -- roleplayer 23:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This has been all over the news for days. Look in the references: at least a dozen credible news sources reported, and they continue pouring in. It's on every comedy station and has been spoken of every night this week on Fox News AND ABC News, just to name two. It will have a lasting effect on Weiner, and will certainly shake up both his district and his principles for ages to come. Plus, as one man mentioned earlier, Nancy Pelosi herself has called for an ethics investigation. This article is notable enough to stand on its own and certainly needs to. As odd as it may seem, in America, this is news. Although this may be a fallacy by virtue of "Just Because Something Similarly Pointless Exists Does Not Make It Worthy for Wikipedia" doctrine, I'd like to point out that this is far more covered and notable than a stupid three hundred page I-Phone bill, which, for some reason, isn't only here, but rated a Good Article. Plus, it's absolutely hilarious. If not for any other reason, keep it because it's funny. You don't hear stories about men sending pictures of themselves in their underpants on the Twitter much, and unlike many sex scandals, thi one refreshingly abstains from actually doing it. I'm surprised that something this notable is even up for deletion, much less being actually considered. --TurtleShroom! :) NOODY BRANCH! Don't mess with farmers, SpongeBob. They know how to grow food. - Knowledge is power, grab it while you can. 00:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: to TurtleShroom above...agreed...well-said. And irrefutable. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect without prejudice. This issue is clearly worthy of mention in the Congressman's article, but not as a separate article. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? I don't think that deletion of the article is so clear (as you say), and neither do the sixty-five others (by my count) that have stated the article is worthy of keeping.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I notice that probably the majority of the Keep !votes come down to WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (including a few irrelevant WP:POKEMON-style comparisons), and a lot of people's subjective interpretations of WP:NOTNEWS. There seems to be more objective discussion of the former two policies than the latter one (there was a good discussion of WP:NOTSCANDAL earlier, but one side suggested it didn't even apply). I'm a little concerned with the notion that we should have articles for just about every topic that holds the media's attention for more than a day or two; such would seem to mostly obviate the need for Wikinews, and seems to represent WP:RECENTISM at its most crufty. The Weiner case may have moved beyond that stage, but without objective policy discussion, only a vague subjective feeling that this is an article we "should have", most of the people claiming it have simply come across as promulgating that notion, especially since I suspect that notion is where the feeling comes from. (On the flip side, I'm a little sad that the early discussion seems to have been tainted by the early state of the article and of the story at the time of the nom.) This may well be a case of WP:SNOW, but given the circumstances I still find it funny when people claim such. Morgan Wick (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - According to reliable sources (e.g., articles posted recently at the NYT ("Democratic leaders...called on him to resign and suggested he needed psychiatric counseling"), the LATimes ("[Weiner is ] becoming a pariah within his party"), etc., etc., etc., etc.), these events are notable and thus merit being covered in some detail--not to mention that their impact on the Representative's life and career as well on the U.S. politics of the summer of 2011 can in no way be thought small. Nonetheless, to include the present level of detail to this matter all within the blp for Mr. Weiner's would result in issues of undue weight. In my opinion (and also per Wikipedia:Recentism#Debate over recentism), if within a couple of months no-one really remembers these events, their coverage can then be be trimmed and that snippet folded back into the appropriate section of the blp; yet, Indeed, to systematically disallow coverage given in this manner to recent events, despite a majority of editors' believing the events will remain notable in the long run, would unnecessarily impede effective work composing articles for topics necessary to be covered in the encyclopedia.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given how many politicians have done worse than Weiner, I think this page should be removed. It really serves no purpose, and I was glad to see you are considering removing the page. Weiner has, to our knowledge, broken no laws. Although what he did has probably hurt people who care about him, it has become nothing but another thing for people to grab hold of for other purposes. This is not a political thing: this is a personal thing that Weiner and his family need to deal with' — Preceding unsigned comment added by AiredaleLady (talk • contribs) 21:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "not being illegal" does not meant to exclude an article. There are many, many events in Wikipedia that have articles that are not "illegal" events.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Widely covered news event that has future implications. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic because it's a part of history, with consequences that effect the future. Too much content to be a section in parent article. Scandalous"? Sure. The scandal is scandalous, not Wikipedia's (and everyone else's) reporting of it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extreme notability, massive media coverage, not everyday news fare. Chester Markel (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOTNEWS is for routine news. It's not for events that dominate the entire US news cycle for weeks. -LtNOWIS (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Let's be clear about this: in order to be deleted, this article must be non-notable. And in order to be non-notable, it must not have received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. And a quick glance at http://www.guardian.co.uk/ demonstrates otherwise. Duh. ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 18:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG for a standalone article, and would create WP:TOPIC issues if merged.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have Lewinsky scandal and other articles that cover different sexual scandals. The article covers a major event as the moment. Will the event effect Anthony Weiner's future or the american politics in general? Noone can tell for sure. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — It think we should use some common sense. If the article was "heavily contested" with the PROD then I don't see why we even have to have an AfD about this Baseball Watcher 17:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Obviously meets GNG with multiple independent reliable sources regarding the incident itself. Case closed. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Like it or not, this is a notable story covered by reliable sources. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have stricken my vote from redirect/merge above to keep on the basis of notability. However, I have stricken nothing I said about being cautionary or conservative with adding details about Weiner or his online paramours, and I am still concerned with the state of the article with respect to WP:BLP, WP:RECENT, and WP:COATRACK. Cheers, Liberal Classic (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are lots of issues with the article, agreed - but I think most editors are loathe to put time into an article tagged for deletion such as this one. When and if this is kept, I imagine it'll be cleaned up in short order. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: When does this AfD close? I thought that it was a seven-day process. Am I mistaken? Please advise. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:09, 14 June 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. joe deckertalk to me 20:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Evans (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scott Evans (footballer) (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, concern was; Insufficient coverage from independent reliable sources to pass the general notability guideline and has not played at a high enough level to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 09:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to re-creation should he ever actually play for Kilmarnock (or any other team in a fully pro league) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. This player has never played in a fully pro league, nor has he received significant coverage in reliable sources. Therefore, he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable yet. He will when he plays his first game in the SPL (if he does) Cheers! Feedintm (talk) 21:34, 10 June 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. Very few of the Keep nominations address the major issues with this article, that of OR and SYNTH. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of organization[edit]

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

Over-extended dictionary definition which seeks to encompass all possible support groups even if they're not actually called "friends of..." Most dictionaries give this a single line at most. Fails WP:NOTDICDEF, WP:RS, WP:OR andy (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1[edit]

Speedy Keep. The point of this article is to cover a notable topic. There are thousands of "friends of" organizations and they are a distinct topic. They tend to be created because of something being in a state of neglect. Whereas most charities, groups or clubs are based on a topic of interest or passion. They are also unique as they tend to be precursors to actual formal organizations, 501c3s, and NGOs and have a local in nature or very specific mission.Thisbites (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Speedy Keep with a possible support of moving to a better name if anyone can think of it. This is a valid specific type of organization, normally for charitable donors and sometimes for volunteer support networks without being part of the main institution. Potentially useful as a disambiguation page as well as an encyclopaedic summary page and does not seem adequately covered under parent articles. The nominator has pointed to RS and OR as a rationale for this AFD, these do not seem appropriate as this is hardly original research and reliable sources exist in abundance for the nature of the organization of chartable institutions and the regulation thereof. The article has yet to exist for 24 hours, this AFD was created too quickly to provide the author an opportunity to improve the sourcing and in my opinion there is a high probability of this being improved in the near future, improvement tags were easily sufficient to address these points. Fæ (talk) 08:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are simply groups that have similar sounding names. Look at the examples in the article - what on Earth is there in common between The British Museum Friends, Friends of Humanity (a fictional anti-mutant hate group in Marvel comics), Friends of God (medieval German mystics who were burned at the stake) and Friend of Dorothy (a slang term for gay men)? There's no such thing as a "friends of" organisation - and the article has no references to prove otherwise. That's what I mean about RS and OR. Existing articles such as Support group and Charitable organization cover specific uses perfectly adequately. andy (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually they don't, at all. Membership organization would be the most obvious nearest thing, but this was a stupid redirect until just now, & needs expansion. Support group covers a range of things, by no means all the same as this at all. You are right about the outliers, which I removed (so giving you something else to complain about it seems) Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the US, there is a distinction between support group and "supporting organization" or "supporter organization" (more details on IRS definition of "supporting organization" in a later comment), as well as a distinction between charitable organizations and political organizations. YMMV as to what these distinctions are, if, like andy, you've dealt with educated speakers of British English on a regular basis. If there were a single type of organization that corresponded exactly to this article, wouldn't that term be in common use by the legal profession already? Trilliumz (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already made the point about RS in line with WP:BEFORE; that the term is used in great variety is not a rationale to delete the article either. If you go to Google Books and do a 10 second search, you will trip over a large number of legal texts that use the term quite specifically and this alone would be worth exploring in an encyclopaedic article, for example O'Halloran, Kerry; McGregor-Lowndes, Myles; Simon, Karla W. (2008), Charity law & social policy: national and international perspectives on the functions of the law relating to charities, Springer, ISBN 9781402084133. I have to disagree with your counter examples, Support group and Charitable organization do not mention Friends associations or organizations once and so cannot be described as perfectly adequate. --Fæ (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're missing the point. Some groups called "Friends of..." have a lot in common and some simply don't. Being a friend of the British Museum is pretty much the same as being a friend of the Smithsonian but is utterly different from being a friend of Bill or a friend of Dorothy! Lumping them all together as a single concept is not merely silly, it's just plain wrong. Unless of course you're arguing that patrons of the arts tend to be gay medieval alcoholics with a hatred of mutants. In the end the best that can be done with this article is to create a dictionary definition of one use of the term "friend" and, just possibly, a DAB page. andy (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I do get the point and as I highlighted the nomination does not refer to appropriate policy to underpin it. I am not against discussing a move proposal or a proposal to reformat this article as an extended DAB and perhaps you could recognize that this could be done without escalating to AFD in less than 24 hours after creation? Fæ (talk) 10:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. The article isn't actually about anything at the moment so it needs to be binned. You could write a DAB page if you threw away the entire content and also the title. I'm not sure what it would say though since there's no such actual thing as a "friends of" organization - merely some groups of people that are called "friends of...", some that aren't called "friends of..." but could be, and some that are called "friends of..." and needn't be. The DAB page would have to say that "friends of..." might refer to pretty much any kind of collection of people ranging from formal groups such as museum friends, with a constitution and a charitable purpose, through to people who merely have some general characteristic in common such as friends of Dorothy (who definitely aren't a charity). This is why dictionaries were invented. But if you still disagree please add some references to the article. andy (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, in which case you have failed to apply WP:BEFORE criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 10. Consequently I am changing my opinion to speedy keep. Thanks for the clarifying discussion --Fæ (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite sure how you get there, but whatever. I rather enjoy the sweeping generalisations in reference #3, for example "The "Friends of" organization is almost always a U.S. nonprofit corporation". Wow. However I note that the same paragraph makes it clear that this is simply a shorthand term that is used in a specific context in the article and based on a common but not universal usage. The reference is silent about gay men, medieval mystics and others such as The Friends of Mine Festival and The Friends of Fulham. andy (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome to discuss the refinement and detailed content of sources on the article talk page which is where article improvement normally takes place rather than resorting to the iron hammer of AfD to expect better references. --Fæ (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify how this article which has been nominated due to a lack of sources (unsurprising considering how hastily it was nominated while still under construction) can also fail to meet SYNTH which would explicitly require information to be gathered from multiple sources? --Fæ (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy: first you "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (that's the SYNTH bit) and then you don't cite the sources (that's the RS bit). I note that the references you added are all about US tax law and don't answer the question of how all the other uses of the term are supposed to be related. Of course, if there are no sources that explain this then the article isn't a synthesis, it's WP:MADEUP. andy (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree not everything is properly explained and it is not a synthesis. My addition of sources are not intended to fix all the problems in one sweep, this quite normal in an improving article and in no way do I own this article and so feel no responsibility for all of its content. If you feel the article is a fantasy, you should have nominated it on that basis and you always were free to improve it rather than hastily nominate it without following WP:BEFORE. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c) Synth in the sense that 1) there are RSs' (not necessarily in this specific article) that there is a public interest group that monitors Canadian Broadcasting called "Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, 2) there are RSs' (not necessarily in this specific article) there there is a group of environmental protection groups called "Friends of the Earth", 3) there are RSs (not necessarily in this specific article) that there is slang term for gay men called "Friends of Dorothy", 4) (repeat as necessary for some of the other articles listed), 5) the author implies that these are similar groups whose members have similar relationships with the subject of the "Friends of [subject]" in the title of the group, simiply because they start with "Friends of". That is SYNTH. If you feel it does not strictly meet the WP:SYNTH because the sources have not actually been cited in this specific article (which I believe is a stricter then necessary definition that is not actually listed in the policy) then it would still be OR. Singularity42 (talk) 12:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was created yesterday. You have provided a rationalization for deletion based on a claim of synthesis of potential sources in other articles, this is not supported by SYNTH. If you feel the article fails OR then this might be a matter for improvement tags on the article as I see statements of the obvious needing some source rather than an original paper; raising an AFD in this situation explicitly fails WP:BEFORE. Fæ (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm worried about getting off-topic here, as I think we have different interpretations of WP:SYNTH, which should probably be discussed at that talk page rather than here. Suffice it to say, my reading of the policy is that the sources do not have to be expressly cited in the article for there to be an improper synthesis of other sources. The contrary interpretation to me seems overly strict and not in the spirit of what the policy stands for. But as I said, we don't seem to be in agreement on that. I'll probably start a discussion on that talk policy's talk page on a later date to determine what the consensus is. Singularity42 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is always scope for common sense, however the normal way to interpret policy is to go by what is written rather than guess as to its spirit might be. Please add a link to the related policy discussion thread should you start one. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I expanded the article somewhat from the initial few lines, but I think too many examples have now been added. I will trim back to ones that exemplify the typical meaning. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can you say that the meaning you choose will be the "typical" one? You need reliable sources to prove that the typical meaning of "Friends of..." is X. andy (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we know that a medieval mystical order & some group in a fictional universe are not "typical" (of course you're welcome to find RS that they are). Friends of Footown library is typical. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who says a religious order is not "typical"? What about The Religious Society of Friends or the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order, both of which are far larger and more important than the Friends of Lulu? Even disregarding the other examples surely you can see that a definition that has to encompass the Quakers on the one hand and the promotion of female interests in the comic book industry on the other is pretty weird? andy (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the definition doesn't encompass them, which is why neither of those religious denominations (the Buddhist one is just a redirect) should be included as examples. Of course "Friends of St Foo's Parish Church" would be ok. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject of this article - any organization referred to as or named "Friends of (insert cause here)" - is just not a valid topic for an article. The only sentence in the article is the last one with 5 references, none of which constitute in depth coverage of the topic. Many political organizations/election funds use the same nomenclature, as do many non-charitable organizations. Even if all of those could be feasibly grouped together in a coherent article, being named "Friends of whatever" is not a defining characteristic that would support the synthesis required to come up with a sustainable article. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Among the various "Friends of _____" groups discussed in this article, the "Friends" don't all typically have the same relationship to "______" in each case. The American Friends of the Louvre (mentioned in one of the sources cited) may be trying to fund the Louvre, but the Friends of Lulu aren't trying to give money to Lulu; rather, Lulu is a fictional character who symbolizes the group's interests. To try to describe all the groups that have the words "Friends of ..." in their names in a single article requires them to be discussed at such a high level of abstraction that the article winds up not saying anything meaningful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is probably worth comparing to Professional association which covers a range of organizations including businesses which have "PA" in the title. The simple step of separating the poorly defined list of organizations from the main article about these organization types might resolve the issue that people seem to have with conceiving of this an an encyclopaedic entry. --Fæ (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The references in the article prove its a real thing, and clearly notable. This is a legally recognized term which has requirements for its use for an officially recognized charity. See [29] for information about that. Dream Focus 11:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the article doesn't actually say that. It's not "a legally recognized term" except perhaps in US tax planning - here in the UK for example there's no such legal or tax usage and even in the US, as the examples show, there are plenty of uses that aren't charitable but merely general support groups. The argument in this AfD is not about the notability of the term but about the impossibility of legitimately lumping all usages together as if they all had something significant in common. andy (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is that this is a dictionary definition that also fails OR and fails RS. It is poor practice to start re-interpreting the basis of the nomination in the middle of the AfD, though you could propose to speedy close this AfD if, say, you feel that the nomination was raised by mistake, is misleadingly expressed or that the nominator failed to follow the basic criteria of WP:BEFORE. That an article might be hard to write and brings together broad topics is not a rationale for deletion. Fæ (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says different things as its changed back and forth between things. The original version talks of "friends of" used for preserving sites. The article can be about the officially recognized legal term, for which there are ample references, and then mention that others use the term is also used by others at times, but that not what the article is about. Dream Focus 02:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—IANAL, but it appears that "Friends of" organizations have non-profit 501(c)3 tax-exempt status status under US law.[30][31][32] The topic deserves coverage. A rename from 'organization' to 'organizations' may make sense. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be incorrect. Some organizations that use the name may have such status, but the name itself is not an indicator of anything. Political campaign funds enjoy no such status, but are often named this way (Friends of Scott Walker and Friends of Mike Sheridan noted in this article). Just being named "Friends of" doesn't indicate anything. It is not a defining characteristic. It's a very common name for political committees and they in no way meet what this article is attempting to suggest - that organizations named "Friends of whatever" are charitable organizations. Some small portion of them may be so, but in depth coverage of such a hypothesis has not been identified. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 16:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, although there do appear to be some associated regulations and legal advice.[33][34][35] Nevertheless, it's a common enough designation for non-profit organizations that it appears notable and so I will retain my support. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is turning out to be an issue about US tax exempt status. If that's what the article says, fair enough, but it doesn't. In fact the references given so far state clearly that you don't have to be called "Friends of" to have 501(c)3 status and you don't have to have 501(c)3 status to be called "Friends of". Over on this side of the pond it's even simpler - we have our own tax laws that don't even mention the term. You can be "Friends of" a pub or a village cricket team, for example, but according to the way the article is turning out that's somehow related to a particular part of US tax law. I always thought that wikipedia was a global encyclopaedia... How about renaming the article "501(c)3 (US tax exempt status)" and including the relevant bits from this article? BTW that's a serious suggestion. andy (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, just noticed 501(c) which covers the same ground as Friends of organization as far as tax law is concerned. DAB, anyone? andy (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just silly. The article is emphatically NOT about the specific tax status that some US "Friends of ..." organizations enjoy, and only heroic distortion of what it says can result in that claim. Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought that was the growing consensus. Well if it's not then the article should make clear - very clear - why and how "Friends of Lulu" has anything in common with "Friends of Canadian Broadcasting". Relevant and reliable references are, as is so often the case on wikipedia, just a teensy weensy bit useful. andy (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not a forum to discuss article improvement and your nomination is not helped by making sarcastic comments, particularly to highly experienced contributors. If you had followed the basic criteria of WP:BEFORE you would have tagged the article for improvement and discussed your repeated points about sourcing and the focus of the article on the article talk page rather than discouraging the article creator with a PROD 80 minutes after article creation followed by an AFD 8 hours after the PROD was removed with no attempt at discussion. --Fæ (talk) 21:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andy none of your arguments are truly rooted in policy with regards to the actual deletion they are highly illogical and off point. "Friends of" Organizations do exist. Some of them are 501c3s in the United States and the paperwork for that charity status exemplifies that is a "kind of" organization not that all 501c3s are such. Some of them are not in the United States at all. This is indeed a global encyclopedia but if we are dealing with an American topic, Britain is quite irrelevant or vice versa. That argument has nothing to do with deletion here nor is it valid since there are British and Australian groups that follow a similar format. "friends of" organizations have a unique format and impetus which is why they are distinguished by name. They are very specific usually locally based charities or special purpose lobby or fundraising groups. Similar to special-purpose district by analogy, now we would not remove the jurisdiction just because a SPD is also a jurisdiction or could be now would we?Thisbites (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2[edit]

  • Keep I'd say the references in the two Wiley textbooks are enough to indicate notability here, given that it's a status that has been covered in several business/accounting textbooks. Problems with the current article can be fixed with regular editing rather than outright deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In light of some of the comments above, I am willing to reconsider my position. I just don't see a way to address a common thread through all organizations with this naming convention, and the claim in the article that this name has a "legal definition" in the US (the IRS site does not say any such thing). I can find no indication in the US Code or IRS regulations that would equate the name to the status. I started to tag that sentence with a "citation needed" tag, but thought it would be best to wait until the AfD was done. There is no source to be found equating this kind of name with the status, and no concise definition to be found due to the wide range of organizations using similar names. I still don't see it as being the required defining characteristic, but I would be willing to look at sources if any can be identified. The article, as it stands, uses a non-defining characteristic and much WP:SYNTH to make a claim that has not been proven. It is not a term in general use per WP:COMMON, so I fail to see why it should not be deleted or simply redirected to 501 (c). Jim Miller See me | Touch me 21:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Friends of organizations are not the same as 501C3s, some happen to be so, that is all.Thisbites (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far there have been no reliable sources to show that "Friends of" is anything more than a vernacular usage with many different applications. Dorothy, Lulu and the British Museum all have friends. Me and my friends (especially Dave) would definitely count as Friends of the Head of the River but so what? andy (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are demonstrating a defiant attitude with regards to accepting that no one is claiming that friends as in acquaintances is the subject of the article and also that the term "friends of organization" is a legally recognized and notable term used in a variety of official capacities to refer to this sort of organization. You and you're friends are not a club or organization, you do not share a common name that represents all of you nor do you have a cause, therefore casual friends clearly does not equate a "FoO".Thisbites (talk) 06:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to the legal definition, "friends of" may not be on the IRS site but it is definitely explicitly discussed as an organizational type in the citations given which are advising on how to apply the legislation. Fæ (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments below for RS regarding common use of this term in the Museums and Libraries communities.Trilliumz (talk)
  • Delete: a liberal sprinkling of WP:OR & WP:SYNTH combined with irrelevancies (the Society of Friends), a ref-bombed (half the references in the entire article) single sentence on tax status and a WP:DICTDEF. Little indication of a cohesive topic, let alone one for which "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You were told that The Society of Friends had been removed before you made this comment. I am surprised none of the deleters have taken notice of the International Federation of Friends of Museums, with its 18 national federations. There is a considerable literature within the trade, as a look at their website will show. Johnbod (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No you told me some 4 minutes after I posted here (you told me that it had previously been removed only 3 minutes before I posted -- so I wasn't aware of that either when I posted). The problem is not that individual 'Friends of' organisations may be notable, but that trying to aggregate them together into a general topic appears impossible without a high level of WP:Synthesis and Original Research (which is one reason why on Wikipedia notability is WP:NOTINHERITED -- to avoid such transitive leaps that outrun the sources). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what manner is it a synthesis that individual government websites name "FOOs" as a particular type of entity?Thisbites (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not state that it is "a synthesis that individual government websites name 'FOOs' as a particular type of entity" --probably because the article does not state this. However, I would state that the claim that "The formula 'Friends of ...' provides a common form of name for a membership organization, support group, or community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing such as a site, building, organization, or a more general but specialized concept" goes well beyond what Anheier & List (the cited source) states about the topic -- ans is thus WP:Synthesis. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can be reiterated enough that this is not an article about organizations that use the term "friends" in their name, rather those that operate a "friends of x" format in their nomenclature and structure.Thisbites (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on Earth do you mean? According to Roget "nomenclature" is a synonym for "name". Having a "Friends of" format in their nomenclature is precisely the name as having "friends of" in their name! And what is a "friends of" structure? andy (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was not a response to you and it is very clear this article is not about anything with the word friends in their name, its about organizations that use a "friends of x" style name. I did not say having friends of in their nomenclature is the same as having it in their name please reread it. I said having the word friend (example "Tom's Friend Sally" or "AT&T's Friends and Partners in the Community") in their name is not the same as having their name structured as friends of x (example: "Friends of Five Creeks" or "Friends of Andy Street") the impetus is to denote that it is a communal group that is dedicated to one particular topic not one that has the word friends in it (please note that i said "friends" not friends of, I am stating that not every group with the word "f-r-i-e-n-d-s" in it is not a "friends of" organization. I did not refer to "friends of structure" as a noun, i used "friend of" as a noun and structure as an adjective meaning both naming convention and grammatical grouping of words, do you understand what on earth I meant now?Thisbites (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a clue! You appear to be saying that this article includes "Friends of the British Museum" but not "Friends of God" despite the fact that they are both "a communal group that is dedicated to one particular topic" because "not every group with the word "f-r-i-e-n-d-s" in it is a "friends of" organization". Unfortunately the article doesn't contain any means of separating the two usages, if indeed there is a difference. The definition, such as it is, explicitly states rather delightfully that the term can apply to any group that supports "a more general but specialized concept". We seem to have parted company with the English language here!.
Possibly what you mean is that this article is about something that you refer to as a "friends of" organisation and not about something that other people might refer to using exactly the same terminology. In which case it's about as OR as it's possible to get. andy (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: is this article about "a membership organization, support group, community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing", charities whose sole purpose is to raise money for a specific foreign charity (both regardless of name), or organisations with "Friends of" in their name (regardless of purpose), or something more/less/other, and more importantly can anybody cite a source that explicitly states that it is one-and-not-the-others without having to violate WP:No original research in order to reach this definition? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the article I can tell you that it would be the first and latter but not the second, as that is my understanding of what these organizations are. I have not been able to find all the sources quite yet but have seen them in the past. The AfD was truly premature and I have not had the time to put the article together and every edit I make seems to be reverted at this time. But honest to say this is a unique topic that does not fit anywhere else and that due to the copious use of the "friends of x" format for an organization it is a notable term and as inclusive as wikipedia is any use should be covered but I don't think anyone familiar with these groups would say its any charity I think the common sense understanding is that they are groups dedicated to one topic (usually of local importance) that use this naming structure.Thisbites (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can identify several related meanings of the term that are sufficiently similar to render a dab page pointless and confusing but sufficiently different to require a ground-up rewrite of the article (which I'm working on): charities and other tax-exempt bodies (which are by definition based in a single jurisdiction); environmental and other pressure groups (which may or may not be charitable and may be trans-national); religious orders (usually charitable, either national or trans-national); informal support or pressure groups (usually local). There may be others too. As it stands the article must be WP:SYNTH. andy (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which meanings are those? And which articles would the "FOO disambiguation" page go to? If you are working to rewrite the article why are you suggesting deletion in the first place? It seems all the examples you provided simply have a different topic of interest or scope (local vs. national or international) but they all fit the same definition. Again what articles would you redirect too?Thisbites (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Break 3[edit]

  • Keep It appears that the term "Friends organization" has a much different meaning in international fundraising than it does in the library world; drawing the distinction between these two uses of the term in different fields would seem an appropriate topic for an article. I added 2 quick sections with quotes; someone who knows more about legal matters than me would need to develop them. The article meets WP:RS for libraries, in that it's the American Library Association that's providing support for founding these groups. I would think that The Council on Foundations would be a reliable source for international groups. I'm not sure how all the other examples of Friends organizations fit in, or how this term is used outside the US. Perhaps the other groups could simply be mentioned as uses of this name which may have a different purpose.
It seems premature to put much effort into developing these sections, as the comments above suggest that anything that's added may simply be deleted, WP:DEMOLISH. This leads to the next question: if we were to write two new articles on the use of the term in the two different fields named above, would y'all move to delete them ASAP also? Wouldn't it be easier to simply give this article a chance? Legal / libraries / offshore fundraising / museums are four rather divergent fields and skill sets, so this article may well need collaboration by several people. Trilliumz (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the meaning is that different in fact. The "international" business is also a red herring; it may matter for tax purposes where the thing befriended is, but otherwise not much. The British Museum Friends (UK) and the American Friends of the British Museum are doing the same things. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'm starting to think that a colossal rewrite might do the trick, but unfortunately the original author and several other contributors seem set against it. Their argument appears to be that there is an easily defined thing called a "Friends of" organization which is pretty much identical with a certain type of US tax exempt body. It includes friends of museums, for example, but not religious bodies called "Friends of". Until they accept that such a loose phrase can also include a huge range of non-US or non-charitable or non-tax-exempt bodies then we have a problem. "Friends of..." is just a thing people say and nothing more. That's why I think it should be deleted. andy (talk)
The definition in the lead is perfectly adequate imo; the US tax status, which I haven't looked into at all, seems pretty incidental. I have certainly never suggested in any way this is a US phenomenon - the examples include more UK ones, and you still ignore the International Federation, with member organizations from 30 countries. Bodies that fit the definition in the lead can be covered, regardless of name; those that don't should not be, also regardless of names. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One professional society, one Federal agency, one state agency, one international organization, one national organzation, one religious group, a mention in a Wiley textbook on accounting standards and a definition in a dictionary about nonprofits. WP:CHANCE Isn't this enough in the way of WP:RS? Trilliumz (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on RS, but all the libraries, museums etc groups are examples of "3)a group supporting a particular organization" (or thing - ie natural area), are they not? As mentioned above, the federation also has tons of conference papers online. The lawyer's website does not in fact suggest that there is a necessary difference between a Friends organization and a 501C3 - some will meet the criteria for the status & some won't. It is the same with being a UK charity. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the background material on the federal site, you can see that "Friends" is a simply shorthand form of a particular type of support organisation more correctly called "Refuge Friends" and working with the National Wildlife Refuge Association. The three examples given here include one that does not use the word "Friends" in its name. As I have stated previously, the term is used for convenience only and enjoys exactly zero legal status. That's why Friends of The Lewes Arms also counts as a "Friends of" organisation in the terms specified in the article: "a membership organization, support group, or community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing such as a site, building, organization, or a more general but specialized concept". They fought to get local beer reinstated at their favourite pub - it made national news in the UK (see here) andy (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still seems to me that Fae's initial comments square with the experience of working professionals, and that disambiguation / categorization of these groups is helpful for organizing the encyclopedia. Agreed that "Friends group" is not a legal status under law, but it is used by lawyers nonetheless who are seeking to identify a certain subset of non-profit clients with similar issues and concerns. I really don't get it as to how such a day-to-day term for something found in so many US communities with a public library, and discussed at professional conferences by a documented community of practice, would not meet criteria for inclusion. I think it's quite possible to write an article that would respond to the various concerns raised in this discussion.
Having struggled with expressing EU governance and social science concepts in US terms in the past, my experience is that Europe/US are related but not identical societies that need to be handled each in their own terms and set of concepts if you want to be accurate. My experience is that it is not possible to synchronize UK/German/Austrian organizational structures exactly to US models, or vice-versa. Most every country will have some provisions in law and in custom for charitable organizations, but the organizational structures don't correspond exactly across national borders because the underlying legal and social structures are different. My suggestion on this would be to break out the European/UK usages from the US. Trilliumz (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it's simpler than that. There are various notable uses of the term but no single use that is the use and would qualify as the subject of a definitive article. I can't see a problem, for example, with breaking out separate articles to discuss some uses such as "Friends organizations in US tax law", "Friends organisations in EU charity law", "Friends groups in religion" and so on. But you simply can't lump them together in the way this article proposes because there is no single, dominant meaning of the term. andy (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of these subjects are notable in themselves. What on earth would "Friends groups in religion" be? But there is a broad but not unduly so concept that works worldwide, and is described in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Friends groups in religion" doesn't exist as a general concept, (unless you know way more about theology than I do). This adjective "Friends" means "Quaker." It's like saying "Methodist" or "Hindu" or what have you; the word "Friends" describes members of a specific religious group. "Friends groups" redirects to Religious Society of Friends or to Category:Quaker organizations "Friends groups" needs disambiguation, just like "Lutheran Social Services, a human services organization affiliated with Lutheran Services in America" on the LSS page. (The Religious Society of Friends appears on the Friends (disambiguation) page already.) Trilliumz (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, which is why they don't belong in the article, unlike "Friends of Footown Quaker Meeting House" say. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the "Friends of Truth" (which eventually became the Society of Friends) provides a historical example of a "Friends of" group which just happened to coalesce around common socio-religious interests (Summers, Steve (2010). Friendship: Exploring Its Implications for the Church in Postmodernity. Ecclesiological Investigations. Vol. 7. Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 165 of 224. ISBN 9780567490643. Retrieved 2011-06-09. [...] the Society of Friends take their name from their self-description 'Friends of Truth' or 'Friends of the Truth', dating from their inception [...]), and merits mention as such. -- Jandalhandler (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is similarity by shared name, which we should guard against. The Quakers are a reasonably conventional "independent" Protestant denomination, not a group of the type covered here, where many members typically pay to join & then forget all about the group. They did not "just happen to coalesce around common socio-religious interests", they were founded by a small number of highly motivated and actiive religious extremists (as seen at the time). Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "Friends of Truth" used the "Friends of ..." formula in the 17th century. Whatever their organic origins and subsequent leadership takeovers and whatever their subsequent naming or theology, they went through a stage (like most religious organizations) in which they comprised what the article currently calls "a membership organization, support group, or community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing such as a site, building, organization, or a more general concept or area of interest". This "similarity by shared" naming lies at the core of the article. (Compare for example the fascinating and varied -stan article.) If we had an earlier example of such "Friends of ..." naming, it might well supplant the "Friends of Truth" in the historical section. Failing that, the "Friends of Truth" provide an important 17th-century milestone in the use of the formula. -- Jandalhandler (talk) 12:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the wise Hrafn. This isn't really an encyclopædia article, and it is unlikely ever to be one; it is a mishmash of text about wildly differing organisations which just happen to have a couple of easily-googled words in their name. Collecting them together in one place is coatrack / synth / OR at best. If a subset of them have a particular tax status which is notable (and which is shared with a much larger number of non-friends organisations), then write an article on that tax status instead. If a small subset of them are friends of museums or friends of some other specific thing such that they actually have something in common beyond the word "friends", try writing an article on those alone, if you can get them over the notability threshold for that grouping. bobrayner (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The great majority are "friends of museums or friends of some other specific thing such that they actually have something in common". Since many individual groups have had articles for a long time, it is hard to see why the general concept, with a large literature by busy fund-raising professionals, should not be. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with it? We already have thousands of separate articles on notable people whose name begins with H, but we do not have an article which tries to present a unified block of prose on People whose name begins with H, because that would be unencyclopædic. No doubt some of these friends organisations are indvidually notable; if so, write articles on them instead. If some of them actually have something significant and notable in common beyond the word "friends" which merits having a shared article, you'd better write an article on that thing, or at least tell us what it is.
If there really is "a large literature by busy fund-raising professionals" on friends-of organisations as a broad group, I'd like to see that; it would probably change my mind, and would make this subject much more notable. bobrayner (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be creating a parody by using the 'idea of people whose name begins with H' as non-encyclopaedic but ignoring the fact that we have articles such as Emily which is a far closer parallel to this situation. Fæ (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emily is a disambiguation page, NOT an article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to my first comment at the start of this AfD. Fæ (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your "first comment at the start of this AfD" is self-contradictory WP:Complete bollocks [and lacking any factual or logical merit]. (i) A page cannot simultaneously be on a "valid specific type of organization" and be "potentially useful as a disambiguation page". (ii) As demonstrated repeatedly above, this article is not on a "valid specific type of organization", but on a grab-bag of loosely associated organisation-types (see my comment dated 10:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC), along with many similar comments to this effect). (iii) It is not a valid disambiguation page, because it is structured as an article, not as a set of disambiguation links, and so presents little utility for that purpose, nor is it clear that such a disambiguation page is needed. (Conversion to a List of Friends of organizations would appear to require less wholesale rewriting.) Whether a disambiguation page is either needed, or could be written from scratch under this title, are separate issues outside the purview of this AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate my opinion not being dismissed as complete bollocks. Just because a handful of people think the essay title you have linked to is humorous, I find your comment personal, offensive and appears intended to close down valid discussion.
It is quite common for a disambiguation page to have a lead description for the class of things being disambiguated, in some cases these descriptions are extensive and encyclopaedic. As for the purview of this AfD, I suggest you re-read the hasty nomination which claimed this article was a dictionary definition which is what should be responded to, as to the outcome of this AfD the normal options apply and if the article can be improved in the future by converting to a disambiguation page, then deletion would be heavy handed and arbitrary as an outcome as this is a normal improvement issue. --Fæ (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you do delve into the history of the thing you'll see that I left the article for an hour and a half after its creation before prodding it as so generic as being to be useless, which it undoubtedly was at that time. Rather than address the issue, the article's creator (now indef blocked as a sockpuppeteer) simply removed the prod. I waited several more hours during which time there were some desultory attempts at improvement which simply served to make it clearer that the article was a grab-bag of semi-related ideas. Hence the AfD. There's a lot more text in the article now but it's still a total mess and I see no way it can be improved. I was trying to do a rewrite myself but I've given up. This is several articles masquerading as one, glued together with a bit of SYNTH. andy (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)(i) As that colloquial metaphor for nonsense is causing you conniptions, I've replaced it with "and lacking any factual or logical merit". Regardless, the meaning is the same. (ii) I notice that you have only addressed my third point -- and done so inadequately. (iii) Regardless of your claim that a disambiguation page may include "extensive and encyclopaedic" descriptions (which strikes me as questionable), the page under discussion fails to disambiguate, in that it leaves the meaning entirely ambiguous through being a grab-bag of conflicting definitions, with no attempt to clearly distinguish them, let alone provide disambiguation links to general articles on any of those individual meanings (as opposed to individual articles on 'Friends of' organisations, under the various, but unidentified, definitions). (iv) The nomination in an AfD does not place any formal limit on the discussions thereafter -- a commenter may legitimately not accept the nominator's rationale but still !vote 'delete' for a completely unrelated reason. (v) Employing Emily as a counter-example, based solely upon your own earlier assertion that the article under discussion could be turned into a disambiguation page, strikes me as a wholly unconvincing rhetorical tactic (a phrase that I would likewise tend to summarise with the aforementioned metaphor). As such I had (and have) no particular interest in your further elaborations on the subject. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can find something more important to spend your time on. Insulting contributors and then storming off is often considered a poor rhetorical tactic but hopefully you feel better for it. Fæ (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want your arguments dissected, then don't rub my nose in them. And having been put to the trouble of analysing their shortcomings, don't expect me to be interested in more of the same. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'll be happy to try and avoid reading your opinions in the future. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The article needs to be renamed to be pluralized.Curb Chain (talk) 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Singular titles are normally preferred. Assuming this means you think it should be kept rather than deleted, it would be useful for the closer to spell this out. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a notable general subject with several variations, probably best discussed together. Important possible uses for disambiguation and linking. DGG ( talk ) 21:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly a misguided synthesis of unrelated organizations. Yworo (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been rewritten[edit]

  • Keep and rename. - "Friends of" organization (etymology). Taking the above discussion into account, WP:CIV WP:ALLARGUMENTS I attempted a reorganization and rewrite, and discovered that there is a Museums and Libraries AfD. Could we hold off on any deletion of this article for a day or two to see if that community has any input? Trilliumz (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I don't like these changes, which clearly play up to the arguments of some deletrers, though not intended to. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still not a single WP:SECONDARY source has been shown to have in-depth coverage about this type of organization as something special. The whole article appears to be an exercise in WP:OR -- original research. It's like someone would write the article on programming language by just using various existing languages as examples, and inferring various things about them without citing any books about the topic as a whole. And I'm being kind in that comparison. This article is more like writing and article on Programming languages that begin with the letter C about C, C#, C++, and ChucK (the latter has no logical relation to the rest, but hey, it starts with C!) FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Programming languages that begin with the letter C have an international federation with members from 30 countries, and 18 national federations, and that dealing with just one industry sector? Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which federation would that be? FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
World Federation of Friends of Museums justifies an article for Friends of Museums, but not for Friends of whatever. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Friends of Museums/Friends of libraries/Friends of natural features - its exactly the same thing, which unfortunately the recent changes to the article have obscured. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And so are Friends of lulu according to this Wikipedia article. But still [citation needed] on a source saying they are "exactly the same thing" or even discussing them together. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The whole thing, mashing together all these various "friends of" connotations looks to me to be WP:OR, the synthesis and assertion of an aggregate relationship that likely appears nowhere else in any reliable sources. Msnicki (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Despite the rewrite, I'd like to reaffirm my prior "delete" recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would suggest that Colonel Warden read the prior comments before making erroneous claims as to what they state. They do not claim that secondary sources that discuss individual types of "friends of" organisations don't exist -- merely that no sources exist that tie together these disparate types and contradictory definitions into A SINGLE TOPIC. As such, this topic's conception is original research, and if Colonel Warden could be bothered to actually read our editing policy, as opposed to animatronically piping it to a single section of it, he would find that that policy actually lists OR as justification for removal. That a notable article could be created about 'Friends of Museums' organisations (e.g. at World Federation of Friends of Museums) is not under dispute -- but this is not that article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be significant editing activity at the article and such activity will naturally address such matters as the scope of the topic and the extent to which this overlaps with other articles such as support group. The sources indicate that there is much good potential here. Deletion would be disruptive to this healthy process of article development and contrary to our editing policy. The article should therefore be kept so that ordinary editing may continue. Warden (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I would put it to Colonel Warden that the question of whether this topic's conception is fundamentally OR is a matter that needs to be settled by this AfD, and is not a matter that can simply be airily consigned with boundless (and many would say misplaced) optimism on the 'natural' consequences of editing activity, which has wholly failed to come up with anything resembling a unifying source, or even one that even eases the fundamental conflicts, to date (I would characterise his optimism as 'faith in miracles' and thus more closely related to the supernatural than the natural).
  • The topic seems sufficiently large and complex that we will not able to achieve unanimity within the timeframe of an AFD. This is not a problem because Wikipedia does not have a deadline and so we are able to take as many years as needed. 99% of Wikipedia's articles are of less than good quality and there seems to be no pressing reason to focus so urgently upon this one. As we take time to comb through and inspect the numerous sources available, the disputed issues will become clearer and so resolve. This cannot happen if the article and its associated talk page is deleted and so we should follow our editing policy which expects and encourages articles to be improved over time from imperfect starts such as this. Warden (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quit dodging the question and misrepresenting others' concerns: the problem that myself, and others, have with this topic is not that it is "large and complex", but that it is inconsistent and self-contradictory. The fact that this topic's conception is original research IS "a problem because Wikipedia" forbids original research. The problem is not lack-of-quality, but lack of cconsistency, at a fundamental level, with wikipedia's core polices -- can you claim that for "99% of Wikipedia's articles"? No? I thought not. And please leave off the fairy stories about what miracles "editing activity" will produce. And finally, WP:PRESERVE is no more the sum of "our editing policy" than WP:IMPERFECT is -- so please cease and desist piping to them as though they are. Our real editing policy states that removal of OR is justified -- a point that you've failed to address. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claims of OR have been refuted by the citing of numerous sources which demonstrate that topic is not novel. It is one of the Five pillars that "Your efforts do not need to be perfect". The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion and it is our emphatic deletion policy that "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.. Warden (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the article's history and the talk page you'll see that much of the editing was the work of one noble individual who has now abandoned the effort. andy (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed off-topic discussion about timing of AfDs, civility of nominations, and relationships between AfDs and PRODs. Singularity42 (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I look at the history, I notice that you proposed that the article be deleted within an hour or so of its creation. As the WP:PROD process is only for uncontroversial cases, it seems uncivil to use this when an article is fresh and so clearly a work-in-progress. Editors who engage in such disruption should be warned off. Please see WP:BITE. Warden (talk) 19:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prodding an unsourced stub is hardly "controversial", or "uncivil". Editors are expected to have sources for WP:Verifiability before they start writing. In any case, all of this is completely irrelevant to the AfD before us. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO the article was an uncontroversial case - short, muddled and as I said in the prod "So generic as to be valueless, not even as a dictionary definition; no evidence that "friends of" as a concept exists outside of any specific usage". What do you mean by "warned off"? Is that a threat? And as for disruption, have you taken the trouble to look the block log on the original author - vandalism, disruption and now a permanent ban for sockpuppetry? Focus on the matter in hand please - after many attempts to improve the article it's still a hopeless mess. You're a member of the Rescue Squadron, why don't you rescue it? andy (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor who misused the PROD process then went on to start this AFD discussion even though it was then apparent that deletion was opposed. The discussion we have now seems to be both uncivil and disruptive, harming the project by its unpleasant strife and disputation. This is contrary to policy as collegial behaviour is expected in a project of this kind. Warden (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is for opposed prods! When you say I took it to AfD "even though it was then apparent that deletion was opposed" do you mean that AfD is only for uncontroversial deletions? And please don't accuse me of misusing the process. Anyway, this is the wrong forum for this kind of discussion. Happy to respond at ANI if you'd like to raise it there. Please focus on the matter in hand. andy (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colonel Warden: as you have neither presented credible evidence that Andyjsmith "misused the PROD process" or that his AfD nomination was illegitimate. Your unsubstantiated accusations thus constitute personal attacks (which, from warnings on your usertalk, you seem to be indulging in rather frequently on AfDs lately) -- a blockable offence. Further, you repeated misrepresentation of others' comments, and dodging of issues put directly at you, constitutes disruption. It is you who are indulging in WP:BATTLGROUND tactics. I would request that you cease and desist this behaviour. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just got here to find that the train-wreck had already occurred. After such a incident, it is sensible to look at the cause. The nominator has a special role in this as the initiator of the discussion. Warden (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take exception to this being OR. My narrowly focused pruned version was anything but a "hopeless mess"-- it is exactly what you folks in this AfD agree on as being the germane, verifiable information that corresponds to the article title. I fail to understand why that version is out of compliance with Wikipedia policies as I hear them expressed in this AfD. I also suggest you consider reading: The Friends organization: an approach to institutional stability, by Louisa Melissa Crump. Reprint, American University. 226 p., 1986 OCLC 24306603 Trilliumz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no general agreement at this Afd that I've noticed. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your objection is without merit -- the very opening definition of the topic as "a formula that provides a common naming convention for a membership organization, support group, or community group that is dedicated to the support, promotion or protection of a particular thing such as a site, building, organization, or a more general but specialized concept" is improper WP:Synthesis, in that this claim goes well beyond what is claimed in Anheier & list, the cited source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the reference was subsequently added, not by me, after that text was written, all by me except the start, which has been rewritten. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cruft and WP:OR. --Bob (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is not just a crufty list, and not all of the article is contested as OR. As has been pointed out several times in this discussion, needing improvement is not a reason for deletion or a reason to create an AFD in the first place. Fæ (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "not all of the article is contested as OR". Great| Would you please delete the OR bits, so the uncontroversial non-OR material is all that remains? That would be very helpful. Thanks. andy (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact only two sentences were tagged as OR, surely by you? I've removed one as off-topic (your "brave" pal had added it), leaving only "Political action committees in the United States frequently use this form of name.[original research?]" - which is OR only in the usual WP sense of "something that isn't referenced yet, & I didn't know before". Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - A synthesis of multiple subjects that, while they may share something in their name, have no real link that warrants an article encompassing the entire subject. Yaksar (let's chat) 23:28, 17 June 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 00:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ludachrist[edit]

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

Notability - band does not appear to have charted or have any mainstream media coverage Freikorp (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails musical artist notability. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was just about to say what Freikorp said. No notable albums or EPs. Minima© (talk) 18:10, 13 June 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. Deleted by User:RHaworth under G11. (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fancystreemscom[edit]

Fancystreemscom (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 evidence of notability given. 78.26 (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G11. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 7 June 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 keep. Nomination was withdrawn with no delete votes. (non-admin closure) Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Boucher[edit]

Claire Boucher (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 evidence of notability given. Any independent reviews? 78.26 (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was still compiling references. I have added a review of her latest release from Pitchfork Media. Kitkohler (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just added an interview from Dummy Magazine. Kitkohler (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I rescind this nomination. Notable artist, I'm going to add references. 78.26 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rash (novel)[edit]

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

Can't find anything particularly notable about this work.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Invisible (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sweetblood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rash - I have found sources for it. I've added from Kirkus Reviews and will add some more. No opinion yet on the others. LadyofShalott 15:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Invisible. I've added sources for some of the recognition it has received. LadyofShalott 16:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Sweetblood too. It's also been recognized for its quality. LadyofShalott 16:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, though I haven't (yet) added them, there are multiple reviews of these books in Kirkus Reviews, School Library Journal, Hornbook, etc. There's plenty to establish notability for each of these three books. LadyofShalott 16:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. Didn't check thoroughly enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 12 June 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. Editors disagree about whether this food has sufficient coverage for notability.  Sandstein  05:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mushroom sauce[edit]

Mushroom sauce (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 AfD page was originally created in 2005 as a redirect to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lettuce soup, as I guess that's how bundled AfD nominations worked back then. All articles in that bundle were deleted, but this article was recreated in December 2010. It was nominated for AfD by HominidMachinae (talk · contribs) but Twinkle failed to create the deletion discussion page. I assume the nomination is along the lines of non-notable food product.

If I erred in fixing this nomination please un-fix it, correctly fix it, and let me know. Thanks. —KuyaBriBriTalk 04:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This sounds like a WP:HOWTO article. Is there anything inherently notable out of a sauce made from mushrooms. It it were then wouldn't it have a French name? Or sound a whole lot more impressive than "mushroom sauce".  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does sauce champignons whet your appetite more than mushroom sauce? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? No "à la Crème". That sounds as bland as "mushroom sauce" and it doesn't sound anywhere near as sexy as "Gratin de finnois". And why is only one kind of mushroom sauce mentioned in this article? There are many different kinds of mushroom sauce. It's not a very definitive WP:HOWTO. Come to think of it, there are no articles on "Gratin de finnois" either. A gross miscarriage of justice. :-)  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 00:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment delete since the bundled articles were deleted speedy I tried to AfD this as I would a contested speedy. Basically this is just a dictdef, and a tautology at that (mushroom sauce is a sauce made of mushrooms) about which little more can be said. HominidMachinae (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
but the article already does say more than that. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The act of nominating for AfD is the same as recommending delete.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 21:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Phil points out by reference to the photo file, this is one of the classic "small sauces" of French cuisine, composed of a "mother sauce", in the case béchamel or velouté, to which mushrooms and other ingredients are added. See the list of specific sauce article wiki-linked to Sauce, among which is Mushroom sauce. Oh yes, it needs improvement and proper references, but it's more than a "how to" as it is. Having a main article linked to many sub-articles is common on WP and keeps the main subject article from getting too unwieldy. Geoff Who, me? 20:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a specific food of culinary significance, with abundant possible references. I think we could probably reconstruct some other of those articles also--its not hard finding content. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Am I the only active member of the Rescue Suqad any more? Bearian (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of available sources and potential for expansion. I just added a couple to the article. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wanted to try rescuing this article. But "mushroom sauce" isn't mentioned in McGee's On Food And Cooking or Corriher's CookWise. Heck, even Escoffier couldn't come up with more than three sentences, none of which are anything more than a recipe. [36] There's not really a higher authority for sauces than Escoffier. And as we know, Wikipedia isn't a cookbook. To the extent that mushroom sauce has any notability, it should be a brief mention at Allemande sauce, because that's the mother sauce of Sauce aux Champignons. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:11, 16 June 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 00:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad Maggies[edit]

The Mad Maggies (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 deleted by prod and contested at WP:REFUND. I've undeleted the article per request but my initial gnews search didn't turn up any coverage. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right now this is a borderline G11, but since that is probably not available for a refunded deletion we should do this the old fashioned way. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Non-notable band, written as WP:PROMO by someone with I expect huge WP:COI. They simply are not encyclopedic yet (and may never be( (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at the moment WP:ADVERT and WP:COI are relevant here, article is written very much like an advert, the creator hasn't given any rational for the undeletion. I haven’t found any reliable sources, but it's possible there might be one or two - but as Wikipedia isn't in a habit of deciding things on vague possibilities I say delete unless sources are found and/ or it meets WP:BAND which it seems to fail at the moment. --wintonian talk 12:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the creator having a valid rationale for undeletion, if an article was deleted by prod then he doesn't need one. If he goes to refund and says "bing bing tiddle bong" the article should be undeleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see, thanks, I still say delete though for the other reasons I mentiond. --wintonian talk 13:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, salt and start the bilge pumps for any and all reasons stated above. Reading just the lead paragraph gave me a seizure. Dreck.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was strongly tempted to "NOTDONE" this at refund but I've been arguing at WT:REFUND that a "contested PROD" should be restored regardless of the opinion of the reviewing admin. I'm definitely sticking my money where my mouse is on this one. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:58, 11 June 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 List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zenjirou Tsurugi[edit]

Zenjirou Tsurugi (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 character has not recieved coverage in reliable, third-party sources outside of the series to pass WP:NOTE. This article is also redundant to entry on the character list. Though it is a likely search term, attempts to redirect to the character list have completely failed. —Farix (t | c) 03:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 June 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 01:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight (Digimon)[edit]

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

Attempts to simply redirect this article to the character list have completely failed. This list is redundant to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters#Twilight and is an unnecessary content fork. Given the disambiguation, it probably isn't a likely search term. —Farix (t | c) 03:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 June 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 original research, albeit very well-sourced. I can provide the deleted content if anyone wants to improve other articles with it. Larry V (talk | email) 23:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex integration and patriarchy/matriarchy[edit]

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

Somewhat incoherent article with almost no references which discuss the ostensible topic. As I explained to the article creator, to no effect, an article on sex integration that discusses the phenomenon in a society that happens to be patriarchal is not a source on sex integration in patriarchy. Without adequate sources discussing this intersection, it is not notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note on sources. The article creator says that the Catherine MacKinnon source discusses this intersection, and I can't access it, but I'll take his word for it. The Haavio-Mannila article is accessible here and does not actually discuss sex integration and patriarchy or matriarchy; rather, it discusses sex segregation with passing reference to individual patriarchal or matriarchal families, the term defined by whether the husband or wife earns more money. This is not "patriarchy"/"matriarchy" as the term is actually used by anyone, at Wikipedia or elsewhere. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I strongly disagree with Roscelese. This individual has sought to delete first and only when prevented, then seeks to discuss to reach consensus, see url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_integration_and_patriarchy/matriarchy&diff=432621317&oldid=4. The deletions have focused not on referenced material pertinent to the focus of the article but on inclusions from other Wikipedia articles. When prevented from deleting Sex integration and patriarchy/matriarchy, the editor allowed the sections 'Achieving sex integration in patriarchy' and 'Achieving sex integration in matriarchy', as these references and information are clearly pertinent. Much of the additional material under the section, 'Patriarchy' deleted by this editor dealt with how the sex segregation came about and is pertinent as to sex integrating patriarchal cultures. The same is true for information under 'Matriarchy'. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Sex integration. I agree both with Marshallsumter that there is material on "Sex integration and patriarchy/matriarchy", and with the nominator that this material shouldn't really be on the separate article. It's something of a content fork to separate this from the main sex integration article, seeing as sex integration is only relevant in the context of a relative patriarchy or matriarchy. --Anthem 06:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm no expert on this subject but I get the overall impression that this is original research. See WP:OR.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with sex integration precisely per Anthem of Joy, who has this exactly right. Incidentally, while I was reading around for this !vote, I read our article on achieving sex integration, which should also be merged with sex integration.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. There is no there there. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to be Original research/Synthesis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A simple Google Scholar search using "patriarchy" and "sex integration" demonstrates the article is NOT original research. Combining with the article "Sex integration" and the others User:SarekOfVulcan and User:Roscelese have used this 'Delete' template on will make it lengthy. The subjects deserve their own pages. They are 'start's not final FAs or GAs. And, they are past 'stub's. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not vote more than once in the same deletion discussion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A piece of original synthesis advancing a political argument. Once again, there's the curious credal statement: Attributing relative meaning to gender or sex may transcend a belief in the reality of gender or sex so as to increase sex integration and reduce dominance by exclusively males or females. One of the few endearing features of Homo sapiens is that no amount of egalitarian hectoring is going to succeed at making us ignore the difference between men and women. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The primary objection here is that this is some sort of off the wall synthesis. The prohibition against "synthesis" is one of the unfortunate anachronisms of the Days of Yore on Wikipedia, when philosophers roamed the earth and bashed bellies over conceptualizations of the revolutionary notion of an online encyclopedia. Every single biography on Wikipedia is a "synthesis" to one extent or another. It is the way that encyclopedia article-writing is done, plain and simple: assembling disparate tidbits of information from various sources into a coherent whole. This is no different, unfortunate title aside. A title change should calm nerves: Effects of gender integration on sexism or some such gets closer to the mark than this ultra-esoteric title. Is that an encyclopedic topic, I ask? Yes. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it would be, but that doesn't appear to be the topic of the article that's under discussion at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. A vote of "keep, but rename and replace all of the content with new content" is not different in substance from a vote of "delete." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Sex integration. While I disagree with User:Carrite's opinion on WP:SYNTHESIS, vehemently, it is plain from simply reading the article that no synthesis is at work here. The article's statements are well cited and do not combine information from two sources to arrive at an original research conclusion. On the contrary, I find no indication of original research, no indication of POV, and the material that's in dispute would be a valuable asset in the expansion of the extant article on Sex integration. It will need a little rewriting (some of the statements are a little murky) but few merges don't. For full disclosure, I became aware of this article because of a third opinion request placed by its author on the relevant talk page. — chro • man • cer  00:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is a synthesis essay. References fail to establish notability of this as a single topic. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:02, 11 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sex integration and ageism[edit]

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

None of the cited sources discuss the intersection of the two topics. Much of the content is not related to either, let alone both. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree strongly with Roscelese. This is the third time this editor seeks to 'Delete' before discussing. Reaching consensus through discussion is the foremost principle of Wikipedia, yet this editor has made no such entries on the 'Discussion' page for this or the other two articles. This 'Deletion' process should be halted for that alone. The intersection complained about by the above editor takes many forms: ageism by older women against younger men, by older men against women of similar age, younger men preferring women of similar age, younger women preferring older men, sex integration by older women having comparable power to older men, in that sexual age disparity is not associated with lower socio-economic status and that it is common for many cultures. These have been properly referenced. One topic not yet dealt with under ageism is younger people ruling, under sex integration: younger women ruling instead of older men. The article is a start, not a deletion candidate. I further question that an editor has the right to nominate for deletion in this manner at all. Marshallsumter (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor may propose to delete an article without first discussing. Also, a start-level classification does not make an article safe from deletion. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is the discussion.--v/r - TP 14:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteAs a point of order discussion on a talk page is not a pre-requisite to AfD discussion. Any editor has "the right" to nominate an article for deletion if they have concerns about its suitability. On the merits of the article itself it seems to be entirely original research. The sources discuss one or the other, not both. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is a grab bag of unrelated items presented in the hope that a topic will be discovered among them. This is a violation of WP:SYNTH, in which we are instructed not to conclude a third idea after showing two ideas which are separate. Out it goes.... Binksternet (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article pulls in a lot of semi-related topics, and never really addresses the issue in the title.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of a set of essays, with an definite implied POV, , dealing with subjects we already have. Editors would do better expanding those well-establishedexisting articles than in making new overlapping ones. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, thank you User:Binksternet for mentioning about the 'Deletion' template. My earlier understanding is that only admins use that and discussions should first take place on the 'Discussion' page. This is not a 'synthesis' nor 'original research'. A simple Google Scholar search using terms: "sex integration" and "aging" demonstrates that it is neither and authors are intersecting the two. Using 'ageism' with 'sex integration' does not produce any references yet these authors often refer to policies regarding gender and aging that are 'ageism'. Using the title, "Aging and sex integration" seems more like Egalitarian mortality, which is a term used in the literature. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may not cast more than one vote in a deletion discussion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete. Another of an apparent series of original research articles that seek to advance the dubious notion of a unisex utopia. Looking forward to Sex integration and the Palestinian question, myself. All of these articles actually probably should be moved to the author's user page or a subpage thereof. There are cited facts and research in all of them, and they could be used to amend existing articles on single subjects; but these syntheses don't really qualify as separate article subjects. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The primary objection here is that this is some sort of off the wall synthesis. The prohibition against "synthesis" is one of the unfortunate anachronisms of the Days of Yore on Wikipedia, when philosophers roamed the earth and bashed bellies over conceptualizations of the revolutionary notion of an online encyclopedia. Every single biography on Wikipedia is a "synthesis" to one extent or another. It is the way that encyclopedia article-writing is done, plain and simple: assembling disparate tidbits of information from various sources into a coherent whole. This is no different, unfortunate title aside. A title change should calm nerves: Effects of gender integration on ageism or some such gets closer to the mark than this ultra-esoteric title. Is that an encyclopedic topic, I ask? Yes. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an encyclopedic topic unless there are sources discussing it, which there aren't. That's why it's up for deletion; a simple name change won't solve this problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a big bellied philosopher, Carrite's observations are true, which is what makes them dangerous. At least some history is compiled out of records that weren't made with the needs of historians in mind; registries of births and deaths, original polemics from the era, tombstone inscriptions, legal pleadings, and so forth. On the other hand, neither Oliver Cromwell nor Lucius Cornelius Sulla are original theses in themselves; we begin with the assumption that they exist and are worthy of study. The instant article, by contrast, is not about a pre-existing object of study. Instead, it's an original polemic, that seeks both to persuade us that a problem exists, and propose what to do about it. That's what makes it "original research", which like "notability" is a bit of jargon that's drifted a bit away from its ordinary meaning. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These are topics thrown together randomly with each separately referenced but with no sense of any integration that answers the title of the article. This is topic invention not an encyclopaedic subject.  Velella  Velella Talk   22:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is a synthesis essay. References fail to establish notability of this as a single topic. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At least eight authors have discussed Sex integration and ageism, or the association of sex integration with ageism, that meets Wikipedia's Notability criteria. I didn't find User:Roscelese, User:Binksternet, User:HominidMachinae, User:Ihcoyc, User:Velella, or User:Jsfouche on the 'View history' record of editing first before nomination for deletion or a vote of 'Deletion' following the usual guidelines. May I suggest that you check 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' rather than resorting to 'Deletion' first. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Synthesis/original research. This might be a fine research paper for academic purposes, but Wikipedia is not the place for original research or for a survey/synthesis type analysis. Btw there is no need to look at "articles not satisfying the notability guidelines" because the issue here is not notability; it is original research/synthesis. (However if we do look at that policy, it says "Articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted".) And there is no requirement that an editor must actually make an edit to the article before they can express an opinion about whether to keep it in wikipedia or delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts. I can imagine a whole string of similar--but I'm not writing them down, because of WP:BEANS. . DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 14 June 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. There may be a rationale for an article on the series; but the fact that NALBUM is failed here is not argued against. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10 Great Songs[edit]

10 Great Songs (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 is just one of multitude type "budget-priced" compilation albums that have regularly been deleted as non-notable on wikipedia. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Most of Selena's compilation albums are "budget-priced" ;) however, the album hasn't been released yet. The majority of Selena's so called "greatest hits" albums has charted on Billboard music charts ever since her death in 1995, example La Leyenda which was released last year, peaked #4 on the Latin Albums chart. AJona1992 (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against recreation after release. Selena has released 67 albums posthumously, most of which are probably compilation albums. If it sells well, it could be recreated. Right now it does not pass WP:NALBUM; it is not a studio album, even though Selena herself is quite notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge until the article is released or impacted any music charts like all her other (well majority) complication albums did. AJona1992 (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Charting alone doesn't make it notable. Being mentioned in multiple reliable sources does, per WP:NALBUMS. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the album does chart, it is notable, those others are just other ways if an album didn't impact any music chart. AJona1992 (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong, please read the requirements about notability. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you're wrong. Lets review Ones, shall we? In general, if the musician or ensemble is notable, and if the album in question has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, then their officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. (1) Selena is OF COURSE notable, (2) Billboard [38], RIAA [39] peaked on Billboard and had a certification of sales. Ummm next please! Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting. hahahahah lets merge the article lolz, its only an infobox, a sentence lead, track listing, certifications, and fancrut, with only ONE source. Oh please, point blank, if "10 Great Songs" impact at least the least peak position on a music chart, its notable. But since you believe that every article has to be well above "C-Class" to be included in Wikipedia, then you're just plain crazy. Yea theres over 40,000 albums and songs on Wikipedia that are STUBS or START and impacted music charts, yet they get to stay? I'm sorry but, while I'm here, thats not gonna fly ;) btw heres our little cheat cheat.
Lead

Only one sentence? This is against WP:LEAD

  • The Limited Edition version also has a bonus DVD which contains all her videos. - source?
Sales and certification

There's an empty section, most likely need to be removed, irrelevant to the one that has the table.

Extras

Remove fancrut, unless stated in a reliable source its too orish.

References

One source?

Notes

Citation needed for the link to Allmusic. A source is needed for "Con Tanto Amor Medley".

So in you're world, "Ones", which shipped over 500,000 copies (gold status) and peaked at #159 on Billboard 200, #4 on Billboard Top Latin Albums, and #4 on Latin Pop Albums, has to be deleted because it lacks information? Wow, lolz. AJona1992 (talk) 03:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an AFD for Ones? No. All I said was:
  • This album lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.
  • Charting alone does not make an album notable.
If this album does end up charting, gets certified by the RIAA, receives some professional reviews, etc., then the requirements are met, and there's no prejudice against recreation. But a chart position is not significant coverage ("coverage" means someone actually discussing or mentioning the album) and usually comes from one source (the chart provider). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No this is not, however, you believe that if any music-related article is a stub or start-class that has certifications and/or impacted a music chart on Billboard, it still qualify for deletion. That's the point that I'm trying to get across. AJona1992 (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have obviously misinterpreted what I said. An album that charts and receives no other significant coverage in reliable sources does not meet general notability requirements for inclusion. This album has neither charted nor received significant coverage. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge to new article 10 Great Songs (series). EMI Music had released the series for Selena, Blondie, The Band, The Beach Boys, Billy Idol, Kenny Rogers, Pat Benatar, Kenny Rogers, George Thorogood, Poison, Huey Lewis & the News and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. There's also an extenstive review on most of the artists who were chosen, on Allmusic, which can help expand the article further. Haven't checked if any impacted any Billboard charts, which is most likely. AJona1992 (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to strike out your previous merge !vote. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the series itself has to be considered notable with coverage in multiple reliable sources. Coverage on individual albums is not an indication of notability of the series. As precedent, a number of other budget album series have been deleted in AFDs:
The notability of individual albums is independent of the series itself and would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis such as the album in question. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge to a new article on the series. I think that there are propably enough refs to support such an article. Robman94 (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When you find references to validate the notability of the series, I will agree with you. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:08, 16 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 23:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of River Song[edit]

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

Pure Original research. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I scrolled down to the bottom, and I was surprised by the lack of source links. Asteroid1717 (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the sources could be assumed to be the episodes themselves, but I don't think that's enough in this case, especially since Moffat isn't done messing with our minds yet. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to River Song. I'd honestly prefer it be a separate article, but I doubt that WP:N would support that. There may be an "UNDUE" problem, but A) this is pretty important to the character and B) it could be collapsed I suppose. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yep agree with the basic order, however pure research as there are episodes such as impos ast and DOM which yes likely to be River as a girl but come off it, it's original research until 100% confirmed, and the little girl could easily be someone else, this is Moffat we're dealing with. Oh and her meeting with the 'present' doctor takes place in 2011 as he takes them back to 1969. And the quotes a definatly OR who says that they are the key quotes in the episode. Good twins (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to River Song (Doctor Who) would seem to be a no brainer. This should be a sub section on her page. Mathewignash (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Keeping this article can't be justified unless it can be proven that it's not WP:OR, which it very clearly appears to be. There are no sources and none to be found—it's fan speculation, and probably correct at that, but still fan speculation. We can't merge content that constitutes this, and it certainly fails the WP:GNG categorically. If a source discusses this ordering of episodes, that information will be easy enough to place in the extant article River Song (Doctor Who). — chro • man • cer  22:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these timelines are generally deleted for being mainly WP:JUSTPLOT, for lacking independent sources to WP:verify notability, and for being a WP:CONTENTFORK of the main fictional work's plot summary but with much more WP:UNDUE weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research. Plus, though we know (at the moment) when River is born and dies, the middle section is purely speculative. It's still vague as to which points in River's timeline correspond to the Doctor's. We really need to wait on reliable sourcing to come out on this. --Ebyabe (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The chronology as a subject does not meet the general notability guideline and can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. There are no third-party sources to presume that it should have a stand alone article. The chronology itself is merely a non-concise plot summary, an unneeded content fork of River Song (Doctor Who). The content is supported exclusively with primary sources, using original research by synthesis to create the chronology, which doesn't exist outside of this article. Jfgslo (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge It would fit very well into the main article on the character. None of the objections above show otherwise. The rule against plot summary applies to the complete wp coverage of a topic, not each individual part of it. Primary sources are sufficient for the events of a fiction, and are in fact the preferred source, rather than using a secondary source describing the plot, which is usually inaccurate. Entering obvious facts about the outside world is not OR. (Furthermore, by the GNG If the plot is discussed in a substantial way in some of the reviews about the episodes, then the plot itself is notable ; if the chronology of the character is discussed in a substantial way, it would be separately notable also though I still would not support this as a separate article. I agree such references is not in the article, but I don't think it has been seriously looked for.) But my main point is that this should have been nominated for merge not deletion: The basic concept behind WP:BEFORE, though not all the details, is part of WP:Deletion policy. BTW, The article has been considerably improved since the above !votes were made. The early states of the article were ridiculously excessive, and this may have affected the !votes--though we're not supposed to delete on the basis of article quality, that's a little unrealistic--it does affect people's thinking (including mine, if it's bad enough) DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I disagree vehemently with this interpretation of guidelines. Primary sources cannot be used to cobble together a supposed chronology of a fictional character's history without secondary sources to back them up. That is textbook WP:SYNTHESIS. Neither does any portion of our guidelines state that primary sources are to be our preferred source for interpretation of plot. See WP:PRIMARY and the MOS for writing about fiction. I quote from the guideline: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." If this chronology—which is not made explicit in any extant source, primary or secondary—does not constitute interpretation, then I will eat my hat. "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements" of what is contained in it. Since this chronology is not found explicitly in the primary source, and is not documented in a primary source, it clearly constitutes original research. — chro • man • cer  23:35, 11 June 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. Larry V (talk | email) 23:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Benedict Lidinsky[edit]

Josiah Benedict Lidinsky (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 pass WP:PROF even if DLSU is to be considered a "major academic institution" under Criterion 6, considering that the posts he held were not the highest-level positions in the university. Moray An Par (talk) 03:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sounds like a beloved Mr. Chips type who ran a high school for many years, then became an administrator at a college beloved by the alumni who named a gold tournament after him. Not really an academic, more of a religious educator. I think to get better sourcing, you'd need Tagalog and English language newspapers to put their archives online. There's enough here for a Keep, and a deletion would only increase Wikipedia's rather glaring bias in favor of subjects in countries that have their newspaper archives online - like US.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 3 June 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) 00:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - vice-president of a major university (QS ranking 451) and I think the sources currently cited suggest the existence of more.Anthem 12:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a vice president of a major university doesn't make one notable per our current notability guidelines on academics. Moray An Par (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only passing mention news, and only one mention in a book which may fall under WP:SPS. Does not appear to meet the significant coverage requirement of WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of more than routine administrative responsibility, and not notable as author or researcher. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 14 June 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) 02:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulldog Mansion[edit]

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

Prod removed. I could not find sufficient evidence of notability of this band under wp’s notability rules, including multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in reliable sources that are independent from the band ensemble itself. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is notability in of this band, however much of these pages are in Hangul script which is not easy for me to decipher since Korean is not my primary language. If the message reaches out to the correct audience, I am sure there are wikipedia editors who are native to Korean language who can easily code the correct sources needed to give this page enough credibility to keep it from deletion. English websites for citation/sourcing will be very limited; if there is any sourcing, it would be to mostly other South Korean articles/websites. SailorSaturn (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)— SailorSaturn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks. Per our rules, we need RS indicia of notability (though it does not matter what language the sources are written in). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 24 May 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) 00:03, 31 May 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) 00:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I want to suggest "keep" and despite the enormous number of references on Google I can't find WP:RS to back up that keep. Frustrating. Anybody out there that can speak fluent Korean that wants to save this band from deletion?  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:47, 7 June 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) 02:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Broderick[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. imdb does not reveal an extensive career only 1 real notable role. being related to famous people doesn't add to notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
on what basis are you suggesting a merge? LibStar (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis that notability is not inherited. However, upon further review I am striking and changing my assessment to Keep. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I think an obituary in The New York Times which lists some of her achievements establishes notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:16, 4 June 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) 00:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Striking Merge advisory above. An obituary in the New York Times pretty much indicates that this is a public figure about whom encyclopedic biography could be written, regardless of who her son was. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is ANOTHER MAINSTREAM MEDIA OBIT from The Villager. Carrite (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And a [GALLERY DESCRIPTION OF AN EXHIBITION OF HER WORK. My take is that she was notable as a painter. Carrite (talk) 18:13, 7 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Gordon (philosopher)[edit]

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

Apparently a paid academic/writer for private think-tank. Article has no third party sources. Fails WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. LK (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that there is also an Aaron David Gordon who seems to be a Zionist philosopher, and entirely different. I am uncertain at this point whether the economist "David B. Gordon" is the same guy or someone else as well.[41] - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A. D. Gordon, if alive, would be 145 years old. So probably not the same guy. LK (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "David B. Gordon" is an associate professor at Clemson University, who earned his Ph.D at University of Chicago in Monetary Theory.[42] This David Gordon was "educated at UCLA, where he earned his PhD in intellectual history".[43] So again, not the same guy. LK (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not quite sure why it's significant that he is a "paid" academic. Surely that's rather common? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a significant difference between someone who is an academic in a public university or other academic institution, and a writer for a partisan think-tank where one's job depends on writing articles for in-house publications that spout a particular viewpoint. LK (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: This AfD mostly highlights the problem with the descriptor "philosopher." I worked on the article recently and couldn't think of a better one. Author? Libertarian? Independent scholar? [Struck because since found two WP:RS describing him as a philosopher.] [Note there are three David Nolans and one is properly described as (libertarian).] Anyway, when you search "David Gordon libertarian" you get far more useful results: lots of mentions in various Books.google; a number at google.scholar; a few in news.google archives; and a bunch of stuff in a regular google search, some of which would be WP:RS. Certainly this is a stub article about a notable libertarian worthy of continued work and I'll work on it some more. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the search results for Google Book,[44] Google Scholar[45] and Google News[46], for "David Gordon" libertarian, I see nothing that comes close to a pass on any of the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. LK (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not claim he is an academic, so that's a bit of a straw man point. An author does not have to be an academic to have an article. The refs I point to are to general notability. Now I couldn't find a ref that he is a "philosopher" so I would in fact delete that, unless one is found. I'm sure some of those many WP:RS identify him as a "libertarian," so that's probably the best identifier. If I remember correctly you personally disagree with libertarian economics and perhaps that's why you are so opposed to the article and I just noticed you are in dispute with someone who wants to use Gordon as a reference (at this diff). But those are not reasons to delete the article. Just going by wikipedia standards, I think the article is a good stub and I'll work on identification, notability, etc. a bit more this weekend to make it clear to the deciding admin. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: have a bunch of commentary on his books and info about a couple more notable debates he's been involved in and publications and reviews in more mainstream publications still working on. Just a matter of sorting through it all and deciding which goes where... CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carol, Kindly Assume Good Faith. I noticed David Gordon because his (IMO) not-notable argument were used to rebutt a Nobel Laureate. I then initiated this AfD as it appeared to me that Gordon fails both GNG and PROF. I am not doing so to further any dispute, and in the future, I would like you to kindly refrain from making such aspersions without proof. LK (talk)
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) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His principal book has a number of significant mainstream reviews: he American Political Science Review, Jun., 1992, vol. 86, no. 2, p. 510-511, The Review of Metaphysics, Jun., 1991, vol. 44, no. 4, p. 842-843, Contemporary Sociology: A Journal of Reviews, Nov., 1992, vol. 21, no. 6, p. 872-873. It and some of his other books are in about 200 university libraries. I cannot say I think this a distinguished career, but it does pass the bar for notability as an author. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The citations in the article are in much better shape now. However, I still don't see how Gordon can pass any of the criteria listed in WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. A biography article should pass at least one of the criterion listed in one of the notability guidelines to be considered notable enough for inclusion. LK (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Author#Creative_professionals reads among other things: "widely cited by peers or successors." I'd say I found at least 20 instances of academics citing him or thanking him for his help in various books and academic papers. Do you need all those also to be added? Given all the bios that have hardly any WP:RS at all, why pick on this one? CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 20 qualifies as widely cited. I've been cited, commented on, or thanked in print more than 20 times. Does that also make me notable enough for a Wikipedia page? To give an example of what widely cited may mean, one widely cited paper by Robert Lucas, "On the mechanics of economic development", has been cited by over 13,000 people.[47] LK (talk) 06:27, 16 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Media Association of Canada[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. gnews mentions its president and it hosts events but nothing in depth about the organisation. it is simply a run of the mill industry organisation. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:50, 31 May 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) 00:07, 7 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voltaire Y. Rosales[edit]

Voltaire Y. Rosales (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 judge per WP:POLITICIAN. His assassination doesn't seem notable either. Moray An Par (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hello Moray, Judge Rosales' death led to the change of rules of court regarding criminal procedure in the Philippines. His death led to the abolition of the heinous crimes court which made one judge responsible for all heinous crimes (such as drugs, rape, murder) and created the raffle system which randomly distributes cases to judges to diffuse potential threat. He has been recognized by the Provincial Government where he was assigned, and the village where he lived, and various organizations, including notable organizations such as the Ateneo Law journal. His work has been recognized by notable Congressmen of the district where he was assigned as well. His death was in the front pages of newspapers and has been recognized by two of the most prestigious universities in the Philippines, Ateneo de Manila and De La Salle University. Citations can be found and recognized by googline his name in relation to local newspapers such as the Philippine Star http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=269574&publicationSubCategoryId=88 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.238.55 (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, he has been recognized by respected members of the Philippine legal community and the academe, such as Jacinto Jimenez (noted professor of law, bar top notcher and an examiner for the Philippine bar) and Father Joaquin Bernas, a noted Philippine Constitutionalist who has taken note of him in an old newsletter which can be googled and is found on the Ateneo website. The Ateneo Law Journal has also recognized his dedication to the rule of law in the Philippines and has dedicated a whole issue to him which is distributed to different members of the academe around the world. I believe this can be googled as well (if not researched in libraries that carry the journal.) Recognition and dedications to him are given by Undersecretary of Health and now Presidential advisor for Peace with the CPP Alex Padilla, Batangas Congressman Hermilando Mandanas, Court of Appeals Justice Amy Javier and former Philippine Senator Richard Gordon just to name a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.238.55 (talk) 16:32, 6 June 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) 00:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A google of Senator Gordon with Judge Rosales will lead to a Senate Journal regarding a privileged speech given by Senator Gordon instigated by the assassination of Judge Rosales and its reflection on the acts of impunity for extra-judicial killings and in connection, how reporters covering the story have had to go into hiding due to the circumstances and the personalities involving the assassination. The book of noted author and Philippine journalist Maritess Vitug entitled "Shadow of Doubt" also mentions Judge Rosales, the drug lord connection and the eventual death threats to Supreme Court Justice Arturo Brion, which, is notable considering its reflection on the spread of narco politics in the Philippines. Judge Rosales seems to be notable enough to be mentioned by different authors. It seems the articles written by his son after his death have been published by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the leading daily in the Philippines on two separate occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.11.99 (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those too young to remember, was not aware of Philippine events during this time or are foreign, Judge Rosales' assassination was notable enough to be topic of media coverage in the newspapers, TV and radio. Research of local newspapers during that period will reflect the impact of his death on aspects of morality in the community. It reopened debate on the arming of Philippine judges, initiated suggestions on the move to a jury system ala American system of governance and reflected the plight of honest and competent lawyers joining the judiciary. The Philippine Star, one of the more popular newspapers of national circulation in the Philippines dedicated a whole editorial with editorial cartoon depicting the tragic loss to the judiciary and judicial system of the country in the wake of his death.

It would seem what distinguishes Judge Rosales from other extra-judicial deaths (for judges and lawyers) was not how he died, but apparently, how he was perceived to have lived his life based on the numerous accounts of his integrity, honesty and courage. Considering the Philippine judiciary, and in general Philippine government is often accused of corruption, his story was relatively tragic.

Ateneo Law School recently (June 6th, 2011) celebrated it's 75th anniversary, and highlighted as part of its legacy in many parts of its program was Judge Rosales. The Philippine Star editorial and another from the integrated bar of the Philippines can be found from archives of 2004. I'll try to link to one of them. https://picasaweb.google.com/102470925390273036221/JudgeRosalesClippings#5615571627503508866

Take to note that Judge Rosales' Lux in Domino Award shares among the awardees recognized Philippine heroes including Evelio Javier, this can be googled easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMV106 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditch the middle initial and tell me how many results there are. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. most sources mentioned by previous are only internet. Internet news can be and is archived while real news archives in the library are replete with topics regarding the subject himself. Notably the Ateneo Law Journal which shows significance and notability enough in the eyes of the Philippine legal community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viclr33 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the searches above use a relatively short period, and a few years AFTER the event occured as scope of the search hence, the small number of hits. my relatively weaker google skills found this http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Judge+Voltaire+Rosales%22+source:%22-newswire%22+source:%22-wire%22+source:%22-presswire%22+source:%22-PR%22+source:%22-release%22+source:%22-wikipedia%22&scoring=a&sa=N&start=0

Considering the significance given to him by the academe and general newspapers of national circulation during that time, which I doubt can be found just by googling, but are present in libraries, I say keep.

and as found in the reference part of the article itself, the following articles http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=269574&publicationSubCategoryId=88, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=zLljAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DSgMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2907,23643164&dq=judge-voltaire-rosales&hl=en etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viclr33 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep'Bold text Photos found in the following link shows the local version of People Magazine, with Mar Roxas in the front. It was the best selling issue for them which can be verified via google. if one looks at the photos of the front cover of the magazine, one can see that one of those featured people was Judge Voltaire Rosales. http://markorinanews.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_archive.html and http://www.google.com.ph/imgres?imgurl=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/morninggirls/July2004/CoverPeopleAsia.jpg&imgrefurl=http://markorinanews.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_archive.html&usg=__kWq57IUrJxTxfU_7T442x0aGcKM=&h=250&w=193&sz=11&hl=en&start=0&sig2=mErfU9bUPvH30jjFvkdcuA&zoom=1&tbnid=w2Wbyh9gZ9IhHM:&tbnh=135&tbnw=96&ei=EuruTdOdH4iEvAP_5r2VCQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpeople%2Bmagazine%2Bmar%2Broxas%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D727%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=1084&vpy=392&dur=392&hovh=135&hovw=96&tx=85&ty=61&page=1&ndsp=32&ved=1t:429,r:22,s:0&biw=1440&bih=727 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMV106 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. It would seem his person was notable enough to be featured not just in the news, but in magazine and academic publications as well. It seems some of his story can be found by googling him in relation to his family, the anecdotes given and republished (from the same publications earlier mentioned) can be found, albeit not from non-blog sites (they are soft copy reproductions only). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.125.103.33 (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Based on what has been shown, albeit mere rescans but verifiable rescans of books, newspapers, magazines and academic journals "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."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

Judge Rosales is obviously a keeper for being notable.

Based on the WP: politician guideline which states:

"Politicians Shortcut: WP:POLITICIAN Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

Judge Rosales was an Executive Judge of a Regional Trial Court which means he falls under the statewide/province wide jurisdiction/office. Add to that the notability given by different media coverage then we can see that the article more than complies with what is necessary.

Hopefully there will be better researchers out there who trully research before deleting or trying to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.238.55 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. It would seem aside from being publicized in the mentioned newspapers, magazines and academic journals, it is noteworthy that his life has been given recognition by two of the most prestigious schools in the country. Certainly they did their due diligence before lending their name to him. A google of the list of fellow awardees for both rewards from both schools puts him in a relatively dignified group. The provincial government as well as his village of residence and apparently his law school fraternity give him recognition. Hopefully there will be editors that can tell more of him and how and why these groups awarded/recognized him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.157.250 (talk) 05:46, 13 June 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 Nomination withdrawn as only 1 delete vote and article improvement.. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wired (Hugh Cornwell album)[edit]

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

fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. gnews only refers to passing mentions rather than indepth mentions. [48] no evidence of charting. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I considered bundling but think that each album can be assessed on its merits. I may do this for future AfDs. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 1 June 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) 00:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a Hugh Cornwell discography. May not merit a standalone article but there is information here than should be preserved in a discography page.--Michig (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cornwell is undoubtedly notable; Wired almost certainly had enough coverage in the UK music press to earn notability in its own right, but we're talking about 1993, when the internet was far leaner. But even if someone heads to the library for a few days and proves to everyone's satisfaction that Wired wasn't reviewed in any significant part of the music press at the time and fails notability in every other way, there's still the four-star rating for the US version of the album at AllMusic, as noted above, and WP:OSE still applies, as discussed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueThird (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it's purely a rating not a review. don't see how it meets WP:NALBUMS. All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject LibStar (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a major release from a notable artist, lack of proper sourcing doesn't stop this clearly being the case. Bienfuxia (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
major releases must still meet WP:NALBUMS, you have failed to explain how this criterion is met. LibStar (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Major releases will by definition meet WP:NALBUMS, as the word 'major' implies coverage. BUT this is an album from before the days of the internet, the coverage will have been in magazines / newspapers at the time, and nobody can be bothered to dig it out and source it properly. No reason to delete it. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the internet existed in 1993. Secondly gnews archives include most major newspaper particularly English language ones since 1950. See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it existed in 1993, but magazines didn't post articles until often 2000 or later. Don't know why I'm having to clarify this in detail as it's so obvious, but here we are. Yes, it's possible that you can get sources from gnews archives, why not have a go instead of assuming that there are none there? And don't link me to some deletionist essay as if it's policy. It's not my responsibility to save this article, if you really want it deleted so badly then it's up to you to make your case properly, end of story. Bienfuxia (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)There was barely anything on the internet in 1993. The Google News archive only contains a fraction of British news articles, and barely any from the music press of the time. The vast majority of the music press of that era, many of which would have reviewed these albums, cannot be found at all online. People need to start realizing that sources not showing up on Google is a vastly different matter to sources not existing.--Michig (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Google News has it, the only time the NME (weekly music paper, established 1952) wrote about Elvis Presley was on the occasion of Alice Cooper telling the Daily Mirror about the time Elvis kicked a gun out of Cooper's hand and then pinned him to the ground by the neck, apparently with Linda Lovelace and Liza Minnelli watching. For myself, I'm inclined to think that's an indication of how utterly lacking Google News is, rather than an accurate summary of the NME's coverage of Presley. By the same token, The Stranglers have only been mentioned once in NME (in passing, less than a week ago) and Cornwell not at all, when the reality is that they would both have been mentioned hundreds of times. So far as I can work out, Google News doesn't even acknowledge the existence of Q, Mojo, Select, Vox, Sounds etc etc. It quite clearly has very significant weaknesses when it comes to the music press, to the point where it can't be relied upon in any meaningful way. The websites for these magazines and papers, where they still exist, aren't necessarily helpful either: for economic reasons, their content is often only a very small portion of what they put in their print editions. A search on Mojo's website suggests that they've only covered The Stranglers once, which is also extremely unlikely. Citing Google News as an argument for deletion, in this case, is unhelpful. We're not talking here about the solo work of the lead singer from an unknown garage band, for which significant coverage outside the internet is unlikely, but the solo work of someone who sang on something like twenty Top 40 hits, in a notorious band with extensive coverage in the music press and the mainstream media. Given all that, it's far more likely that sufficient coverage exists than that it doesn't. There's no case for deletion. BlueThird (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
again there is no question this artist is notable but it does not automatically follow that his albums is notable. Real shame about your search because it is flawed, you should have used google news archive which yields 148 hits [news.google.com/archivesearch?q=elvis+presley+source%3Anme&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a]. LibStar (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
148 is still a tiny amount for Elvis. Try searching for an individual Elvis album and you'll see how ridiculous it is. The NME archive on Google News only goes back to the year 2000, seven years after this album was released. Just answer this please - Are you saying you don't think this album received coverage at the time? Bienfuxia (talk) 08:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
that is only NME. Elvis would get a lot more in newspapers as well. Despite this AfD existing since 31 May not one person has provided any evidence of indepth third party coverage. The onus is on those wanting to keep an unreferenced article to find sources, even if offline. Arguments like the artist is notable therefore his album is does not cut it. Just answer this please - have you find evidence of indepth coverage? LibStar (talk) 08:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Always happy to listen and learn: an archive search would undoubtedly have been a better idea, even if it wouldn't have made any difference to the substance of my argument. An archive search on Hugh Cornwell in the NME gives nothing on him before 1998. The map, quite clearly, is not the terrain. From WP:BEFORE: "Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." As established, a Google News search clearly isn't up to the task. My personal view is that in this case, in which no one is arguing that Cornwell himself isn't notable, a "good-faith attempt" by any editor would involve checking print editions of the UK music press from the time, where – given the extent of Cornwall's notability – sufficient coverage would almost certainly be found. Having neither the physical resources nor the time to do that myself, I have absolutely no problem leaving the article where it is. As I understand it, the onus is, in fact, on someone wanting to delete an article to establish a consensus that deleting it is in the best interests of Wikipedia. Please correct me if I'm wrong. BlueThird (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for adding sources, but almost all are seem mere listings or 1 line mentions of the album and not indepth coverage. this one is a bit more but is it a reliable source. it appears to be a blog? LibStar (talk) 10:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the article is an legitimate interview with Hugh Cornwell, relating to events occurring during the recording of the album. I have located a number of similar interviews and will be adding them to the article. It is however becoming clearer that this is a notable article.Dan arndt (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not the biggest music mag in the world, admittedly, but certainly more than just a blog. From their home page: "We are a printed fanzine dedicated to the underground music scene and new music in general and this is our website. We are a quarterly publication." BlueThird (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article is sufficiently referenced and re-formatted to justify its retention. Dan arndt (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Even if individual notability of this album was in debate, let's not lose site of how Hugh Cornwell's article is structured and that each of his other albums also have separate articles, deletion would upset a reasonable organization structure and does not benefit the project, in my view.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:21, 17 June 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 Inkstick. Since everybody seems to be cool with this and it's already been done let's close it that way. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ink stick[edit]

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

Do we need a disambiguation page for 2 articles? – a note at the top of each one with a link to the other would I would have thought. Only 1 article is linked so far to this page. wintonian talk edits 07:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect after a hatnote is added to each article. Redirect should probably point to Inkstick. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nom: You could have redirected yourself. I doubt anyone would object. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason was I didn't think a disambiguation page was necessary but I forgot to think about redirection as possibility. Note: the redirection/ deletion have been contested by the creator on the talk page so I'll move the discussion over there and try for consensus before re-directing. --wintonian talk 04:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented there too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 1 June 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) 00:06, 7 June 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) 02:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Alleyne-Johnson[edit]

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

don't see him meeting any criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. no major awards, most of the gnews hits are not indepth and just confirm he is an electric violinist [49]. no non trivial coverage of major tours. his supposed major album gets a mere 1 gnews hit [50], so I dispute the claim of 80,000 copies sold. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 3 June 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) 00:06, 7 June 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) 02:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Cuthbertson (nee Bryce)[edit]

Fiona Cuthbertson (nee Bryce) (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. Fails WP:BIO. Local politician who wasn't elect to the Parliament. No sufficient coverage about her from reliable sources could be found (current name or maiden name). Fram (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sortingreview, but they did give the US version of this (First Bus To Babylon) a four star rating. BlueThird (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. It might not be strictly /People|list of People-related deletion discussions]]. — Baseball Watcher 15:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only reliable source I can find is a story in the Lancashire Evening Post, a mid-sized regional paper. Nothing wrong with the paper as a source, but it's only three paragraphs in one article. Nevard (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - www.prestonlancs.com/forum/index.php?/topic/4-please-read/page_st_20 shows there were other contributions made online that are no longer available (the comment about the MP forums is on the second page but you can't now find the forums refered to) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louis-marks (talk • contribs) 14:00, 4 June 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) 00:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hate to use badly written as an excuse, but I think it's poorly written to cover up from a lack of content. Familial fame also shouldn't be around a quarter of an article on a notable person. Asteroid1717 (talk) 00:38, 7 June 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 01:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Independent Baptist Churches of Illinois[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. 3 passing mentions in gnews [51] and same gbooks. no indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:42, 31 May 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) 00:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:N. When I activated an online search I came back with nothing. Aside from their own link and Wikipedia mirror domains, I can't find proof this organisation exists. SwisterTwister (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aboutthe association nothing notice. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 17:39, 14 June 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) 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Carmichael[edit]

Stephen Carmichael (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 makes several laudable efforts at establishing the notability of the subject, but none of them reach the standards of our thresholds for inclusion of musician biographies as far as I can tell. Researching for significant coverage in reliable sources was unsuccessful, but I will gladly withdraw this nomination if someone else can succeed in this. Skomorokh 11:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 3 June 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) 00:05, 7 June 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 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutions of 1905–1911[edit]

Revolutions of 1905–1911 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatantly original research/opinion, and rather too discursive for an encyclopedia. Insists that several quite separate revolutions were somehow united and should be grouped together historically, with no precedent for doing so. Uses just one book as a source, but disagrees even with this on important matters - including the dates actually used in the title of the article. Harsimaja (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 2 June 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) 00:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be based on the thesis of a single book that these revolutions form a coherent group. If/when the theory should become notable it should be covered but now it is simply too soon. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:52, 14 June 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) 02:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armaan Kohli[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films". As far as I can see this actor had minor roles in minor films. Muhandes (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 3 June 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) 00:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only thing that appears to be notable about this actor is that he keeps finding roles in flops.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:39, 7 June 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 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CreoType[edit]

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

Seems to lack independent coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:53, 31 May 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) 00:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Software does not indicate significance. "Source" appears to be links to other websites.--v/r - TP 00:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no 3rd party refs to establish notability of this software. Dialectric (talk) 09:14, 14 June 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 01:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Crook[edit]

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

WP:PROD concern: WP:NOTABILITY – author of a handful of short stories and one apparently self-published book without sign of substantial reviews or sales. Mephtalk 17:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I found a couple of sources [52] [53] that seem to quote him authoritatively, and while not as good as articles actually about him, it was more then a passing reference. I think they do tend to show that he is borderline notable. Monty845 17:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. There's a section of the notability guideline that addresses sources that quote people based on their association with an organization, the gist of which is that such mentions don't establish the person's notability, but I can't seem to locate it. If the sources are all "Mr. Crook said..." then delete the article. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 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) 00:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Existing sources are not significant; doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE.--v/r - TP 00:10, 14 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sar Pass Trek[edit]

Sar Pass Trek (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 trek definitely doesn't pass the GNG, and I don't think it even comes close to any of the more specialized guidelines (not that that would overrule the GNG). Delete as it is non-notable and, despite numerous blogs to the contrary, will probably never become so. Nolelover It's almost football season! 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This article gives a good description about Sar Pass. I agree with the point that this article should be moved to Sar Pass and be improved that way. And there is very little information about Indian mountains that deleting these articles would be killing the purpose of Wikipedia, Hence I give a strong Keep. -Tall.kanna (talk) 19:13, 3 June 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) 00:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I too agree on keeping this article. Only problem that I can see with this article is that it has less information and more pictures. So little cleanup will surely help. - Sanket(talk) Sanket 17:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just for the record, this article is only about the hiking trail up the mountain - not the pass itself. NoleloverTalk·Contribs 18:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it can be severely cleaned up, which I don't see happening. This is an encyclopedia, not a hiking guide, and there are several other "articles" exactly like this, probably the same author: very thorough "trekking" info surrounded on both sides by 80 billion pictures. This isn't so much an article as it is an itinerary (of sorts) of how to hike up this trail, written completely from the point of view of the author, with poetic (and non-neutral) phrasing, with zero cited references. "'Nagaru Devta' – a God of Shepherds, revered by one and all." Last I checked, I don't revere any God of Shepherds. The article doesn't need to be moved anywhere, it needs to be either refactored entirely, or removed entirely. Simple as that. Don't get me wrong, it's well-written and I would pay $3.50 for a laminated copy before heading out on the trail myself. But it simply doesn't fit into Wikipedia's guidelines. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 15:21, 18 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Village Acadian[edit]

Village Acadian (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 really a neighborhood, but a single housing subdivision consisting of a single looping street and less than 30 buildings. Not important enough to even be a redirect to Slidell, Louisiana or section of that article. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 19:07, 31 May 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) 00:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree with nom. Neighboorhoods generally are not notable. Article doesn't even assert or attempt any sort of notability.--v/r - TP 00:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We almost never keep this without firm evidence, which is not present. sometimes it can be difficult to tell a true neighborhood from a mere housing tract, but this one is definitely not a true neighborhood. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 15 June 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 STV_News_at_Six#North_region. (non-admin closure) v/r - TP 00:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Cowie[edit]

Louise Cowie (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 about a television news report that lacks any referencing. I've searched and been able to find any coverage about her that would establish notability. Whpq (talk) 18:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 19:11, 31 May 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) 00:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I'm unable to find enough in the way of references to establish notability under the GNG, although [54] at least verifies a journalist by that name. --joe deckertalk to me 15:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Further research reveals no more sources other than [55]. Notability is not asserted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I was also unable to find any third-party coverage other than the brief mention cited above. Hut 8.5 08:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Joe Decker. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:22, 13 June 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 controversy surrounding Bowes-Lyon's circumstance may justify coverage elsewhere, there is nothing in the article that establishes her own notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nerissa Bowes-Lyon[edit]

Nerissa Bowes-Lyon (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 person. Only because of family commections, but notability is not inherited Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This does not raise the same issues as the article about her sister as she is now long dead, but she does not seem to meet notability requirements. --AJHingston (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article could possible be merged with her sister's. There was actually some controversy about the way the British royal family figuratively buried them for many years. Sometimes there can be matters of legitimate public controversy about the treatment of people with serious learning difficulties, which if already widely publicised becomes encyclopedic. PatGallacher (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If so, that would be WP:BLP1E WP:1E. Is there an article about this controversy? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silly of me, she is not alive. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable by virtue of the numerous sources which cover it in detail. Warden (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I count two sources. Each article is about someone else. One article devotes two sentences to the subject, the other six. That does not seem to be "numerous" or "detail". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden, hie Thee to a dictionary. Two articles written a month apart are not "numerous." Please do not misrepresent the evidence for notability, unless you have in mind uncited sources sources beyond the two the rest of us know about. Edison (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - private peron with only coatracked claims of notability. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 5 June 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) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. Utterly nonnotable, though unfortunate, person. Edison (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sad story but there would be no references at all if it were not for the royal connection. Notability is not inherited. Does not meet WP:GNG.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 12:29, 7 June 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) 02:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accumulator (intelligence industry term)[edit]

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

Evidently unsourcable, may be original research. I like this page and have spent a while trying to source it, but it doesn't appear to have any sources (third-party or otherwise). I understand that it's jargon of a necessarily secretive industry, but surely there must be some verifiable mention of it somewhere to include it in an encyclopedia. Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The title is OR, the concept is not (when governments introduced life sentences for exactly what's described in the article, they took care to produce RS-level paper trail). How it works in RL - see, for example, in-depth coverage of Igor Sutyagin's case. 78.107.117.194 (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the concept is logical. I just can't seem to find any sources that support anyone ever referring to these people as "accumulators". It draws an obvious parallel to the dictionary definition, but that's about where it seems to stop. I'd much rather see the article get sourced than deleted, but I'm also not comfortable just taking the author's word on the premise of it being super secret info. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:39, 2 June 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) 00:01, 7 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viaden Gaming[edit]

Viaden Gaming (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. Fails WP:N and WP:CORP while Google turns up some hits not enough to pass and no news coverage found. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 22:26, 31 May 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) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found a huge volume of press releases, but no reliable secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 11:28, 11 June 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. -- DQ (t) (e) 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hilimire[edit]

Jeff Hilimire (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-neutral biography of a non-notable businessman that would appear to be a veiled advertisement for his non-notable business: the Chief Digital Officer for Engauge, a total marketing solutions agency combining the disciplines of branding, digital and direct marketing. Best of the sources is a three paragraph, press release based blurb from a CNN-Money website[56]; rest are to Top 25 lists and routine press release announcements of acquisitions and mergers. They establish that he has done good works such as service in a local Junior Achievement chapter and a children's museum board. Contested proposed deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
  • I restored the prod. I want to weekly support deletion for this article. There are a number of sources and it might be possible to find others, but I haven't found too many good ones in my search. Also please look at the cited sources in the article before commenting. As the nom says, many are press releases or lists which aren't very good fonts of information for a biographical article and can tell us little about the subject in a neutral fashion. There isn't really a slam dunk case for deletion but don't be fooled by the number of links in the reference section. Protonk (talk) 00:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 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) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spam. I'd favor {{db-g11}} but more discussion is probably a good idea as Tondas13, the user who requested undeletion, claims to be speaking on Hilimire's behalf and thinks all the promotional/press release content is "correct and accurate." – Athaenara ✉ 12:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, spammy. This kind of thing shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:06, 15 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Systagenix Wound Management[edit]

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

Promotional ("heritage of trust", "continually enhancing product line", etc.), among other issues. Despite the fact that its parent company is relevant, each article must demonstrate its own relevance - notability is not inherited. Technopat (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if appropriate sources and evidence of notability are provided. Were this even a significant fraction of the way to an acceptable article, I would say that the evidence of notability is probably out there (eg a Yorkshire Post article), and they clearly are a major manufacturer and supplier of their own distinct range of wound dressings. But it is a private company, so audited company information is behind pay walls. I don't think I have seen a worse company website for a long time, and there are few clues there as to what the article might sensibly say if the independent sources were found to support it. This article is so unsatisfactory I don't think we can really label it as spam, since nobody could hold down a job if they had been paid to get it in. By the way, it cannot be merged or redirected as it is now an independent company. --AJHingston (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Comment - First, the nominating editor should have notified User:Mauricio Cano who created the content in this article. The company appears to be multinational with offices in the US, S. America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East. I agree the article seems somewhat flawed from a promotional standpoint and needs further references. I would suggest the nominating editor make the proper notifications and see if the article can be salvaged before deleting. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 22:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: As the nominating editor, my notification was limited to the user who created the content, that is, Urbanrenewal, who left the comment above. Your suggestion regarding possible salvation of the article is at odds with my submitting it for discussion here and my original reasons for doing so still hold. Of course, there's no reason for you not trying to salvage it. --Technopat (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I created a redirect. It looks like the main editor is now aware of the situation. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 17:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes I made some changes, please tell me what can I do to keep the article, thanks--Mauricio Cano (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made another change to improve reasons to keep the article, thanks --Mauricio Cano (talk) 21:26, 6 June 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) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the much better known parent company, Ethicon, which duplicates a good deal of the content--and needs some work in its own right, but is definitely worth an article. I would advise the creating author to try to find some more substantial references for the combined article. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Ethicon is no longer connected. Johnson & Johnson sold what is now Systagenix in 1998 2008. Ethicon is merely a J&J subsidiary. --AJHingston (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was once connected. It still seems to me the logical place for this. I note again the extensive duplication between the two articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it, I'm afraid. The Ethicon wound management business was sold, and it wasn't then known as Systagenix. Yes, Ethicon are still in the dressings business, but theirs seems to be surgical dressings, Systagenix wound management (the whole point seems to be that new product development means that they are now quite separate markets) and legally the two companies are different entities with no common ownership or products so the Ethicon article would have to be renamed. --AJHingston (talk) 08:28, 15 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Lentini[edit]

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

His colleagues are more notable than he is, and even they are not notable enough for Wikipedia per WP:MUSIC. Incarnatus (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incarnatus, I respectfully disagree. Lentini is recently included in James Michael Floyd's recent Bio-Bibliography of composers. Floyd's preface states that there are over 1600 composers currently teaching in universities in the U.S., and Lentini is one of only 120 selected by the author for inclusion. See also the major feature article in Fanfare Magazine and reviews from Gramophone, Fanfare, and American Record Guide (all available from the Naxos site). In addition, his CD James Lentini Chamber Music was released on the Naxos American Classics label this past year (just take a look at the other composers in the catalog) and his music is published by one of the more important guitar publishers, Mel Bay. Add to this his standing as Dean at Miami University, ranked 34th of all public universities in the U.S. Scot Johnston (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sounds like a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Don't take this personally, Scot, it's just an off-handed way we Wikipedians have to completely ignore whatever good points you might be making. I think there's also a policy that says a good point is a good point regardless of who makes it, but if you're the one to point that out, you'll probably lose. Wikipedia politics is a very complicated and frustrating business. James470 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your insight, James470. I would say, though, that we would all expect that decisions like these should be made on the facts and criteria stated in WP:MUSIC. The Lentini article lists independent writing about the artist in well-regarded and appropriate publications, the work has been independently reviewed and received radio play, awards are documented, etc. This article certainly doesn't seem to be any more a single-purpose account, for example, than that for Paul Schoenfield. For that matter, many other composer articles seem to have less strong references and sources. Here are just a few examples: Aaron Jay Kernis, Michael Daugherty, Stephen Hartke. Maybe they should all be deleted, but I have a feeling that this doesn't make good sense. Scot Johnston (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What I meant is that your account, User:Scot Johnson, is a single-purpose account. With that account, the only things you have done is edit the James Lentini article and participate in this so-called "debate." What's wrong with that? In a real encyclopedia like Britannica or the New Grove, there would be nothing wrong with that! But in Wikipedia, oh my God, it's the mark of the Devil!
Zoltán Gárdonyi wrote the article in the New Grove about Franz Doppler. If Zoltán Gárdonyi doesn't know anything about Grace Williams or Harold Shapero, New Grove wouldn't ask him to edit the article about Grace Williams or Harold Shapero. Here at Wikipedia, you're not only expected to edit articles that are slightly out of your expertise, you should also edit articles on topics you know nothing whatsoever about. So, don't just edit about James Lentini. Edit the article about civil war in some African country you've only heard about in Jeopardy clues.
And another thing: at New Grove, it would count for something if you're the third most knowledgeable person about James Lentini in the world. Here at Wikipedia, that's a liability if you don't want to see this article deleted. James470 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, James470. I did understand your point about single-purpose, which is why I included a link to the Paul Schoenfield article on Wikipedia. Taking a look at its history, it has only one contributor who appears to have only worked on the Schoenfield article. I take the point that I could (and will) contribute to other articles. I'll start today with the numerous articles that have weak referencing in my area of expertise (contemporary music, guitar, etc). Scot Johnston (talk) 4:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Another way to make a case that the Lentini article shows the appropriate musical accomplishments and characteristics per Wikipedia guidelines is to warrant inclusion is to benchmark this article with those of his composer contemporaries on Wikipedia. Here are a few examples with brief commentary:

These are just a few samples of composers on Wikipedia of roughly the same generation where both notability and contributor factors appear to fare better for the Lentini article. I respectfully state that I simply do not see a suitable case for deletion (I could cite many, many more examples). Scot Johnston (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I believe that this page already had strong and verified information and references, recent additions of highly reputable sources like Fanfare Magazine, Gramophone Magazine, others have made this an even stronger article with a high notability factor. I'm really not sure why this article has been proposed for deletion, especially when reading WP:DEL#CONTENT. Coolguitarra (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 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) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly allow me to give an example of an article with an unquestionable notability standard problem: Paul Whitty, and even in this one, it is tagged for improvement (since 2009!), not deletion. I'll state again that the Lentini article covers the bases listed in WP:NMUSIC for composers. Published independent articles about his music by premiere magazines in the classical field, newspaper articles, publishers, a selective bio-bibliographical textbook entry (published), several CD's, the most recent on a major classical label for new music (Naxos American Classics), radio play, and much more, is all clearly verified and establishes the appropriate notability. No doubt, the article has been even further strengthened with recent updates. Be sure to read the quote by Laurence Vittes in Gramophone magazine, calling Lentini a "classical music success story," etc. It is hard to come by this kind of independent and strong endorsement from a major magazine in the classical music field. Scot Johnston 04:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scot Johnston (talk • contribs)

Comment. You're hoping that commonsense carries the day here. But remember: this is Wikipedia! James470 (talk) 04:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that Scot Johnston has made a good case for why he should pass WP:MUSIC. That specifically deals with minority tastes, and it is important that Wikipedia should not only be a catalogue of US mass culture. There is a lot of truth, too, in what James470 says - some Wikipeidians are inherently suspicious of something that hasn't just been copied from elsewhere on the internet and insistence on 'independence from the subject' often provides no check at all on its veracity. But that isn't actually at the core of what most believe Wikipedia should be, and when you dig deeper you will discover that it is a highly questionable interpretation of what the guidelines actually say. So long as editors can show that they haven't just made the whole thing up then they should not be inhibited from contributing (even though it remains true that if you genuinely know more about a topic than almost anyone else it is better to create or contribute to a website on the topic, where you have editorial control). Wikipedia will then draw from that! --AJHingston (talk) 10:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Quick, what's his best known piece? Cat got your tongue? As for the other composers mentioned: Aaron Jay Kernis, Michael Daugherty, Stephen Hartke are all way more notable than Lentini. The other non-notables mentioned (Beck, Fortuin, whatever) should also be nominated for deletion. Flutedude (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Flutedude misses the point. Establishing notability requires independent sources per WP:MUSIC, not whether Flutedude knows the composer or not. As is well established in several points above, notability is clear by the articles in Fanfare, Gramphone, and other respected sources that independently verify the notability of Lentini by their inclusion of substantive articles and reviews about him. If Wikipedia were simply a popularity contest, I fear that some very important people within lesser-known disciplines (like contemporary classical music) would be missing. Coolguitarra (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Don't attack Flutedude's understanding of the point. Instead attack the fact that he didn't log in to Wikipedia for almost six months and his first edit after that hiatus was to vote in this AFD. You might even argue that he's my sock. On the other hand, he might be your sock which you decided to surface at this point precisely to jacket him on me or anyone else voting "Delete." Regardless of who Flutedude really is, I like his suggestion for more deletion nominations. Incarnatus (talk) 23:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've read the James Lentini article and the full discussion thread here, and it seems clear to me that sufficient notability has been established. I'm puzzled as to why it was tagged for deletion in the first place, actually. Just because there may be more notable composers out there, according to some personal opinions, does not discount the notability of this particular composer. Wikipedia, after all, is supposed to be impartial and unbiased. It is here to provide information, just like a hardcopy encyclopedia. Speaking of that, I have 20 Collier's Encyclopedias staring at me right now on my bookshelf, and in leafing through those I know I can find hundreds of people I've never even heard of before, but that does not mean they are not notable. It just means I don't know everything -- especially when it comes to niche genres, like this one. In a genre that is outside the common mainstream -- whether it is classical guitar, jazz flute, Celtic Rock, or Fluid Dynamics -- not everyone is going to be as well known as Paul McCartney or Albert Einstein (or Stephen Sondheim or Lev Landau), but that doesn't mean they aren't important or relevant, too. Just my two cents. Cheers, gentlemen... Joanne McAllister (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having a Wikipedia article about you can often be a curse rather than a blessing. Just ask John Seigenthaler, Les Sachs, Daniel Brandt, Joseph Francis Farah, Ron Livingston, etc. James Lentini himself might be happy when this article survives the deletion voting process. But it's very possible that a few years down the line he will wish that it hadn't. James470 (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to be on the winning side of one of these for a change, so I'll wait a day or two before deciding which way to go on this one. I wouldn't want this article to go the way of Hot Club of Detroit. Detroit Joe (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Kindly note that several additional international and national references have been added to the article, including independent reviews, stories, press releases, and more, from top-tier outlets in the new music realm, including one from New Music Box of the American Music Center that highlights Lentini's selection as a juror alongside composer/guitarist icon Leo Brouwer here: "An American Composer in Spain;" and another from Spain here: ABC de Sevilla. So far, there are 15 verifiable references and 10 external links from credible sources that establish notability. Scot Johnston (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, that would impress a normal music aficionado. Especially Fanfare. But remember, at Wikipedia, you're not dealing with normal people. Many have a pathological need to always be right even in those cases when a normal person would admit he's wrong. James470 (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Joe, let me respectfully point out that nowhere does the notability factor in this article hinge on whether or not the notability from Orchestra Hall in Detroit attaches to James Lentini. Instead, notability is based on the factors in WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSIC, etc., and this article covers those bases extensively and repeatedly with 16 references from credible sources that are all verifiable, in addition to 10 other links. Even at that, however, your point here is arguable. If you read the liner notes to Orchestra Hall Suite see here: Naxos Liner Notes, you'll see that the work was commissioned for bassoonist Paul Ganson of the DSO, who is known as "the man who saved Orchestra Hall," and who performs the piece on the Naxos disk with his other colleagues from the DSO, including principal 2nd violinist Geoffrey Applegate, principal violist James VanValkenburg, and assistant principal cellist Marcy Chanteaux. These are top-flight performers from the DSO who recorded the piece for the largest classical music label in the world (Naxos). All of this, I would suggest, is notable. One other point--I noticed that your previous comment stated you wanted to wait to see where this talk page was going before deciding, but your sentiment was that you didn't want to see it deleted. First off, I'm not sure that your waiting to see which way the wind was blowing is a useful way to make a responsible decision, and next, the initiator of this delete request (Incarnatus) said after seeing your post: "thank you for that. Now I know of the very non-notable Keith Buckner as well." If you take a look at the Keith Buckner page now, you'll see that Incarnatus went for a "delete" request on the Buckner page, as if to punish you for your "near keep" vote on the Lentini article. I wouldn't think that this is kind of interacting that is desired by the protocols of good faith or etiquette (see WP:EQ). Such action, I would surmise, could cause others looking at this talk page to fear retribution for making a "keep" request here. The final point is this: it is difficult to discredit the verifiable references in the Lentini article, because they are from some of the most respected authors and venues in the business of classical music. Scot Johnston (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That is precisely the kind of interaction desired by James Wales et al. As long as the drama stays high, editors become emotionally involved and don't mind that they're working for free. This kind of interaction would never happen at New Grove or Britannica.
Anyway, to get back on topic: James Lentini would do well to ask James Hartway "How does it feel not to have a Wikipedia article about you?" I don't know what exactly Hartway's response would be, but it would go along the lines of "Just fine." James470 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello James470. I have appreciated your comments on this page. Leaving my opinion out of this, it seems that guidelines for "neutral point of view" (WP:NPOV) and verifiability (WP:VERIFY) need to be at center stage, so that arguments, bias, alternative motives, etc. are removed from the picture. In short, the independent references and links in the article itself should be the criteria used to decide about the suitability of an article. This one passes that test easily, it seems, with high profile articles, reviews, etc. all in place, and you said as much yourself when you claimed replied to the references listed by this earlier comment "...Yes, that would impress a normal music aficionado [the references listed]. Especially Fanfare. But remember, at Wikipedia, you're not dealing with normal people." Many have a pathological need to always be right even in those cases when a normal person would admit he's wrong." So take the personal opinions out of it (whether "normal" or not), and the facts seem to be clear that we have a suitable article. Scot Johnston (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you want to prevent article deletion, then abnormal people are the ones you need to convince. Deletionists use Wikipedia's policies the same way terrorists use the Bible: selectively to the extreme. James470 (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and Suggestion: I've reviewed the James Lentini article again, and caught up on the discussion thread here, and in summary it seems the arguments in favor of deletion are pretty weak, and the arguments for keeping the article are fairly robust. Lentini meets the criteria for notability, so let's keep him, and move on. Enough said, in my humble opinion, and politics aside. At this point I think it's pretty clear-cut and logical: in the genre of "contemporary classical guitar composers," Lentini is notable. I do suggest, however, that the article needs clean-up to meet Wikipedia's standards and more clearly present this notability: the text of the article is sparse, while it has a long list of items under References and External Links that are not clearly connected to the text. I think more verbiage and in-line citations are needed. So, I suggest that the article be tagged for Clean-up, instead of Deletion. What do you say, fellas? Peace treaty? Joanne McAllister (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I change my mind. Besides, the argument I used here was copied from someone else who disagreed with me that the Hot Club of Detroit is notable. I lost that one. I think keepers will win this one. Detroit Joe (talk) 22:40, 16 June 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_June_7&oldid=1142637656"