Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 20
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Steven is of course correct that needing cleanup is generally not considered a valid argument for deletion. However, there is a consensus here that this article is so flawed that there is no content in it which can be cleaned up and made into an appropriate encyclopedia article. I also note that nobody has undertaken the task of re-writing the article, which could have prevented this outcome. No prejudice whatsoever against recreation at any time as a proper article. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paperless society[edit]
- Paperless society (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 page is not an encyclopedia article. It is a one-sided personal essay full of biases. It reads like one person's opinion, not a neutral article. Based on comments on the talk page, there appear to be conflict of interest and original research concerns as well. The topic itself seems notable enough, and I think we could have an article at this title, but I just don't think this is it. Gnome de plume (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as beyond rescue. A classic WP:NOT. I could go on. --AJHingston (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The idea of a paperless society is something that is notable and frequently discussed in literature. The article is pretty rambling and essay-like for sure, but needing cleanup is never a valid, policy-based reason for deletion. I think the nominator and whomever else is interested in this should be bold in removing anything POV, but otherwise there is no clear reason for assuming we shouldn't have an article on this. Note that the topic of a "paperless society" is distinct enough from paperless office to be used as clearly separate terms, even if the concepts overlap. Steven Walling 06:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't see any content in the current article that is salvageable. I thought that in such cases, unless someone wishes to step up and write a clean version, consensus was typically to delete with no bias towards recreation if someone comes along willing to do so. gnfnrf (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Writing a clean version" sounds like cleanup to me. Which isn't a policy-based reason to delete the article. It passes the general notability guideline clearly. Steven Walling 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy that I believe applies is WP:NOT#OR, as it applies to the content of the article. The subject that the article should be about probably should have an article about it. I might even try to write one. But the content of the article isn't even really about that, and certainly isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Now, this is a subtle distinction (the separation of the subject implied by the title and the subject of the article text) and I don't claim that it is ironclad. But consider the following thought experiment. If the article in question were titled "How and why to bring about a paperless society" it would be a.) a more accurate title for the article, and b.) a more obvious deletion candidate. At least, I think so. gnfnrf (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I already demonstrated the topic is not original research. Just look at the Google Books results. Now, if it's written in an OR style and needs cleanup, I am happy to help cut out that kind of language and add the references you can see. But there is no reason to delete article wholesale as an original theory not documented in secondary source material. Steven Walling 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy that I believe applies is WP:NOT#OR, as it applies to the content of the article. The subject that the article should be about probably should have an article about it. I might even try to write one. But the content of the article isn't even really about that, and certainly isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Now, this is a subtle distinction (the separation of the subject implied by the title and the subject of the article text) and I don't claim that it is ironclad. But consider the following thought experiment. If the article in question were titled "How and why to bring about a paperless society" it would be a.) a more accurate title for the article, and b.) a more obvious deletion candidate. At least, I think so. gnfnrf (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Writing a clean version" sounds like cleanup to me. Which isn't a policy-based reason to delete the article. It passes the general notability guideline clearly. Steven Walling 02:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just don't see any content in the current article that is salvageable. I thought that in such cases, unless someone wishes to step up and write a clean version, consensus was typically to delete with no bias towards recreation if someone comes along willing to do so. gnfnrf (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is possible that there could be a good article written on the concept of a paperless society. However, it won't resemble this article at all. This is a position paper without proper citations for most of its factual assertions, and with no references at all that demonstrate the notability of the subject. Furthermore, the author has some WP:OWN problems which are likely to impede any attempts to evolve this version towards something more appropriate for the encyclopedia (such efforts would probably be best suited by essentially starting over.) gnfnrf (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite being a notable topic, I think this article should be deleted because the content is entirely inappropriate, as described above. Deli nk (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per Deli nk. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice to recreation as above. Neutralitytalk 21:46, 25 May 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) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexis Neiers[edit]
- Alexis Neiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notable only for one event: Celebrity burglary. WP:BLP1E —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterJayEm (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per her appearance on the television series. Disagree with the nominator's statement about being "notable only for one event". Strikerforce (talk) 11:04, 20 March 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, Logan Talk Contributions 16:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 15 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, Baseball Watcher 23:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unfortunately as Neiers was the star of a reality series that had national distribution on a cable network I have to argue for a keep on this one despite my wont to want a delete vote. Notable for that and for the complicated theft ring of celebrity homes. Nate • (chatter) 23:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Magnum, P.I.. Spartaz Humbug! 03:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robin's Nest (estate)[edit]
- Robin's Nest (estate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional location that does not meet the general notability guideline. The article has only one reference that is not related to the fictional location. And while the article provides some real-world context, all material is unreferenced. Without reliable third-party sources for the fictional estate, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The fictional location falls into a plot-only description of a fictional work because it has no reception and significance about it and there are no sources that show a presumption that it may have. Jfgslo (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to main article Magnum, P.I.. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion states, "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." Unscintillating (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - to Magnum, P.I.. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Magnum, P.I.. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:16, 28 May 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. Courcelles 22:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Marchant (producer)[edit]
- Frank Marchant (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject lacks coverage in independent sources, I haven't been able to find any at all. January (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to the article, he is a producer of commercials. I can see no indication of notability. There is no coverage about him in reliable sources. There is no indication he has been noted within the industry with a significant award such as a Cleo Award. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 16 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, Baseball Watcher 22:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Abdominal obesity. Spartaz Humbug! 03:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Index of Central Obesity[edit]
- Index of Central Obesity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed prod. An article about a newly suggested way to identify obesity, written by the person who created the concept. It does not appear to me to have wide enough traction or coverage anywhere to warrant an article yet. Kevin (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep??I'm not an expert on this type of article, but it would appear to be covered by multiple reliable sources ( [1] and [2] for example), and at the very least, pass under the strictest interpretation of general notability. Whether or not it is an effective "novel parameter in identifying central obesity" or not, I have no idea, but it is being discussed and studied. Would appear any issues with it are a matter of editing not deleting. If there is a flaw in my perspective here, please feel free to hand me a clue. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to take a look through the notability guidelines for a specific area that deals with stuff like this, but my chain of thought looking at the low citation count on the original article was that it had not yet established sufficient notability. (It is certainly verifiable, I just have notability concerns.) If it looks like I'm wrong, I'll withdraw the nom. Be back in a bit. Kevin (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't actually find a specific relevant section anywhere. My concern is essentially just that massive numbers of similar parameters are discussed in a couple of papers each every year without achieving any lasting notability - Similar thinking to that behind WP:ACADEMIC except that that guideline deals only with people, not concepts. I'll look around some more, and I'll withdraw the nom if I can't find anything. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If all the links I could have found were no more than scientific abstracts, then I would agree, but I found at least two talking about the ramifications, (honestly, I'm lazy, I probably could have found more). Just using WP:GNG, that seems to pass muster. Of course, it isn't always so simple, which is why I qualified my keep !vote. Regardless, I don't think it will hurt anyone for it to park here for a week and allow a wider discussion. Surely someone will pipe in that knows more about these types of articles than you or I, or at least think they do ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's definitely looking like my original nomination was based on something I assumed was present in the notability guidelines that wasn't actually present, but per your suggestion I'll leave it up for other people to comment. Kevin (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, looking at the first link you dug up suggests a separate reason why this article may need to be deleted - in it, "index of central obesity" is used as a genericized term to refer to measures of centrals obesity, and not as a proper noun or in reference to this specific measure. This would suggest that info on this particular measure may be appropriate to include on the general article about central obesity (where ways to measure central obesity are already discussed) but not as a standalone article. Kevin (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If all the links I could have found were no more than scientific abstracts, then I would agree, but I found at least two talking about the ramifications, (honestly, I'm lazy, I probably could have found more). Just using WP:GNG, that seems to pass muster. Of course, it isn't always so simple, which is why I qualified my keep !vote. Regardless, I don't think it will hurt anyone for it to park here for a week and allow a wider discussion. Surely someone will pipe in that knows more about these types of articles than you or I, or at least think they do ;) Dennis Brown (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I can't actually find a specific relevant section anywhere. My concern is essentially just that massive numbers of similar parameters are discussed in a couple of papers each every year without achieving any lasting notability - Similar thinking to that behind WP:ACADEMIC except that that guideline deals only with people, not concepts. I'll look around some more, and I'll withdraw the nom if I can't find anything. Kevin (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to take a look through the notability guidelines for a specific area that deals with stuff like this, but my chain of thought looking at the low citation count on the original article was that it had not yet established sufficient notability. (It is certainly verifiable, I just have notability concerns.) If it looks like I'm wrong, I'll withdraw the nom. Be back in a bit. Kevin (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge it to Abdominal obesity. Hardly stands alone (not generally adopted, sparsely cited, original in a non-peer reviewed journal), but a discussion of this idea alongside other measures of central obesity would be useful. "Index of central obesity" isn't a phrase solely limited to Parikh's idea so the redirect is a good one anyhow. Fences&Windows 00:57, 7 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) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Fences&Windows. I couldn't find any use of the phrase as a working term. If fits perfectly with the target subject, and there is good content to include. I also support the redirect - frankieMR (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed keep to merge At this point, there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage. It can always be forked later. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are several journal articles in different journals and by different authors on this topic. Article needs some clean-up, but looks like the beginning of something good. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the first link Dennis posted, "index of central obesity" is used there as a generic term to refer to measures of central obesity, and not as a proper noun or in reference to this specific measure. To me, this strongly suggests that it would be appropriate to talk about this particular measure on the general article about central obesity, but not as a standalone page, and especially not as a standalone page titled as it currently is. Kevin (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- those articles are from 1996 & 2001. Parikh introduced ICO in 2007. The name uses generic words, but English allows for a difference between index of central obesity in lowercase letters as a generic description and Index of Central Obesity in title case as a specific index. The inventor of a thing usually gets to pick the name unless a different name becomes more widely used. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 20:24, 14 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, Baseball Watcher 22:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Delete can be recreated if it ever becomes
widelyused at all. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's from Medical Hypotheses. No evidence that it is in widespread use. JFW | T@lk 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- even though medical hypotheses is not a peer-review journal, a peer review was published in a separate journal (doi:10.1586/erc.10.38). —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 19:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If we’re going to make an article about every topic that has been the topic of a peer reviewed journal I have a lot of editing to do. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- one example of wider use is Veigas et al.: "Oxidative Stress in Metabolic Syndrome". doi:10.2478/v10011-011-0006-6: "A detailed clinical examination and family history was taken of all the subjects. Blood Pressure (BP) was measured by standard methods. Anthropometric measurements including height, weight, waist (WC) and hip circumferences (HC) were measured as per standard procedures. BMI, waist: hip ratio (WHR) and index of central obesity (ICO) (WC/height) (14) were calculated." the full article is freely available. —Chris Capoccia T⁄C 13:10, 26 May 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robin Masters[edit]
- Robin Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor fictional character who does not meet the general notability guideline and whose article consists mainly of a plot-only description of a fictional work without real-world perspective. There are no references independent of the subject from third-party sources. In fact, there are no sources provided at all, which makes the content original research. Jfgslo (talk) 22:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Robin Masters seems to be mentioned in detail in numerous sources. If not keep, then merge to a character list from the TV series Magnum PI. Mathewignash (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Please cite the sources in the article. Jfgslo (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article already has five sources, and being "voiced by Orson Welles" is not part of a plot. Unscintillating (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Five sources that are not clear or cited within the text and which are trivial mentions. As an example, The guide to United States popular culture by Pat Browne has this about Robin Masters: "In return for free residence at the Robin masters estate, Magnum provided the security for the never-present Masters, whose voice was provided by Orson Wells, 1981-85." That is it. Same with the others. The only one that barely touches the character with something related to the real world is Crime television by Douglas Snauffer and merely commenting about a possible spin-off. This still is not reception and significance of the fictional character per WP:PLOT, neither significant coverage per the WP:GNG. Being voiced by Orson Welles is not reception or significance for the fictional character either. And the majority of the text is still WP:OR. Jfgslo (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to List of characters from Magnum P.I. or merge to Magnum P.I.. Notability is not inherited - a minor character being voiced by Orson Welles is no more notable than a pizza delivery boy who was tipped by Orson Welles. The fact that this character was voiced by Orson Welles can easily be mentioned in the "List of . . ." article without being too taxing on anything more modern than a 4800-baud modem. For that matter, the entire article, once stripped of in-universe cruft and other nonsense, can be boiled down to a single sentence which can be added to the Magnum P.I. article itself: "Robin Masters: Alleged celebrity author/multi-millionaire owner of Robin's Nest, the estate mansion where Magnum and Higgins resided, and the owner of the Ferrari that Magnum drove. Portrayed by Bruce Atkinson and voiced by Orson Welles". Everything beyond this belongs on a dedicated Magnum P.I. Wiki, or the TVIV Wiki, or somebody's Magnum P.I. fansite - but not here. Badger Drink (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Character never appears. Only has context in the show itself. Szzuk (talk) 09:37, 27 May 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Muddles the Bear[edit]
- Muddles the Bear (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 mascot. Anon editor removed PROD. Singularity42 (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find any independent reliable sources that discuss this character in depth. I celebrate anyone who dresses up in a bear costume for worthy charities. I once donned a Smoky Bear costume and remember vividly 30 years later how hot it was. However, Wikipedia is not the place to publicize such charitable events, but rather to report in encyclopedic terms what reliable sources say about such topics. Cullen328 (talk) 04:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No indication of notability. Seems like an attempt at PR to me. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice The article currently is unsourced so should be deleted, but this is not proof that the topic is non-notable. I found a non-trivial mention, here. Unscintillating (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nominator. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Corruption in India. as a fork Spartaz Humbug! 03:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-corruption initiatives by civil society in India[edit]
- Anti-corruption initiatives by civil society in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just a weak article overall. Hardly any "encyclopedic" information. Also by doing a quick read through the article suggests it is in the point of view of the author.Intoronto1125TalkContributions 02:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: We don't delete articles because they are "weak". If the topic is notable, and it is verified by reliable sources it should stay (although, in some cases, it should be merged into other articles if that make more sense. At the moment, the article does need improvement, but I think there is underlying information here worth keeping. Actually, I just looked around, I found a better place for this: Anti-corruption efforts in India. There really isn't a difference between "civil society" and India in general, so I think the right solution is to Merge the useful information in this article into that one. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You should see how they deal with it in non-civil society. --MoonLichen (talk) 05:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- Delete One in a series of POV forks related to India. They pose harm, but scattering contentious content in many places unlikely to get much notice. I don't see enough good content to bother with a merge.. --Rob (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; POV soapboxing --Reference Desker (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV essay.Please put some effort into a sourced article on "Zero Rupee Notes," if possible, that would make the point that is trying to be made more subtly and would give us all something interesting to read. Carrite (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, too late, see: Zero rupee note.
Now this is a POV essay and a fork.Carrite (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Zero rupee note now improved. That was actually really interesting to do, I'm going to take another look at this nomination. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, too late, see: Zero rupee note.
- Strong keep—so the article isn't very good. But the topic is notable and there are stories in mainstream Indian newspapers every single day about anti-corruption initiatives by civil society. See Anna Hazare and Jan Lokpal Bill for instances. Sure, the page needs improvement, so let's go to it. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 12:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Upon further review, this is not an essay at all, it's a list of organizations. I've tweaked to make that clear. I've also gained a new appreciation over the last couple days as to how pervasive the corruption problem is in India and how newsworthy efforts to battle it are. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a list, this has finite content, logical connection, and suitable function as a collection of in-links. The piece itself is obviously a poor job at the moment, but very much a set of notable or borderline notable organizations and a good basis for further work. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For a highly-recommended quick little read on the magnitude of the problem of corruption in India, those interested might want to take a look at Centre for Media Studies, India Corruption Study 2005: To Improve Governance: Volume I — Key Highlights, New Delhi: Transparency International India, June 30, 2005. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a list, this has finite content, logical connection, and suitable function as a collection of in-links. The piece itself is obviously a poor job at the moment, but very much a set of notable or borderline notable organizations and a good basis for further work. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Corruption in India This article is one of many forks which have been unnecessarily created by one editor. - Sitush (talk) 02:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The details like civil society initiatives are important but also too long to be included in main article. IAC, Anna Hazare and other initiatives are very important. The article needs improvement, deletion would be too easy a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.79.236.0 (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Corruption in India, notable mainly in that context, unclear why it needs a subarticle. It's regrettable that many articles about important India-related topics seem to be characterized by poor organization, poor writing and a lack of critical distance. Sandstein 07:12, 20 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, Baseball Watcher 21:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Article is referenced and clearly contains notable information. It would be a good merge candidate, as indicated by others, if there were editor consensus that a merge was appropriate. If you think the article is weak, then be bold and improve it. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
E-Politics in the United States[edit]
- E-Politics 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)
WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. This appears to be an article that is using original research to synthesize other secondary sources. Singularity42 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unencyclopedic essay.--JayJasper (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Well written essay, but it's an essay. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per all above. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:13, 25 May 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coloniality of power[edit]
- Coloniality of power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads like an essay, and a large percentage of its content appears to be an unpublished synthesis of its references. It is quite possible that this may be a notable subject, but this articles content does not appear to be usable in an encyclopedic article. Da.squirrels (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OR essay. Might be something worth merging to colonialism but I can't see it.Redirect. Szzuk (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment This isn't really a synthesis, that's pretty much exactly what the main authors that have discussed the idea, Quijano and Lugones say about coloniality of power and gender. What I'm not sure is whether it's notable or not, as I'm not certain of the specific requirements for notability of academic theories. I'll come back later once I've worked that out. Kate (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescue by reframing as less essay oriented and treating "coloniality of power" as a conceptual object. Notability exists but is not shown here.--Carwil (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AFD is not cleanup. See WP:BEFORE. Google book search shows 2,060 results from books using this term. References already exist in the article to prove the subject is notable. You can easily read through the book results and find others talking about this notable concept. The talk page for this article has never had any discussion on it at all. Any problems with how it is written should've been discussed there before sending it to AFD. Dream Focus 19:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. Andrevan@ 06:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable concept. Needs copyedit/wikfy/rewrite. --Anthem of joy (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - very well known concept, but needs work, no reason for deletion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete [or Redirect to Anibal Quijano ]: WP:OR essay. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Anibal Quijano. Seems to be his baby. --MelanieN (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect/merge. The citations currently in the article do not establish its notability as they are mostly to works by the authors whose theories are summarized (in ridiculously impenetrable jargon) in the article. That is, there's insufficient evidence of substantial third party coverage. Sandstein 07:03, 20 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, Baseball Watcher 21:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Comment (Again) Since this got relisted and I found the books associated while packing, I'm going to have a go at rewriting to make this more encylopaedic. Probably take me a day or two to get to it though. I really do think it's notable, it's just in terrible shape. Kate (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just completed a major edit on this article, taking out all the fluff and unsourced material, adding more sources and broader applications, and making it much less jargony. It still needs some work, and I'll come back to it (if people have suggestions for improvement that would be grand! - I know the language still needs work and it really should be a broader discussion) but I think it's now good enough in terms of penetrability and reliability and shows enough notability to !vote keep. Kate (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New version looks good, thanks to Kate for the rewrite. Francis Bond (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, my original nomination criteria of OR and ESSAY no longer apply. Thank you for the rewrite Kate. Da.squirrels (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: although clearly superior to the original WP:OR essay, the new version relies heavily on WP:PRIMARY sources, particularly Quijano(2000). It is therefore unclear as to whether the topic demonstrates "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment on notabality — "Coloniality of Power" and "colonialidad de[l] poder" both have hundreds or thousands of Google scholar hits. These aren't secondary sources, but suggest notability. Likewise foundational texts on coloniality circulate in required reading compilations like the Latin American Cultural Studies Reader, or the Latin American Subaltern Studies Reader, and a slightly broader topic has a reader of its own in Coloniality at Large. I'm not sure how best to insert these facts, but the cited quote on notability does not stand alone.--Carwil (talk) 16:35, 22 May 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 Fawlty Towers#Production. non notable, unsourced but a credible redirect term Spartaz Humbug! 03:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wooburn Grange Country Club[edit]
- Wooburn Grange Country Club (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 kind of a WP:ONEEVENT-type issue; the building has absolutely no claim to notability other than the fact that it was used to film a sitcom once upon a time. I have done online searches in all the venues I can think of, including JSTOR and other academic resources, and cannot find any reliable sources discussing this subject directly and in detail: in fact, I can barely find any sources beyond the ones listed, which have to say only the following on the subject: "The actual hotel seen at the start and end of the series was the Wooburn Grange Country Club in Buckinghamshire, but that burned down in 1991," and, "The exterior shots for Fawlty Towers were filmed at the Wooburn Grange Country Club in Buckinghamshire, which was throught to have the right run-down provincial charm." This is not significant coverage and I am very interested to hear from Sergeant Cribb (talk · contribs) how he thinks that it is. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regional Counting Officer─╢ 21:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I contested this PROD because the stated reason WP:ONEEVENT does not apply to buildings, and I had been able to find more sources. As a listed building there is an arguable case for notability. All those form sufficient reason. The nominator has elected to let the community discuss the matter and that is good. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As should be obvious to someone with your grasp of the English language, I was drawing a comparison between ONEEVENT (about people only notable for one thing not necessarily to do with them) and this building (notable only for one thing not to do with it). If you cannot find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources – and I assume you can't, since you've not !voted 'keep' – then the article should be deleted and you should not have wasted a week of the community's time by deleting the PROD-tag. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your views on these matters, but they seem to have little to do with the question of whether this article should be retained or deleted. I pointed out that this building was listed, and that suggests (although does not always determine) notability. Per WP:NRVE, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Perhaps someone with access to, say, the relevant volume of the Pevsner Architectural Guides will have time over the next few days to say what they have to say -- it would not be available on a cursory online search. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying that "there must be sources" isn't helpful. WP:ITSNOTABLE clearly observes that "simply asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability is problematic." And so far, that's all your comments amount to. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 08:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, you seem to have forgotten to quote the following sentence of WP:NRVE—"Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive." ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 08:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your views on these matters, but they seem to have little to do with the question of whether this article should be retained or deleted. I pointed out that this building was listed, and that suggests (although does not always determine) notability. Per WP:NRVE, "Notability requires only the existence of suitable reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Perhaps someone with access to, say, the relevant volume of the Pevsner Architectural Guides will have time over the next few days to say what they have to say -- it would not be available on a cursory online search. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As should be obvious to someone with your grasp of the English language, I was drawing a comparison between ONEEVENT (about people only notable for one thing not necessarily to do with them) and this building (notable only for one thing not to do with it). If you cannot find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources – and I assume you can't, since you've not !voted 'keep' – then the article should be deleted and you should not have wasted a week of the community's time by deleting the PROD-tag. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please address the issues rather than continuing to carp on about other editors. I did not "merely assert" anything, so your comments are irrelevant and unhelpful. I gave reasons to expect existence of sources and suggested where they might be found. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The best and easiest way to analyze this is regarding whether the coverage is significant per WP:GNG, rather than making an awkward comparison to inapplicable guidelines. Every source that I could find merely has trivial mentions, stating the connection to the TV show and that's about it. Which means it's worth a statement in the Fawlty Towers article about the show's exterior shots, but not a standalone article without more. As this information is already in Fawlty Towers#Production, there's no need to merge, so either delete or redirect.
BTW, I'm not sure what is meant by "listed;" if you mean by an historical registry, then that would be a good proxy for notability and you'd expect to find sources, so pony up. If you mean by a tourist registry, that's not a relevant standard. postdlf (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, a listed building is one which is protected from being knocked down, painted, altered or whatever by a British local council, usually because it's either old, though not necessarily of historical interest, or an important part of a townscape. Aside from the fact that this one did burn down, listed status doesn't mean notability at all; eg. my old house was listed, as are two trees in my current back garden, as are a huge number of London buildings. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 07:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the consensus is that "Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest", to give them their full title, are deemed notable if Grade I ("of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important") or Grade II* ("particularly important buildings of more than special interest"). I do not know which grade this building was, although it can easily be determined from the appropriate register. If TreasuryTag has two "listed" trees in the back garden, then xe is surely aware that this is a completely different sort of listing, not germane to the current discussion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link to a prior WP discussion regarding how this may affect notability, and find a reliable source establishing what grade of listing this building may have been? postdlf (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_41/Archives/_23#British_Listed_Buildings seems relevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware (and my intuition suggests) that this building would not have been listed in either of the top two categories. If this 'consensus' (of which I am also a bit doubtful, content polices not commonly being stated in archived bot requests) that Grade I or II* buildings are automatically notable is to be invoked, someone will need to provide a reliable source about this country club. It may also interest the Sergeant to know that listed trees are indeed listed in the same way as buildings, usually for their significance to the landscaping of a neighbourhood. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I can't seem to find a single reliable source stating that the site is listed at all! ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 19:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_41/Archives/_23#British_Listed_Buildings seems relevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link to a prior WP discussion regarding how this may affect notability, and find a reliable source establishing what grade of listing this building may have been? postdlf (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the consensus is that "Buildings of Special Architectural or Historic Interest", to give them their full title, are deemed notable if Grade I ("of exceptional interest, sometimes considered to be internationally important") or Grade II* ("particularly important buildings of more than special interest"). I do not know which grade this building was, although it can easily be determined from the appropriate register. If TreasuryTag has two "listed" trees in the back garden, then xe is surely aware that this is a completely different sort of listing, not germane to the current discussion. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no significant coverage about this building in reliable sources to establish notability. The building is claimed to be listed, but I can find no evidence that it is. -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The place appears by this title in multiple books and, given its notoriety, there is no reason to make it a red link. The rest is a matter or ordinary editing as should have been obvious from the outset per WP:AFD, "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider turning the page into a useful redirect to an existing article – something you can do yourself without opening an AfD case...". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the article should be kept on the strength of its presence "in multiple books" and "given its notoriety" then you'll really need to quote some significant coverage in order to substantiate your position. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage is not required for a redirect, but only verifiability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) clearly !voted 'keep', presumably on the basis that he considers the subject to be notable, in which case significant coverage is required. His reference to "multiple books" also hints that he was thinking of significant coverage, and I asked him if he could be more specific. Sorry if it's confusing. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try reading all of Colonel Warden's comment, rather than just the first few words, and you will have no need to presume anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I obviously read the whole comment. I interpreted it as meaning that his first choice was to keep the article (hence the bolded word keep at the beginning) and his second preference was a redirect, hence the subsequent italic quotation obliquely making that suggestion. If your interpretation differs then it has added useful fruit to this discussion, which the closing admin (and I do pity them) can mull over. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 22:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try reading all of Colonel Warden's comment, rather than just the first few words, and you will have no need to presume anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) clearly !voted 'keep', presumably on the basis that he considers the subject to be notable, in which case significant coverage is required. His reference to "multiple books" also hints that he was thinking of significant coverage, and I asked him if he could be more specific. Sorry if it's confusing. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage is not required for a redirect, but only verifiability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think the article should be kept on the strength of its presence "in multiple books" and "given its notoriety" then you'll really need to quote some significant coverage in order to substantiate your position. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 21:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of people with the given name Darren[edit]
- List of people with the given name Darren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTDIR, which prohibits "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." I fail to see how being called "Darren" is a significant enough connection between these people for there to be a listing of them. See consensus reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with the given name Sarah or Sara. Anthem of joy (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If JBSupreme created this, I must think it was as a joke.--Milowent • talkblp-r 21:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why ? --Anthem of joy (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. As with Sarah, it is a directory of loose items around a random name - frankieMR (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as random directory, no logical connection between its members other than the accident of the given name. An article called List of people with the middle initial L would be equally illogical.. No valid navigational function, a simple search will bring up the article on the Darren of choice, no one is going to be running to a list of Darrens hoping to find an article on a specific Darren. No valid disambiguating function. Carrite (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Naturally agreeing with the nomination, as there are very few such articles on wikipedia, no precedent, nor much use for this list in particular. Also, there's one more on wikipedia List_of_people_with_the_given_name_Mitra. i kan reed (talk) 19:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is an alright list, and with a little formatting it should be OK. I see no reason to delete as there is an awful lot of people on there and it would be a shame to delete this group of them all together. Rcsprinter (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow your reasoning. The articles aren't going to be deleted, just the list which doesn't really provide any unique information. What does having this list help anyone with? i kan reed (talk) 17:15, 27 May 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 Move to Independance Day (Somaliland). Spartaz Humbug! 03:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somaliland Independent day[edit]
- Somaliland Independent day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This orphan article is duplicative of the existing article Somaliland. It contains no major content not already covered in that article and the title is slightly wrong, so there is no point in making it a redirect. An article about the independence day itself might be justifiable but this article doesn't actually cover that topic. DanielRigal (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only one sentence about independence, only one of the two references mentions the date. Somaliland has 73 references, so this is likely to be a notable and interesting topic under the correct name with sources, this title and this article should be deleted with prejudice. Unscintillating (talk) 03:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree 100% with the nominator that the article was dreadful. And the article title is probably not a good choice with Independence Day (Somaliland) probably being a better choice. However, the topic is notable as there is coverage of the Independence Day celebrations in Somaliland. The Voice of America has coverage. A google news search shows plenty of articles related to the celebration of indpendence including stuff like meeting with Donald Rumsfeld, renewed attempts of formal recognition; many of the articles include descriptions of parades and other gatherings. I've stubbed the article to basic fact, but there's probably more that can be added that is specific to the celebration of the day versus Somaliland in general. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not start a new article? It seems logical that since the topic of this article is not English, that any sources that reference such a title would by definition of English not be reliable. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? The article was in English. -- Whpq (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what I said that was not clear. When I said "topic", I was referring to "Somaliland Independent Day". There is no such thing, it should be "independence" not "independent". Your work that you have put in on the article could have been used to create a new article, now the technicalities are increasing because there are good edits on top of something that could have been easily deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? The article was in English. -- Whpq (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not start a new article? It seems logical that since the topic of this article is not English, that any sources that reference such a title would by definition of English not be reliable. Unscintillating (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like a real holiday. The title should be modified and the article should be expanded with the references found, but I don't see the need for deletion here. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And then the original title must be deleted. Unscintillating (talk) 23:28, 25 May 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 per WP:SNOWBALL. Laurent (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case[edit]
- Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Product of WP:RECENTISM, this article covers an event that fails the general notability guidelines. The event has received relatively wide coverage in the international media over the last few days and this has mislead editors into thinking it notable. Our polices say While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information; this article is not giving due weight to the event in the context of the biography.
This also fails WP:EVENT; coverage is currently (and obviously) not of a long duration, as such it is a big assumption that the coverage will have a long duration. This could just as easily be dropped next week as it would go to trial. Most of the coverage is very similar and is purely from news sources (i.e. minimal diversity).
Consensus at Kahn's biography was not to split the content for the moment, but this was later created with minimal extra discussion.
The content is biographical and about a living person, dealing with allegations of a sex crime and an ongoing investigation - no trial has occured and per our usual BLP approach our coverage should be neutral and minimal for the moment.
Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and this is a news article. Errant (chat!) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The bio had become too weighted with new sections and excessive news report details, but not enough effort was made to prune, summarize, or add context. As for notability, the event has already affected France's political situation and potentially global economics. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than the fact he clearly will not be able to stand in the next election (unless it gets dropped quickly) I haven't actually seen a source that deals with an in-depth analysis of the effect on the political situation & global economics... I've seen some idle speculation spun into the news stories, but nothing of much depth. I could, however, have missed something. --Errant (chat!) 20:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An "impact" cite was added to the article which expands on that.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A major scandal, both the Levinsky scandal (top politician + sex), the Bernard Madoff affair (finance), and Tyson trial (violence). Yug (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This event forced the head of the IMF is forced to resign. [3]. Before his arrest he was considered the front-runner to challenge Sarkozy for the 2012 French Presidency [4], and this event left the French Socialist party in disarray [5]. It has been covered in roughly 24000 news outlets [6]. Yes it is news, and yes it is recent, and that makes for some difficulty in writing about it; however, I really fail to see how anyone could conclude that this fails the general notability guidelines ("has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"?) or that the event won't be of lasting significance, whatever the actual outcome of the case. Dragons flight (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. For anyone interested there have been two preceding talk page discussions on whether this should be split / merged. The first, before this article was created, ran 8-3 in opposition of a split. The second, from after the article was created, is currently running 6-5 in favor of a split. The arguments made at both of these discussions are likely to be similar to the arguments made during this AFD and may be worth reading. Dragons flight (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We should add that the original discussion for the first one started with, "We urgently need a split, so the content about the trial may be reported day after day, and expand freely" (the text was recently revised, however.) But that seemed to go against the "notnews" policy on its face. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk)
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Currently this is a current news item. Details will be sketchy, biased, and subject to change. There is no need for a WP article to reflect a changing story, there is no need for an article to be written at this point in time. John lilburne (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable and verifiable, with dozens and dozens of sources available that provide in-depth coverage. This is merely a sensible case of splitting a quite large section out of a biography for the sake of removing undue weight and yet still preserving neutral, verifiable content about a topic. As Yug points out, it's pretty much standard operating procedure to split this kind of event into a separate article. Steven Walling 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and as a BLP minefield. If we only report what is justified by policy, this article will be unnecessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutrally explaining the facts of a criminal investigation that has gotten attention from many reliable sources is not a BLP violation. Writing this kind of article is what Wikipedia is here to do and is clearly in line with our core policies of neutrality and verifiability. It's not a matter of libel to prudently describe events that concern a public figure and their role in a major international controversy. Steven Walling 21:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:NOTNEWS objections don't apply for such incredibly notable events Soupy sautoy (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with John Lilburne and AndyTheGrump. FightingMac (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- A scandal that brings down a man who's the head of the International Money Fund, and potential candidate for the French Prsidency? That pole-vaults over being a normal news story and into being an encyclopedic topic. This is something that's already having heavy repercussions in French politics, and will probably, given the nature of the arrest, have ripples in French and American diplomatic relations. And yes, I'm guessing on the latter, but I think its a reasonable guess, given the facts at hand. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and as a BLP minefield. Unless he is formally convicted of a crime then it remains a violation to have an entire separate article on just an accusation, surely? ALso this article currently covers little more than the summary in his biography. I think that is enough for now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (As to the first part of your comment) Not really, see People v. Jackson and O. J. Simpson murder case for other articles on unproved allegations that failed to gain convictions. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends - if it gets some work and can be seen as useful, then don't get rid of it; if it keeps just sitting there unimproved then get rid of it - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate per WP:NOTNEWS. The issue is clearly notable and significant, and concerns about the need to make a summary separate from the bio are valid, but that significance is precisely more the reason to exercise restrain. This information is constantly changing, and as such is still unsuitable for any kind encyclopaedic presentation. Of course the article would be updated as event unfold, but that's precisely what a news service is. Anyone who is interested in this information and wants to know its state, background or development should not be coming to WP but should be looking directly at the event, since it is indeed happening now. The information should be userfied so it can be built as the event progresses, and it can be used once the issue has had some form of closure, or significant stallment. Meanwhile the biography can provide a conservative summary of the issue, and perhaps direct the reader to a news facility - frankieMR (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Umbralcorax and Steven Walling. Not a NOTNEWS violation - an incredibly important criminal investigation. Not a BLP problem to report on facts of this investigation. The investigation and charges are notable even if he is ultimately found not guilty. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:NOTNEWS cites "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" as examples of what the policy covers. I'd say this is more than just some New York Post celebrity gossip. I think it's fairly clear this is one of the largest political scandals in the U.S./Western Europe in years. It is in the news, but the odds that the coverage dies off after this week are pretty slim. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep If this nomination is meant seriously, it indicates a need to modify NOT NEWS to show some awareness of the actual world; similarly for BLP consideration--I see DO NO HARM as written to make it clear it does not apply in instances like this, but if we need to say it yet more emphatically , we can do so. It might have been possible to argue for deletion/merge in the first few hours after the incident, but not now. I'm reluctant to mention this AfD to my non-Wikipedian friends, as I don't want them to make fun of me for engaging a project where people argue for deleting articles like this. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Usually the question with NOTNEWS articles is whether, if the event had happened 10 or 100 years ago, anyone would have bothered to write an article. But to be honest, if this case was of somewhat lower profile, or happened ten years ago, I don't think it would have ever been nominated for deletion. Whatever the outcome of the case, the political implications are great--something you can't say for the average "missing white woman"-type affair. I've always how found it odd how all the anti-recentist zeal is directed against the most high-profile articles (fortunately, not usually successfully). 169.231.53.195 (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with John Lilburne and AndyTheGrump. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This event is a man-made storm of world-wide impact, with the IMF, the presidential election in France, the reputation of the New York Police Department and CSI's looking for DNA (forensic evidence) in the hotel room, etc. We don't delete/merge "Hurricane Ike" under "Bad weather" (or "North America"), waiting for the "news" to be over and people to "know" the impacts. Strauss-Kahn resigned from the IMF, and the French election has been affected. Typically, the next step will be determination of judge and New York district attorney to hold a grand jury (which happened), and Strauss-Kahn was indicted on all 7 criminal charges, based on the preliminary evidence. The next step is "trial by jury". Top American news sources will be extremely careful to fact-check their reports, so "news" from major U.S. WP:RS's should be very accurate, avoiding gossip. Deletion would lead to WP:UNDUE detail placed back into his bio-page to note the level of forensic evidence obtained for trial of this case. If the CSI's find only minimal evidence, and that is withheld by WP as being WP:UNDUE details (within a bio-page), then the result would be a WP:BLP-vio to omit how only marginal evidence was available for trial against him. -Wikid77 05:27, revised 06:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, the "man made storm of world wide impact" once again is the product of media hype. It wreaks of recentism. It basically comes down to a banker hitting on a maid. The case is well summarized in his main article at present. This is hardly comparable to OJ Simpson, sorry. I think a incomplete merge at least until he goes on trial would be more appropriate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It basically comes down to a banker hitting on a maid". No, if the allegations are true, it is a banker committing a serious sexual assault. I have no doubt regarding the seriousness of the allegations, and of their possible repurcussions. I still think this article should be merged with the main DSK one though. Not because of any 'media hype', but because there is actually still insufficient reliably-sourced factual data meeting Wikipedia's requirements to merit a separate article. This article seems to have been created because many contributors to the DSK article discouraged the addition of trivia, and of speculation regarding the events. This is in effect a POV-fork, where the 'POV' concerns the degree to which Wikipedia should pretend to be a newspaper. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, the "man made storm of world wide impact" once again is the product of media hype. It wreaks of recentism. It basically comes down to a banker hitting on a maid. The case is well summarized in his main article at present. This is hardly comparable to OJ Simpson, sorry. I think a incomplete merge at least until he goes on trial would be more appropriate. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate per frankieMR. Wikipedia covers current events, but we are not a newspaper. Thus far, the case is being well covered on the bio page. Give this article some time to be developed as new information is reported, then return it to the mainspace. Novusuna (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikid77's argument. --Europe22 (talk) 07:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The repercussions of this case are enormous, and it is clear already that there has been an upheaval at the IMF, with big ripple effects, not only in France where DSK was considered a major contender for the presidency, but also in several European economies, Greece being a clear example. The coverage has been massive and widespread, and it is not tabloid coverage either, but major news services reporting on this. Obviously a major event which has a lasting impact. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This completely changes the course of the French presidential elections, will have a lasting effect on the career of one of France's major political figures, will bring a new leader to the International Monetary Fund in a period of major financial crises and is probably the most extensively covered news story in the world at this point. I don't think you can shrug that off as "recentism" or a fait divers. Skarioffszky (talk) 09:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:NOTNEWS is not valid here (as with 90% of the times it is used in AfD). This isn't routine news coverage and although it's an unfolding event but that doesn't mean we cannot have information on it. Details of climate change are still emerging, for example, but that doesn't mean we ignore it until there's a rainforest in the Sahara. Clearly meets GNG Jebus989✰ 10:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Enjoyed your remark about the Sahara. But GNG has a test of presumption i.e. an article may be presumed notable but editors' may still reach a consensus that it's not appropiate, for example indeed because it's deemed WP:NOTNEWS. FightingMac (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- French Wikipedia's article fr:Affaire Dominique Strauss-Kahn is also being discussed: [7]. 188.29.70.25 (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To better the GNG claim, then, I turn to notability (events) inclusion criteria, specifically: ...likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources and ...probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect—the lasting effect in this case being on the French presidential election, plus the IMF resignation. edit: also the French article appears not to exist, can anyone confirm that it was deleted? Jebus989✰ 14:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No redirect to your link has been set. There are a couple of splits - they are AfD'ing this one in favor of that one, which was moved from Dominique_Strauss-Kahn Case to Dominique_Strauss-Kahn Affair (redirect set). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.51.189 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To better the GNG claim, then, I turn to notability (events) inclusion criteria, specifically: ...likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources and ...probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect—the lasting effect in this case being on the French presidential election, plus the IMF resignation. edit: also the French article appears not to exist, can anyone confirm that it was deleted? Jebus989✰ 14:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Dragons flight. Massive media coverage, involving one of France's major political figures. --Edcolins (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable, with multiple implications for French election and culture and the history and culture of the IMF. There are far more reliable sources already available than for the majority of Wikipedia articles, and the number of reliable sources available will only increase as time goes on. Five years from now we will certainly want this article to exist; why should we wait until then to begin writing it? John M Baker (talk) 16:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, now that he has resigned If it had no long-lasting event, then it could be a minor WP:ONEEVENT like many political sex scandals. But it has an effect well beyond the simple act and accusation. Eauhomme (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable, a series of events, and will have some value after the news coverage settles. gidonb (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; clearly notable, same advice as John M Baker's. Necrid Master (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is foreseeable to have a big impact and already has had an impact on politics in France. Absent a total retraction of the accusation by the alleged victim, this cannot be reduced to an event. One of the problems with WP:NOTNEWS as wrtitten is the ambiguity of enduring. With this case in mind, you may want to look at WT:NOT#Not News? and see if the wording of the policy can be improved. patsw (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did research behind "NOTNEWS" and found, before WP:NOTNEWS was a guideline, people wanted a reason to delete a Mel Gibson article, and the then-proposed WP:NOTNEWS was suggested as a future weapon for similar AfD debates (see early "NOTNEWS" in WP:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident, Feb. 2007). Perhaps the claim "not-notable" fails to sufficiently POV-push other people to support "Delete" of a highly notable topic. -Wikid77 08:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An encyclopaedic article/biography should not be a source of news. When the dust has settled it may be appropriate to include an article on the subject until then all this does is replicate news sources, that are replete with punditry. At this moment in time, anything that is written or said about the impact of this event, economically, politically, or on anything at all is pure speculation. John lilburne (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the highly speculative impacts of this event is his resignation as head of the International Monetary Fund, tendered 3 days ago Jebus989✰ 11:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An encyclopaedic article/biography should not be a source of news. When the dust has settled it may be appropriate to include an article on the subject until then all this does is replicate news sources, that are replete with punditry. At this moment in time, anything that is written or said about the impact of this event, economically, politically, or on anything at all is pure speculation. John lilburne (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did research behind "NOTNEWS" and found, before WP:NOTNEWS was a guideline, people wanted a reason to delete a Mel Gibson article, and the then-proposed WP:NOTNEWS was suggested as a future weapon for similar AfD debates (see early "NOTNEWS" in WP:Articles for deletion/Mel Gibson DUI incident, Feb. 2007). Perhaps the claim "not-notable" fails to sufficiently POV-push other people to support "Delete" of a highly notable topic. -Wikid77 08:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The tone of some comments in this article seems to take a view on defending Strauss-Kahn (i.e. not a neutral point of view) rather than presenting a balanced account of the event. In relation to this, I have particular concern with the selective referencing (which I have gone through). Some of the article's content (for example, the so-called different version of the encounter by another hotel member) come from an unnamed sources and therefore, in effect, are nothing more than hearsay. The selective use of such unverified accounts would seem to be an effort to push the reader towards accepting Strauss-Kahn's view of the event. (This bias is highlighted in that the article does not question the inconsistencies in Strauss-Kahn's account, which seem to be more considerable and material). Wikipedia needs to maintain its integrity by ensuring that details are verifiable and that includes the references and links (which is a critical aspect of Wikipedia's claim to integrity). Comments that are referenced in articles should come from named people - including, but not limited to lawyers, police, prosecutors, family and friends - and not hearsay from unnamed people. Given the unbalanced nature of the article, it should be deleted (or, at least, heavily modified). Mari370 (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that wikipedia is apparently not censored its pretty irritating how vague it is with "a Manhattan hotel" and a "housekeeper". BLP it seems is now an excuse to censor wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The hotel name is partly my fault - I've been moving detail from the biography and missed that one. --Errant (chat!) 14:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is the AFD, not the discussion page for the article: Suggesting that speculation be removed is an editing task, not a rationale for a delete vote. Suggesting that anonymous sources not be used is an editing task, not a rationale for a delete vote. patsw (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A very obvious keep for me. A clearly notable scandal of long-lasting importance, either because it's true or because it's an outrageous smear campaign. —Nightstallion 12:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Any problems with neutrality can be fixed through editing. It is true that Strauss-Kahn is innocent until proven guilty, and that his trial has yet to occur. However, that does not change the historical importance of the scandal, particularly in the context of French politics. Coverage of this case thus far has been in-depth and persistent; WP:EVENT is met here. The article does indeed need to be heavily patrolled to ensure compliance with WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. However, that's not by itself a reason for deletion. Although Strauss-Kahn's alleged crimes are obviously more violent than perjury and obstruction of justice, I think a parallel with Bill Clinton is fair here. If Wikipedia was around in the late '90s, some of those advocating deletion here might have voted to delete the Lewinsky scandal article because of BLP concerns. I would have objected just as strenuously. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to expand on just why this is of "historical importance ... particularly in the context of French politics" sounds like armchair punditry to me. John lilburne (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. As I'm sure you too have read, Strauss-Kahn was probably going to be the Socialist nominee for President of France before this happened, and indeed many have written that he could have defeated Sarkozy. No armchair punditry intended. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The keywords here are "was probably going to be" and "could have defeated". Speculation (punditry) at best and even if true does not demonstrate "historical importance ... in the context of French politics". John lilburne (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all expressions of the probability of a future political event are speculation or punditry. The assertion that he was a likely socialist candidate is adequately sourced. Its contradiction, that he was not a likely socialist candidate, can be made by an editor in the article if it is likewise sourced. (Again) These are editing issues for the article itself and not rationales for a delete vote. patsw (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any "long term" impact is speculative though. Clearly he was a favoured candidate and would have stood. Now he is not going to stand - and that does affect the election. Beyond that who knows what was going to happen (i.e. who knows if he would have won), hence speculation beyond the short term. --Errant (chat!) 20:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any long-term impact is speculative? He resigned from the most high-profile position in macroeconomics some days ago. If you are staunchly anti-speculation, there are plenty of more obvious places to start Jebus989✰ 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he was going to stand for the French Presidency he was going to resign his IMF position. His arrest has simply brought that forward by a few weeks, it hasn't changed anything fundamental in that arena, thus it is a fallacy to equate the arrest with any long term anything on macroeconomics. As for the French presidential election what is the "historical importance ... in the context of French politics" of him not running? John lilburne (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any long-term impact is speculative? He resigned from the most high-profile position in macroeconomics some days ago. If you are staunchly anti-speculation, there are plenty of more obvious places to start Jebus989✰ 20:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any "long term" impact is speculative though. Clearly he was a favoured candidate and would have stood. Now he is not going to stand - and that does affect the election. Beyond that who knows what was going to happen (i.e. who knows if he would have won), hence speculation beyond the short term. --Errant (chat!) 20:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all expressions of the probability of a future political event are speculation or punditry. The assertion that he was a likely socialist candidate is adequately sourced. Its contradiction, that he was not a likely socialist candidate, can be made by an editor in the article if it is likewise sourced. (Again) These are editing issues for the article itself and not rationales for a delete vote. patsw (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The keywords here are "was probably going to be" and "could have defeated". Speculation (punditry) at best and even if true does not demonstrate "historical importance ... in the context of French politics". John lilburne (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. As I'm sure you too have read, Strauss-Kahn was probably going to be the Socialist nominee for President of France before this happened, and indeed many have written that he could have defeated Sarkozy. No armchair punditry intended. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep How is this any less article-worthy than the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case?? It has completely changed the political landscape for the 2012 presidential elections in France, as well as having a major impact on the current negociations on Greece's debt! --Jules.LT (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Yug and Umbralcorax --Knulclunk (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Expanding article for legal details, plus double-sources: Already, the article had been edited to try removing some 2nd sources, for each major point, to reduce the size of the article. However, the tactic of double-sourcing for each issue, with 2 independent sources, avoids the problem of including a one-report emphasis of details, and losing WP:V verification if one source is judged to be non-WP:RS. Typically, if an issue is stated in 2 sources, then it is less likely to be a one-person bias about the events, so the article has been expanded for double-sourcing of major issues. As for expansion, details can be added for the indictment on 7 reported charges, concerns of his legal rights (to appear in dress-code attire), and his terms of bail to house arrest ($1 million +$5 million bond), plus he was required to surrender his passport, and his United Nations travel document, known as a laissez-passez, over the weekend. Perhaps some editors did not realize how, in New York City, a "news" case can go from arrest+CSI+indictment in just 5 days, becoming official incarceration facing 15-20 years in prison. Long story short, all these issues (to be expanded) would seem to be clearly WP:UNDUE details in the bio-page article, but essential to understand the 7 charges against him, the restrictions while awaiting trial, plus allow viewpoints of concerns about his legal rights as a French citizen. -Wikid77 01:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability clearly not in doubt. If this is deleted, then a shitload of detail will accumulate in his biography, and this will just be recreated. Maybe delete it in a few years when nobody cares anymore about all the details. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with snowball closing--closing this by snowball doesn't make the problem go away)
- Incubate Wikipedia is not a newspaper, WP:NotNewspaper; and Wikipedia is not breaking news reports, WP:Notability (events). Admins need to WP:BOLD these breaking news reports into the incubator before these pointless AfDs get started. Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Jumpgate. a more babylon5 related merge target might be a better solution and is left to editorial discretion Spartaz Humbug! 03:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpgate (Babylon 5)[edit]
- Jumpgate (Babylon 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has been extant on Wikipedia for around six years without a single source. Since it's an article entirely composed of plot summary that tells about a particular piece of technology from a science fiction TV show, the likelihood that this article will ever have anything other than WP:PRIMARY sources is nil, and the article will thus never meet WP:V because of a lack of secondary coverage independent of sourcebooks or television episodes. The prod was removed because "This page is part of the WikiProject Babylon 5 and should not be deleted". — Chromancer talk/cont 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Additional comments. Before you object, please refer to what Wikipedia is not. This entire article is and remains a plot summary. There is no treatment of this subject in secondary sources. — Chromancer talk/cont 01:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I objected to this article being deleted, and as per the wiki proposed deletion rules it should not be deleted. What is the problem? Do we really wish to lose knowledge, however trivial? Do not delete this article, it was here earlier today when I wanted to find it, and if I had been a few days later it would of been gone, along with any useful links it contains. Sources? This is a Television show, the sources -should- be television episodes and movies. That is where all of the information about the show and its universe come from. ~Acridian 24.242.228.233 (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article has two third party reliable references now, so the nomination's reasoning is now invalid. Mathewignash (talk) 01:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those sources are tertiary (encyclopedias, not reliable secondary coverage). Neither of them supports the vast amount of plot summary that exists in the article. What are you sourcing? This does not address any of the problems here. I would be amicable to a redirect, but this article still does not meet the WP:GNG. — Chromancer talk/cont 01:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added a third, unique independently published source. I've got a couple more B5 secondary sources packed away somewhere that I can't put my hands on immediately, all of which discuss the concept. If the above objection (tertiary sources) is accepted as valid, then one must presume that those "tertiary" sources must be based on reliable secondary sources: the presence of an independently published tertiary source presumes the presence of appropriate secondary sources, which means the GNG is met. If the nominator would like to withdraw the nomination and collaboratively discuss how to appropriately trim the article, that is probably the best way forward... Jclemens (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to disagree. Tertiary sources can be a compilation of commentary on primary sources. As is the reference you just added, which is entirely reliant on television episodes and creator commentary for its information (see WP:PRIMARY for a discussion of what constitutes a secondary source as distinct from a primary or tertiary source). Why the article "jumpgate" needs to exist when it's obvious that the technology involved could be dispensed with in a single-paragraph reference in a "Technology of Babylon 5" article is beyond me. Frankly, it's amazing to me that so many articles that only and entirely consist of in-universe plot summary are being kept on this basis, when it's obvious there's been no discussion of them in a mainstream or out-of-universe setting (See Interstellar Network News, Psi Corps, Grey Council, Black Star (Babylon 5), Shadow Planet Killer, Sun Hawk class gunship; all of these consist of plot summary and in-universe technical detail; none of them have reliable secondary sources). Is there any chance some of the editors would concede that there's no policy basis for keeping each individual plot summary articles and merge the 25+ individual ship/technology articles for Babylon 5 together?
- Comment Actually WP:PRIMARY is does not rule out the use of tertiary or even primary sources: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully.", although secondary sources are preferred: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."Francis Bond (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly my point. Right now the article entirely uses primary/tertiary sources to create a plot summary. There are no sources independent of the subject involved, except for one that's listed under references but has not contributed any material or quotations to the article (American Science Fiction TV: Star Trek, Stargate, and Beyond, which is a scholarly analysis of morality in SF TV shows; it does not, as far as I can tell, even mention the jumpgate technology). — Chromancer talk/cont 15:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually WP:PRIMARY is does not rule out the use of tertiary or even primary sources: "Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully.", although secondary sources are preferred: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."Francis Bond (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What we have right now is a series of articles appropriate for an in-universe fan wiki. Babylon 5 is a great article about a television series. These articles are fan material with no end in sight. — Chromancer talk/cont 05:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't yet thought about the merits of "Jumpgate" specifically, but just so you know, the Babylon 5 wikiproject is working on consolidating some of those accessory articles. For example, I've been working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Babylon 5/List of starships in Babylon 5, with the hope of redirecting a lot of those ship articles once it's ready for article space. We also redirected Minbari Warrior Caste to Minbari, and there is an active discussion about Interstellar Network News. In sum, I'd appreciate it if you didn't start mass-AfDing B5 articles while the project is actively working on the problem. --Fang Aili talk 06:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put one Babylon 5 article to AfD. I hardly think that's mass-AfDing. Since most of these articles have histories indicating they haven't been edited significantly in years (usually five or six plus), I had no reason to believe that any efforts were being made. I would be happy to assist in transferring and redirecting said articles. I'm not a big believer in WikiProjects, but it's obvious that no real progress is going to be made on this AfD, even without a source independent of the subject to be found, so any other way to make progress on bringing this to an encyclopedic level is good with me. — Chromancer talk/cont 15:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't yet thought about the merits of "Jumpgate" specifically, but just so you know, the Babylon 5 wikiproject is working on consolidating some of those accessory articles. For example, I've been working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Babylon 5/List of starships in Babylon 5, with the hope of redirecting a lot of those ship articles once it's ready for article space. We also redirected Minbari Warrior Caste to Minbari, and there is an active discussion about Interstellar Network News. In sum, I'd appreciate it if you didn't start mass-AfDing B5 articles while the project is actively working on the problem. --Fang Aili talk 06:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge somewhere. It's a primary plot device in the B5 universe, so some information about it should exist somewhere in our set of B5 articles. Thus a redirect should exist as a viable search term. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I'm looking for a reason to !vote keep, but I'm not finding one. There's no real-world notability about Babylon 5 jumpgates. Or, if there is, there are no sources to indicate as much. There's an entry on Babylon 5 at jumpgate which could be expanded a bit, or we can find another place to mention it. (A Technology of Babylon 5 article could be very interesting, especially since B5's creator JMS put such emphasis on trying to make things as scientifically plausible as possible.) I encourage further discussion on the matter, but at this time I must !vote to merge. --Fang Aili talk 21:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a Technology of Babylon 5 article has merit, but since some administrators only count noses and treat "merge" as something other than a "keep, and discuss a merge later outside the AfD process", I've ceased using that when a "keep" is justifiable based on sourcing. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. After reading the various comments already posted, and doing some looking around on wikipedia, I found that the article under Hyperspace_(science_fiction)#Babylon_5 has most of the data there also. I propose that we merge the article under discussion with that article, and then create a redirect from this article to the Hyperspace_(science_fiction)#Babylon_5 entry. Acridian 24.242.228.233 (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnet the natural parent article is jumpgate though... 65.95.13.213 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge: The subject of the article, a fictional technological concept, does not meet the general notability guideline (GNG) since all mentions about the jumpgate or jumpgates are either purely from a plot perspective mostly from tertiary and primary sources, trivial mentions or from unreliable sources with a search engine test, nothing to presume significant coverage. Checking the sources provided within the article, the first two are tertiary sources, which do not work well for notability purposes per the GNG, and I found that in two of them jumpgate is a trivial mention. In the second one, it is limited to a single mention in a single sentence and in the third one, the only secondary source, the term is not mentioned at all, instead using jump-points and again in a single sentence. And with no reception or significance about jumpgates either in the sources or the article, it is a plot-only description of a fictional work. Since the content is not supported with the references provided, it is also an unnecessary content fork. In order to generate consensus, I believe that a merge to jumpgate is an acceptable alternative to deletion, although I fail to see what could possibly be added to the content about Babylon 5 that is already there, particularly when nothing is actually referenced within the article in discussion. Jfgslo (talk) 00:25, 27 May 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) 02:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adonis Tsilimparis[edit]
- Adonis Tsilimparis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lots of "additional music" credits but no primary theme songs. Does not meet WP:BAND. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Theme songs are present in two of the films mentioned, including: "Naked as we Came In". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsilimparis (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Tsilimparis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- "Naked As We Came" is unreleased, not acceptable for notability per WP:CRYSTAL (and Tsilimparis not listed among cast or crew at IMDB). — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" Adonis Tsilimparis is to be included in the Cast/Crew list for "Naked as we Came" in IMDB. Adonis has several more credits on his IMDB page including theme music for Burger King ad campaign: "BK4U". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsilimparis (talk • contribs) 13:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete clear conflict of interest and WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence anywhere of notability. IMDB is not a reliable source. Self-promotional article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:10, 25 May 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Teague[edit]
- Captain Teague (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 enough sources to prove WP:GNG and not enough information per WP:Split to be a individual article when it fits just fine in the List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters article. Is also a minor character in the franchise anyway. I purpose a merge more than a deletion. Jhenderson 777 17:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a minor character in the films, but not in the franchise.--Max Tomos (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you are talking about the tie-in novels. I suppose that counts on making him a little essential for the franchise but can you prove that the character is notable. It would also be nice if the article was more than just plot summary. And let's face it all the information about him looks fine in the section of the list article. Jhenderson 777 18:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters, which was already done, but Max reverted it. While very interesting due to his casting, I don't think there would be enough coverage. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. This article will never have enough secondary coverage in critical sources to merit his very own page and there's no reason not to include this information on a list of characters. Merge should not have been reverted to begin with. — Chromancer talk/cont 20:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't merge. This article is important. Please don't merge. The person who had the idea of merge let me tell : you're a fag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.84.79.138 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have done nothing to explain why this is important to the real-world (i.e. outside of PotC). Homophobia on it's own achieves nothing. (It doesn't tend to help with anything, really...) Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it's deflection. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters Since it was already merged, there's no need to merge it again, so it's simply redirecting. This article does not show notability. There does not appear to be any third-party independent reliable sources discussing the character non-trivially, which are needed for a Wikipedia article.. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above arguments. No notability. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 17:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per above. Came across this article a while ago and have had it on my watchlist meaning to AfD since then! No separate claim to notability, a better fit on the characters page. HornetMike (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect While the fictional characters does not meet the general notability guideline and the article is mostly a plot-only description of a fictional work and an unneeded content fork with barely one reference, as others commented, it is already merged in List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters, so a redirect should be enough. Jfgslo (talk) 23:16, 26 May 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zeina Assi[edit]
- Zeina Assi (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 subject does not appear to meet the general notability guideline required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. I can not seem to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only 1 local exhibition that can be documented. Agricola44 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 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) 02:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dominion Training Services[edit]
- Dominion Training Services (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/sources do not establish notability, fails WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:ORG.
Disputed WP:PROD: Non notable training establishment that fails WP:ORG. Mephtalk 16:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mephtalk 17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree, no evidence of notability, in fact I initially thought this was SD material, changed to a PROD and within minutes we are here! Fails WP:ORG. Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further references added to article. The user that made the initial suggestion for deletion has authored articles with fewer references that remain on the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossevans11 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not relevant—This discussion is to determine whether the subject, Dominion Training Services, is sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia. Any apparent issues in other articles are not relevant to the adherence to this policy. Mephtalk 17:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So expecting policy to be applied with consistency is 'not relevant'?
- I nominated this article for deletion as a non-notable subject, and Paste's edits are not relevant to determining whether my nomination is valid. Mephtalk 18:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. In particular, I don't see any way this meet WP:ORG which is the more specific guideline for companies. Any issues with other article is a separate issue and not relevant to why this article should be included in Wikipedia. If the other articles failt he inclusion criteria, they should also be nominated for deletion so long as it isn't to just make a point. - Whpq (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like it clearly fails WP:ORG. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:49, 25 May 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) 02:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gloria Gucci[edit]
- Gloria Gucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Somebody's favorite pornstar who fails WP:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and the GNG. No awards nominations, zero GNews hits, no relevant Gbooks hits, and no reliable sourcing or refs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 20 May 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. too soon. the sandbox article can be moved in as and when this charts Spartaz Humbug! 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put Your Hands Up (If You Feel Love)[edit]
- Put Your Hands Up (If You Feel Love) (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 about song that hasn't even charted yet. This is a WP:CRYSTAL vio at it's best. Plus, there is a bigger, more referenced sandbox on this subject started in 2011. I Help, When I Can. [12] 16:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is no way the article should be deleted. This article represents the fourth single from Kylie's Aphrodite album, a single which is in no way inferior to the previous three. This article is very important in the informating and recording of the Aphrodite era on Wikipedia and should for no reason be removed. This article must remain on Wikipedia as it will be updated and information will be added as it becomes available. Please, do not delete. 115.70.108.58 (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing you said has any weight here on Wiki. In your plea, you've asked for probably 4 rules to be broken, ranging from CRYSTAL to NEUTRALITY, so I don't think this holds as any valid opinion in this discussion.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This single has now been officially announced as per the references in the article, along with tracklisting. It also has an official video and independent coverage. It may only be a digital single, but "The One" has its own page so I fail to see why this shouldn't. (Paul237 (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: When did Existence equal notability? Plus, there is another sandbox by the Kylie Minogue WikiProject that was created over 2 months ago. I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This song is the fourth release from Aphrodite. It's digital only and has been confirmed as true and genuine. It has artwork and is available to pre-order. The One was the fourth release from X and is digital only. The One has an article and it hasn't been removed or contested. Therefore, I feel Put Your Hands Up should have its own article, too. I come to Wikipedia to find things out. I was pleased to read about this single here. Surely that's the whole point of an encyclopedia, so that people can learn about things. If TPTB decide no singles deserve their own page then ::I'd agree this would be a delete, but since that's not the case I think it deserves its own page. Sorry you disagree, but my opinion is what it is. (Paul237 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Existence doesn't mean notability in the music genre. A song needs to chart to be included.
- "The One" charted.
- That is the point of the encyclopedia, but Wikipedia cannot cover everything.
- Besides these facts, another article in a sandbox for WP:Kylie that was started over two months ago. I'm saying that the sandbox article should replace this one not only because it is fuller and has more citations, but because it would be harder to copy the information into the article under Wikipedia's copyright (see WP:CWW). I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be better if the sandbox article is copied across to this one now. This will add credence to the 'Keep' argument. After all, even if this article is deleted in a week's time (which, let's face it, is likely) we both know it'll be resurrected the second the digital EP charts somewhere in the world (I know, I know, we're not crystal balls, etc). The problem is there's always inconsistency. You nominated "Edge of Glory" for deletion and that got accepted before it charted, purely because of snowballs and the fact that everyone knew it'd chart anyway. So to not apply the same here is perhaps unfair and shows the rules aren't being applied equally. (Paul237 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Please re read WP:CWW. Copying it over breaks attribution rules. I was on the delete side of the aforementioned argument until "The Edge of Glory" charted. I had nothing to do with the weather. Plus (the next statement is synthesis) there is a possibility that this project won't chart. It wasn't promoted much. I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Us mad fans will likely be enough to ensure it scrapes in the top 40 somewhere I'm sure. ;-) (Paul237 (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Sorry to butt in. That'd be fine. Just wait for that to happen first please.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to apologise, it's a open discussion so there's no such thing as "butting in". I thought it was obvious, but just to make it clear, my previous message was tongue in cheek. (Paul237 (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Thank you, and no problem. But to once again pretend you were serious...I just realized that the 'top 40' mentioned is too restrictive. It could chart way lower and still have an article. to complete my thought—Iknow23 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to apologise, it's a open discussion so there's no such thing as "butting in". I thought it was obvious, but just to make it clear, my previous message was tongue in cheek. (Paul237 (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Sorry to butt in. That'd be fine. Just wait for that to happen first please.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Us mad fans will likely be enough to ensure it scrapes in the top 40 somewhere I'm sure. ;-) (Paul237 (talk) 23:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Please re read WP:CWW. Copying it over breaks attribution rules. I was on the delete side of the aforementioned argument until "The Edge of Glory" charted. I had nothing to do with the weather. Plus (the next statement is synthesis) there is a possibility that this project won't chart. It wasn't promoted much. I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This song is the fourth release from Aphrodite. It's digital only and has been confirmed as true and genuine. It has artwork and is available to pre-order. The One was the fourth release from X and is digital only. The One has an article and it hasn't been removed or contested. Therefore, I feel Put Your Hands Up should have its own article, too. I come to Wikipedia to find things out. I was pleased to read about this single here. Surely that's the whole point of an encyclopedia, so that people can learn about things. If TPTB decide no singles deserve their own page then ::I'd agree this would be a delete, but since that's not the case I think it deserves its own page. Sorry you disagree, but my opinion is what it is. (Paul237 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Incubate Lack of coverage in reliable sources at the moment. IWIC can you please post a link to the sandbox? Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Viola! Wikipedia:WikiProject Kylie Minogue/Sandbox/2. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectA sandbox was has been in the works for a while, and this article, as of right now, is unnecessary. IHelp, you could have just redirected it yourself. No need to delete. An article should be up shortly. ℥nding·start 01:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I didn't redirect it because one of the points of this article is that it has already been created as a sandbox. Copy and pasting the sandbox information into this article violates Attribution rules. I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't violate anything as long as you were the one who wrote the content located in the sandbox. But regardless, this article will need to be deleted to move the sandbox into it and such anyway, so it might as well be deleted. I support this deletion. ℥nding·start 22:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't redirect it because one of the points of this article is that it has already been created as a sandbox. Copy and pasting the sandbox information into this article violates Attribution rules. I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I note that WP does allow articles about events that have yet to occur - Manned mission to Mars - without breaching WP:CRYSTAL. Given the status and popularity of Kylie Minogue, the impending release of another single by that artist is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
- Further more, I am distinctly unimpressed by User:IHelpWhenICan's apparent meat puppetry in orchestrating for others (such as User:Iknow23, User:Adabow, User:Petergriffin9901, User:Ending-start, User:Jivesh boodhun and User:Theuhohreo - in other words, just about everyone on this page) to come in here to support his nomination for AfD and, because of this, I urge caution before deleting this article. Deterence Talk 02:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sad that you believe that. I am offended by such an accusation. I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because I have had communication in the past with IHWIC does not mean I would support his nomination. I gave my honest opinion, and I'm sure that is all he expected of me. I find it absurd that you would try and make a big controversy out of it instead of sticking to the flipping subject. Every editor who works with songs has a right to be notified about these types of discussions.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 05:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, also, songs are not events. There are different rules for songs. If they don't chart or haven't been covered by notable artists, they don't get included. I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, while I am the last person to describe myself as a fan of Kylie Minogue, she is clearly a "notable artist". Secondly, is this AfD really necessary when the release of the song is less than two weeks away? Even if this article did violate WP:CRYSTAL, (it doesn't), waiting a couple of weeks to see what happens won't do any harm to Wikipedia or the people reading it. This all seems like such a petty waste of time and energy when, in all likelihood, the single will prove worthy of this article in a couple of weeks. Deterence Talk 02:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sad that you believe that. I am offended by such an accusation. I Help, When I Can. [12] 04:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Incubate Don't just delete this and waste the information when the release date is so near. I am striking my vote and choosing Delete because I have been informed (thank you IHelpWhenICan) that a sandbox has been started here for this article and the sandbox has a much better start. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 13:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, created FAR too early. Plus i'm sceptical since Minogue said no more singles would be released from the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your views around it being created too early, but the existence of the single isn't under question. There are references on the article. It's available to pre-order and preview on the Amazon MP3 store and has been officially announced. (Paul237 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- A single itself is not notable... yet a song performed by several artists or charted on national single charts is. Many songs exist... do you think all of them have their own articles? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not reading what I'm saying. I'm not contesting your view about this page being created far too early, nor in my comment did I say that all songs are notable. You said "Minogue said no more singles would be released from the album". I'm saying that this single has been officially announced. I appreciate it hasn't yet charted or been released (which is the main reason others are saying the page should be deleted), but you're referring to something Kylie said ages ago before this single was announced. So I'm just making the point that it's better to keep up to date with this kind of thing... (Paul237 (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- A single itself is not notable... yet a song performed by several artists or charted on national single charts is. Many songs exist... do you think all of them have their own articles? — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 20:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your views around it being created too early, but the existence of the single isn't under question. There are references on the article. It's available to pre-order and preview on the Amazon MP3 store and has been officially announced. (Paul237 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete The article is not written too well, and the pending sandbox is a MUCH better article. This article at the current moment is horribly referenced (3 to be exact), and is very bare in it's information. Theuhohreo (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: While re-reading the music guidelines, I ran across a paragraph I never noticed before. Let us read:
Interesting, ain't it? I Help, When I Can. [12] 21:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability.
- You're reaching, (and that's putting it politely.) Kylie Minogue's notability is hereby verified. Deterence Talk 23:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Contrary to your belief, songs doesn't inherit any notability from the artists who sing them, it is the other way around. Have you read WP:NMUSIC yet? I Help, When I Can. [12] 18:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're reaching, (and that's putting it politely.) Kylie Minogue's notability is hereby verified. Deterence Talk 23:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Aphrodite (album). There is no indication that this song meets WP:NSONG, and as advised in the guideline, such as song "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album..." -- Whpq (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep in mind that I also asked for the deletion of this article to replace it with a more referenced stub if it meets the notability guideline. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Why should this article be deleted, when chart positions and reviews become available, the article will be able to expand. It has been announced as the fourth single from Aphrodite and it deserves it's own article. Mirrored Love (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the entire discussion before making a decision. I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Why don't we instead merge the article with content from the sandbox article to create a referenced and sourced coherent article? 115.70.108.58 (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it breaks the attribution rules. Please read this page before you reply on this page, damn. I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For goodness sake, why are you so passionately determined to kill this article when, in all probability, the content will qualify for its own article in a couple of weeks? Deterence Talk 04:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because he wants his sandbox article to be the main one and he apparently can't enhance this article with his own edits because that would break attribution rules. However, I think he can still edit this article to make it better - not copy and paste his article over this one. Also, I think some editors think it gives them brownie points to raise successful AfDs. Just sayin'. Paul237 (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my sandbox, it's the WP:Kylie sandbox that's been worked on for the past 3 months in advance. What could I do to this stub without screwing up Wikipedia's copyright? And that "brownie point" stuff, seriously? I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some conflict of interest behind User:IHelpWhenICan's nomination? It appears that this may be the case, WP:WikiProject Kylie Minogue/Sandbox/2. All of a sudden, this just looks like an editorial turf war. Deterence Talk 00:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously?... I don't even know why I'm still here on Wikipedia when there are people like you here. I'm so done, it's probably to late in the nomination, but count this as a withdraw. It's been almost 3 years of people like you, who I cannot stand to tell the truth. I'm done with this AfD, I'm done with this article, I'm done with this project, and I'm done with this encyclopedia. Cheers. I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please? He's an experienced editor who works for the good of Wikipedia (if you look at his contributions, you can see that his contributions are not limited to Minogue articles alone). You could have improved the article? Also, WP:NSONGS clearly states "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." At present the article is awful. Anyway I support incubation. Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 04:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously?... I don't even know why I'm still here on Wikipedia when there are people like you here. I'm so done, it's probably to late in the nomination, but count this as a withdraw. It's been almost 3 years of people like you, who I cannot stand to tell the truth. I'm done with this AfD, I'm done with this article, I'm done with this project, and I'm done with this encyclopedia. Cheers. I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some conflict of interest behind User:IHelpWhenICan's nomination? It appears that this may be the case, WP:WikiProject Kylie Minogue/Sandbox/2. All of a sudden, this just looks like an editorial turf war. Deterence Talk 00:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my sandbox, it's the WP:Kylie sandbox that's been worked on for the past 3 months in advance. What could I do to this stub without screwing up Wikipedia's copyright? And that "brownie point" stuff, seriously? I Help, When I Can. [12] 23:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because he wants his sandbox article to be the main one and he apparently can't enhance this article with his own edits because that would break attribution rules. However, I think he can still edit this article to make it better - not copy and paste his article over this one. Also, I think some editors think it gives them brownie points to raise successful AfDs. Just sayin'. Paul237 (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For goodness sake, why are you so passionately determined to kill this article when, in all probability, the content will qualify for its own article in a couple of weeks? Deterence Talk 04:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Foul-play Everyone - So far, I can note two deletes that were mysteriously removed from an IP. My vote as well as Iknow23's were removed a while ago. I was unable to be here for the last few days, which is why I did not present this sooner. This AFD is BS and has been tampered with. I am restoring both delete votes.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A few days ago, I personally reverted the removal of one vote for Delete. The IP who did it apologised and assured me that the removal was accidental. Deterence Talk 09:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually saw that revert and message you left him, but I ask you, could it really have been an accident to remove three different Delete votes in four separate edits? I doubt it. I felt it important to link it here as well, because frankly, its upsetting that a consensus could have possibly been severely swayed due to a foolish IPs meddlesome edits.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A few days ago, I personally reverted the removal of one vote for Delete. The IP who did it apologised and assured me that the removal was accidental. Deterence Talk 09:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable yet. Agree that the sandbox article is more well developed. It can be used at the appropriate time if/when it occurs.—Iknow23 (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Oh God. Does not even merit an incubation. Speedy delete.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No Charts? No Awards? Not even a decent sized article (hardly a stub), hence it fails WP:NSONG; Delete. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:29, 26 May 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's enough discussion here to determine that the delete button is not going to be pushed. Almost everybody agrees that the article needs to be cleaned up and some work has been done in that regard. The issue of renaming can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings[edit]
- Zero-Net-Energy USA Federal Buildings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is a polemic as it stands, and I'm not sure it can be cleaned up sufficiently to meet WP standards. Definitely needs to be retitled if not deleted. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is a factual reference about current U.S. government energy policy. It takes a neutral point of view and does not advocate whether this policy is good or bad. How is this a SOAPBOX polemic? Please reply with specifics.
- If you would like to suggest a different name for it, please do. But, "Zero-Net-Energy" is the term used in the formal statement of policy, which applies to 100% of all USA Federal Buildings. If you change the name, please change all references to it throughout Wikipedia.
- Please re-read the cleaned up article and delete this deletion discussion. Escientist (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that the editor above has removed most of the soapboxey material, so be sure you're evaluating the most recent version.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—At present it seems like a bit of a quote farm. It is in need of cleanup and re-vamping.—RJH (talk) 19:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, [needs review] provided that we can work out a readable summary of this EO that is factually accurate. I attempted a copyedit for readability, but I'm not entirely sure I've gotten everything straight in this first pass. This version needs review. Trilliumz (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking the time to copyedit this new article. You retained the facts, maintained a neutral viewpoint, and made it more encyclopedic. I like it the way it now is. Is there anything left to discuss? Does the name need to be changed? Can we end the deletion discussion and remove the tag? Escientist (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion discussions normally last a full week, so the tag needs to stay there a little longer. There's no bar to further improvement, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the latest version looks good -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, current name is unforgivable Shii (tock) 11:46, 25 May 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast: Monograph Series in Mathematics Education[edit]
- The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast: Monograph Series in Mathematics Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Book series produced by minor publisher, associated with minor journal. No indication of independent notability, does not meet WP:NBOOK Crusio (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as per nominator, the publisher is barely notable so an imprint of is even less likely to be so, and a search turns up no coverage that I can see, just mentions in catalogs and purchasing opportunities.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom - NN fails NBOOK. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article was only created a few months ago. i would have preferred a longer period for documenting notability. If this is not possible, the obvious solution would be a redirect to The Mathematics Enthusiast, not deletion. It's obviously a useful redirect. Tkuvho (talk) 20:09, 21 May 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tamara, Queen of the Mermaids[edit]
- Tamara, Queen of the Mermaids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tags on the article says it all. The article is nothing but plot summary and no sources. And this is too early of a character to meet WP:GNG. I purpose either deletion or merge List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters. Jhenderson 777 15:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with great regret but I doubt that there is even enough material to merge. It seems to be wholly original research or conjecture. Eqdoktor (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - No notability. There is no coverage in reliable sources shown. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if the whole content is "original research or conjecture", there isn't even anything to merge. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait: This movie has only just be released and the page is brand new. While it indeed might turn out that this page will need to be deleted, its unprofessional to jump up and try to delete it right away. Allow time for an article to develop and then and only then bring the article up for deletion IF it warrents it. Come one guys, this is nooby stuff, a little professionalism, please.The Matrix Prime (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't work that way with a fictional character. What your wanting is more what Wikia does. A fictional character doesn't normally warrant having his/her own article until notability is proven and that takes time. We have the list article to talk about her if we need to. Jhenderson 777 20:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters per nom. Does not show any notability, and I doubt that there are third-party independent reliable sources discussing the character non-trivially. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a legitimate search term; doesn't deserve its own redirect. Categorically fails WP:GNG on every criteria. — Chromancer talk/cont 16:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and the article does not provide reliable third-party sources independent of the subject that treat in detail the character. It is an unsupported and unneeded content fork that provides only a plot-only description of a fictional work with no reception or significance. Jfgslo (talk) 23:07, 26 May 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IAdea[edit]
- IAdea (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 speedy deletion, not mine.
Unambiguous advertisement (...a company in the digital signage industry known for pioneering development of industrial-grade media player appliances and the digital signboard. IAdea devices are supported by the most number of top digital signage software solutions in the market.) for yet another non-notable tech business.
References are all to press releases, Top 100 lists, and a BitTorrent related blog; article currently fails the business notability guideline, and I see nothing better. Only claim to minimal significance is that it sells the world's first integrated circuit running the peer-to-peer BitTorrent network protocol for consumer devices. The technology enables efficient distribution of large video files using simple hardware devices. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources; tons of press releases though. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage anywhere. Note: There are currently similar deletion discussions for Digital signage product comparison and Sony Ziris. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At least their BitTorrent hardware was noted in PC Magazine. [8] FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:28, 27 May 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, more or less under criterion 1. The copyvio was axed by DGG, the page was moved to better target by TerriersFan, and tertiary educational institutions are notable. Everyone wins! Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Northeastern College, Santiago, Isabela, Philippines[edit]
- Northeastern College, Santiago, Isabela, Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article's title is too long and people might get confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncnians (talk • contribs)
- Speedy delete as copyright violation of [10]. The nom is not a good reason to delete; if there is a problem with the article's title, the title could be changed. But I take no position on that issue, because the copyright violation needs to be dealt with first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I stubbified it to remove the copyvio. The title may need some reformulation, but all established colleges are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- Comment Just curious, aren't we required to delete an article once copyvio has been established, possibly under speedy delete, then recreate if it is notable? Something to do with the fact that the copyright violation will remain in the article's history, and you can't delete the history without deleting the whole page, via the license Wikipedia is under? Keeping it is technically illegal. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrators can hide or delete the offending revisions per WP:Revision deletion while keeping the article. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks. As long as that issue is taken care of, keeping would be the logical choice since it is a real institution of higher education. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the stub per DGG. This school is notable. A page move can address the nominator's concerns. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All tertiary-level institutions are notable. Move to new title without the address. Moray An Par (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - all tertiary educational institutions are notable. I have moved the page. TerriersFan (talk) 14:53, 17 May 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 under criterion 1 (no argument for deletion advanced). I suspect that the nominator objects to the article titling, because the city is considered administratively independent from its former province. That might be worth discussing at the article talk, but is not a risible cause for deletion. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Santiago, Isabela[edit]
- Santiago, Isabela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
b Because Santiago is now a city and no more part of Isabela province
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Ncnians (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Puzzled. First sentence of the nominated article: The City of Santiago is a 1st class city in the province of Isabela, Philippines. Suggest speedy keep; named cities are almost always notable, and I don't see any grounds for deleting anything stated here. The nominator may have been confused by the fact that this mentions Isabela in the title; this is because there are many other places named Santiago, including two more Santiagos in the Philippines; see Santiago (disambiguation). I think this nomination reflects a misunderstanding. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:13, 20 May 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TAPE Method[edit]
- TAPE Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A training methodology. No evidence that it even exists, let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete I wasn't able to find any reliable sources supporting the existance of this.i kan reed (talk) 17:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Abstain Since my concerns about proof of existence are apparently not relevant per Garyisse, I'm going to abstain. There may be other valid reasons for deletion, but the ones I posited are not accurate. i kan reed (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- existence I read about it in the May edition of Network HR Magazine. Garyisse (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Someone has invented an acronym for a bloody obvious procedure, and hopes to turn their acronym into a lucrative consulting career: Theory, Application, Practice and Evaluation are the four components of this comprehensive training programs. The TAPE method is used in ClarkMorgan's modular skills trainings.
- THEORY
- Trainees are provided with the theory behind a new skill, which includes the current behavior and improved behavior, once the skill is mastered.
- APPLICATION
- Cases, examples, and anecdotes are provided by the trainer to provide a reason for obtaining the new skill, a nd to demonstrate how this can be achieved.
- PRACTICE
- This section occupies 40 to 50 percent of the overall methodology, with trainees working individually, in pairs or small groups to demonstrate competency.
- EVALUATION
- The trainer provides in class feedback through the identification of correct and incorrect demonstrations of the theory.
- This is not a valid contribution to the body of human knowledge. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage about this particular methodology in reliable sources.-- Whpq (talk) 19:43, 24 May 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. It seems like there is a general agreement that the topic of paganism in the twin cities area is a notable one, but many users object to having that content under this title as it is a rather obscure neologism. Many of those arguing to delete early on seem to have softened their position as the debate progressed. At this time there does not appear to be a consensus to delete this article, or to keep it under this title. I would suggest that the best way forward is to begin a renaming discussion on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paganistan[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Paganistan (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 referenced entirely by a thesis along with a number blogs on the topic. A Google search on the title brings up zero news hits which brings the article's claim that the name is "generally accepted" into serious question. Google web search brings up a number of hits to blogs plus an Examiner.com (which is of questionable reliability) post by the author of that thesis. Prod was challenged with a comment endorsing the Pagan Newswire Collective as a "recognized journalistic source". This is questionable as this is a self-published group blog which isn't going to meet guidelines for reliable sources. Including this term in the Minneapolis – Saint Paul article might be appropriate based on the on that thesis but I'm not finding sufficient independnt coverage to support a dedicated article on the subject RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The following text was posted by the author of the article, a fact which he/she should have acknowledged.Edison (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Examiner articles referenced above were written by a doctor of anthropology who spent over five years studying Paganistan, which means that they are a reference to a reliable and respected source who's work is peer reviewed. The article also contains a reference to a doctoral dissertation about Paganistan which was peer reviewed, highly scrutinized, and scholarly. I've requested a copy of the dissertation through inter-library loan, and will soon be adding more references. Paganistan is the subject of an ongoing anthropological study for which someone received a doctorate, which means that Paganistan has received a scholarly peer reviewed acceptance of significance.
The Pagan Newswire Collective is a Pagan News outlet, which has been utilized as a newswire by major news outlets. The articles which were referenced are of equal to superior quality to articles published in most of this nation's newspapers, and written by authors with extensive journalistic experience. The authors did not self publish. They submitted their articles to the newswire, the collective reviewed the articles and chose to publish the articles. The same process was in place for the MNPagan article which was referenced.Jdoggiedogg (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC) — Jdoggiedogg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Much is made of the notability conveyed by one dissertation, written by someone who acknowledged being a part of that community for 10 years or so before the date of the dissertation. That seems a bit lacking as an independent source. PhD dissertations accepted by accredited universities are routinely cited in articles, but rank lower than articles published in actual peer reviewed scholarly journals. It is a primary source. Articles by secondary sources with significant coverage of this community are desirable to establish notability. The dissertation says that this is not a "faith community" of people with shared beliefs. It is not a well defined geographic feature, like a populated hamlet which is a point on a map, but rather people of various pagan beliefs spread over counties. Most of the article is promotional in tone, advertising businesses operated by pagans in the Twin cities. A newswire operated by a group is certainly not an "independent" source, even if some of its output gets published. A newspaper article written by the author of the dissertation is also not an independent source beyond the dissertation, and a newspaper is not considered a "peer reviewed scientific journal.". Edison (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable/not generally recognized term. At first glance the article appears to be well referenced, but there is not a single Independent Reliable Source in the 30+ references listed. The references are self-referential; they come entirely from within the Pagan community, as does the PhD thesis. A Google News search finds literally nothing. A Google search finds nothing Wikipedia would accept as a Reliable Source (Wikipedia finds the Examiner to be unacceptable as a source; if you try to post an Examiner reference on Wikipedia it will not post). Google Scholar finds only two things: the thesis, and one other thing (pamphlet? book? unclear) written by the author of the thesis. Neither of them has ever been cited by anyone else, suggesting that the term has no scholarly use. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Pagan Newswire collective is a news organization that serves the Pagan community and has eight bureaus in the United States and one in South America. Jason Pitzl-Waters, the Cordinator for PNC, writes for The Wild Hunt and for the Washington Post. http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/Jason_Pitzl-Waters/ NOTE: I am the co-editor for the PNC-Minnesota bureau, which was used as a source in this and another Wikipedia entry. I have a degree in Mass Communication from the University of Maryland (1992) and a DINFOS graduate (1989) http://www.dinfos.dma.mil/ I was a journalist in the USAF (Zaragoza AB, Spain) for both radio and TV and covered the first Gulf War from Saudi Arabia. (1989-1992) I produced the 6pm news for ABC affiliate KAAL-TV. (1993-1998) http://www.kaaltv.com/ I am a member of the Society of Professional Journalists and have received 2011 credentials from the Minnesota GOP to cover their events. http://www.spj.org/ Articles for PNC-Minnesota are not self-published and there is an editorial process similar to most every other news organization. Reporters send in their stories for review from an editor. The editor checks the story to ensure it complies with standard journalistic practices. Additionally, PNC-Minnesota has a fact checker, Heather Biedermann, who is a research and technology librarian at the Minnesota State University in Mankato. The story is then sent back to the reporter for revisions, edited and then published, published, or shelved. The process is similar for editorials. CaraSchulz — CaraSchulz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment(talk) 19:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)Cara Schulz Media mentions of "Paganistan" that come up on google search: http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Minnesota-Monthly/April-2009/MNMO-Recommends/ (Third article down)[reply]
"This is, after all, Paganistan." http://m.startribune.com/articles/206115007 "The Twin Cities metro area -- dubbed "Paganistan" by Wiccans for having one of the highest witch concentrations in the country -- has an estimated 20,000 witches who meet in 236 different covens or groups, according to the Rev. John Mayer, executive director of the nonprofit City Vision, a Christian organization that tracks local religious data." CaraSchulz (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Cara Schulz[reply]
- Comment It's worth pointing out that this AFD isn't questioning paganism, it's seeking consensus on whether or not the phrase Paganistan can meet notability guidelines. That being said the magazine and Star Tribune links above are probably sufficient to source a sentence in the article on Minneapolis – Saint Paul#Religion on the phrase along side a sentence or two on the practice of paganism in the area. I'm still not seeing a dedicated article as appropriate here, especially as it stands today and it's promotional tone. --RadioFan (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The term 'Paganistan' has entered local politics as well see: http://www.dumpbachmann.com/2008/10/paganistan-vs-bachmannistan.htmI recommend examining more than just the first two pages of a Google search before you call something 'unreferenced'. While I understand what you mean about the promotional tone I have seen that in other Wikipedia articles. I will try to find an example. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google searches are useful in helping find reliable sources but not everything that is brought up there meets Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources. The link you mention above is a blog which, as is mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, generally doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for source reliability. Of particular concern is that the term is appearing mostly within the community. If there is a Pagan wiki somewhere, this article would probably make a good addition there.--RadioFan (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Title is non-notable neologism; topic itself is theoretically worth writing about (pagans in Twin Cities) but there don't appear to be enough reliable sources to do so (lots of blogs and commercial websites, but no books or news) at the moment. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThe two articles cited from Minnesota Monthly and the Star Tribune do more than make a "trivial mention" of the number of Pagans in the Twin Cities and it's name of Paganistan, although Paganistan was not the main focus of the articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline
"Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" The news articles make plain that the phrase "Paganistan" is in common use and is culturally significant. The Paganistan entry, if written in a neutral tone with more history given, would be similar in nature to The Castro, San Francisco CaraSchulz (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Cara Schulz[reply]
- Comment According to the Notability guidelines, "deletion should be a last resort." At this point, we should be following the steps to improve the article. If that fails, only then should deletion be considered. There is no reason to fast track this for deletion when the article can be improved. Given more time, scholarly sources like The Pomegranate and other difficult to access papers can be referenced Wikipedia:GNG#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines CaraSchulz (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Cara Schulz[reply]
- Comment This article is not being "fast tracked" for deletion. The discussion is still open and will continue until concensus is reached. Note that that doesn't mean a unanimous keep/delete opinion is required and that the burden is still on the editor adding the material to the article to provide sources that meet reliability guidelines. If you believe that there are sources that haven't been considered here, please provide some more information about those sources here so we can discuss whether or not they meet WP:RS.--RadioFan (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss this neologism in depth. The many blog posts and self-published items listed as "references" are of no use in establishing notability by Wikipedia standards. When reliable sources use the term "Paganistan", it is in passing rather than in depth, and only when quoting local Pagans and Wiccans. No one other than Pagans and Wiccans calls the area "Paganistan". The dissertation mentioning the term is a primary source written by a person with a vested interest in promoting this term and the community it describes. The Pagan Newswire is not an independent source, since it exists to promote this and other similar communities. Comparisons to San Francisco's Castro District are invalid, since the history and gay character of that neighborhood has been described in depth by vast numbers of independent, reliable sources for at least 40 years. That comparison only serves to emphasize how non-notable the term "Paganistan" really is. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but massively overhaul the sourcing, dumping the commercial stuff, blogs and other primary sources in favor of books and press. This article suffers from the usual problems in under-reported minority communities: they are often overlooked by the mundane society among whom they dwell. However, a look at the "books" links provides some references, and a search of the local press would add some more. Full disclosure: I was asked to look at this off-Wiki by friends of this community. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This fails WP:GNG due to lack of third party reliable sources that give significant coverage. First Light (talk) 04:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Google book search shows six results when I search for "Paganistan" AND "Minnesota". [11] Not sure if any of them would be considered reliable sources. They talk about Paganism in the twin cities and mention it is called Paganistan by some. Its odd that Google news archive search shows zero results. Dream Focus 06:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: neologism that appears to be largely the creation of one Murphy (Meredith) Pizza. Little indication of widespread use, or "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article is already being improved with reliable sources (several mainstream news and scholarly books by recognized experts). Entry is also being edited for a more neutral tone. Article can continue to be improved. CaraSchulz (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)Cara Schulz[reply]
- Comment. How many "Keep" !votes does CaraSchulz plan to make? I count four, so far.... :) Dohn joe (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Don't worry, Dohn joe, we can count on the closing administrator to discount the repeat votes. CaraSchulz, new editors are always welcome here, but are expected to learn our social norms as well as our policies and guidelines, especially when commenting in areas like Articles for Deletion. Please strike out your repeat votes. Closing administrator, please note that editors CaraSchulz and Rev. Jack Green are new single purpose accounts whose editing is limited to this topic. Editor Jdoggiedogg who wrote the article is also a new single purpose account. Editor Orange Mike, on the other hand, is an experienced editor and administrator who both knows our policies and admits that he was stealth canvassed off-Wiki on this matter. Orange Mike, can you please point out two reliable, independent sources that discuss this topic in depth? We have no exception for "under reported" minority communities and countless topics regarding minority communities are notable and covered by Wikipedia because they have been covered in depth by reliable, independent sources, which is our standard here. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - Cullen, the Minnesota Monthly article and the AltaMira Press book are the two that stand out in my mind. This is not the strongest Keep I've ever seen, but it meets the standards (although not as unquestionably as Cara believes). --Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm an optimist. CaraSchulz (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
- Response Thank you for the message, Dohn joe, I've changed the header on my responses to comply. I have just begun to edit Wikipedia entries and am going through the process on this one first to learn the steps and rules, but I have a list of articles that are tagged for rescue that I will be editing and adding citations. Everybody has to start somewhere. Cullen asks if there are two WP:RS/reliable, independent sources that discuss this topic, Paganistan, in depth. According to WP:SIGCOV Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] There are now multiple, independent, reliable sources such as an academic/reference book and news articles that have been added as citations to the article. More should follow. The article is also being re-written for a more WP:NPOV but more time should be allotted for this. As the guidelines note, the article doesn't need to be a final draft and articles are expected to be added to and improved over time. This article was created approximately 1 month ago by a first time editor, and is tagged for rescue.CaraSchulz (talk) 10:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
- Comment Could you explain a bit more about which sources you see as reliable and covering the topic in depth? Looking at the Star Tribune sources, one mentions the phrase once and is focused on a prisoner's suing the state, the other doesn't mention Paganistan at all. The rest, as has been mentioned several times in this AFD are self published, mostly blogs.--RadioFan (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Responce Sure. The sources don't need to cover the topic in depth or be the main focus, that's a higher bar than is actually set by guidelines. The Minnesota Monthly article uses the phrase in a way that is plain and apparent that it is in common and acceptable use. The title of the article is Welcome to Paganistan and goes on to talk about significance and history of the Pagan community and why it has that name. This is more than a "trivial mention." The second article, in the Star Tribune, is focused on Wiccan prisoner rights, but frames the discussion in the context of this area, Pagansistan, being very populated with Pagans, as it is a very Pagan-friendly place to live, who are very active in Pagan rights. Another source is the Book "Her Hidden Children: The Rise of Wicca And Paganism in America" by Chas Clifton published by AltaMira Press. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chas_Clifton In this book, he covers the history of contemporary Paganism in the USA and there is a section that talks about Gnosticon, the influx of Pagans to the Twin Cities, and how it came to be called Paganistan. I realize that the paper by Dr. Pizza is being considered not a usable source as she is also a Pagan, but many experts in particular fields are also involved in that field. There are many sources cited on topics like environmentalism that are by persons deeply involved in environmentalism. There are also experts on Christianity who also happen to be Christian - and so forth - just most of the time it is not called out. Dr Murphy also presented on this topic at the American Academy of Religions in 2006 (http://www.aarweb.org/meetings/annual_meeting/past_and_future_meetings/2006/abstracts.asp) She was a contributor and editor for the "Handbook on Contemporary Paganism" by Brill Handbooks. This does seem to booster her expert status. I also realize that at first glance some may mistake the PNC-Minnesota as a group blog, but it is an independent, non-profit news organization. The staff have degrees in journalism or related fields, experience working at mainstream news organizations, and there is an editorial process that reporters follow (editors review all work) before articles and editorial can be published. Does this help? Is this what you're asking for? CaraSchulz (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
- Comment' I think you are reading a bit too much into these two articles. The article is about this prisoner's practice of his religious beliefs, not the phrase, not even the community. I'm seeing that as a passing reference rather than "framing the discussion" in the article. Just to be clear, Pizza's paper is not questioned here because of her religion, let's also not get wrapped up in WP:OTHERSTUFF. All in all, I and others here, are still not convinced that this phrase is as widely accepted as claimed. As for the Chas Clifton's book, can we focus on references that support this claim of notability. The phrase Paganistan is mentioned only once in that book and only in a footnote (Page 68: "The Twin Cities area of Minnesota is referred to by some American Pagans as Paganistan"). Not all, not many, some call it that and from within that community. This doesn't support this phrase as being in common use as was claimed in the original article and in this AFD. Again, I'm sure a good article can be written about this religious community in this area but I, and other editors here, just aren't seeing sufficient use of the label in question to warrant a dedicated article. Normally I'd recommend a merge to a broader article written from a neutral point of view titled something like "paganism in Minnesota" but this article is so promotional sounding that I'm not sure what could be merged --RadioFan (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Paganism in Minnesota" is actually not a bad suggestion for an article title. However - even then we will run into some of the same challenges that we are facing now with this article with sources, especially if it is challenged and nominated for deletion as quickly as this article and the Sacred Paths Center article were - under a month, I believe. Several of us are trying to learn from this experience because no one wants an ugly article, but it is a bit difficult to learn and improve when the timeline from first posting an article to deletion is so short. Content can be edited and more sourcing found if given time. My understanding is that once this type of discussion is created there are 7 days for discussion and then a decision is reached? CaraSchulz (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
- Comment If a new article needs time to be crafted, you should consider creating any new articles under your user space before introducing it to the main article space. You'll have as much time as you need to put the article together without fear of deletion.--RadioFan (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Paganism in Minnesota" is actually not a bad suggestion for an article title. However - even then we will run into some of the same challenges that we are facing now with this article with sources, especially if it is challenged and nominated for deletion as quickly as this article and the Sacred Paths Center article were - under a month, I believe. Several of us are trying to learn from this experience because no one wants an ugly article, but it is a bit difficult to learn and improve when the timeline from first posting an article to deletion is so short. Content can be edited and more sourcing found if given time. My understanding is that once this type of discussion is created there are 7 days for discussion and then a decision is reached? CaraSchulz (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
- Comment' I think you are reading a bit too much into these two articles. The article is about this prisoner's practice of his religious beliefs, not the phrase, not even the community. I'm seeing that as a passing reference rather than "framing the discussion" in the article. Just to be clear, Pizza's paper is not questioned here because of her religion, let's also not get wrapped up in WP:OTHERSTUFF. All in all, I and others here, are still not convinced that this phrase is as widely accepted as claimed. As for the Chas Clifton's book, can we focus on references that support this claim of notability. The phrase Paganistan is mentioned only once in that book and only in a footnote (Page 68: "The Twin Cities area of Minnesota is referred to by some American Pagans as Paganistan"). Not all, not many, some call it that and from within that community. This doesn't support this phrase as being in common use as was claimed in the original article and in this AFD. Again, I'm sure a good article can be written about this religious community in this area but I, and other editors here, just aren't seeing sufficient use of the label in question to warrant a dedicated article. Normally I'd recommend a merge to a broader article written from a neutral point of view titled something like "paganism in Minnesota" but this article is so promotional sounding that I'm not sure what could be merged --RadioFan (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. CaraSchulz (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The assertion is that this is a recent neologism coined by Dr. Pizza is incorrect. It is a neologism but it was coined in 1989 by local performance artist and Neopagan activist Steven Posch who had been an active member of the community since sometime in the 1970s. I can't cite it because it is solely print material and I neither own it nor possess copies of local media reviews. I lived in the Minneapolis area in the mid-90's until 2005. I was more involved with the Asatru (Nordic reconstructionist neopaganism) community and they are not actively engaged with the "Paganistan" (predominantly Wiccan and American eclectic neopaganism) community but it was common knowledge in the Twin Cities area (the 11 county metro area functions as one community, there is no real division between Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the surrounding suburbs). The term was used by local media (Star Tribune, Pioneer Press, City Pages, etc) occasionally over the past 10-15 years but their archives are not fully indexed by Google and are locked to non-subscribers. A LexisNexis search would be useful if any contributors have a subscription. Dr. Pizza is a relative newcomer to "Paganistan." She was an anthropological researcher from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who only moved to the Twin Cities after completing her doctorate. Anthony_arndt (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2011
- comment - then find copies of those articles from the Strib, etc. and cite them. Surely somebody has clippings in a drawer somewhere; or the public library has access to the online archives? There is no requirement that cited articles must be available online! Nobody gives a darn if a Olde Pagan Shoppe opened in 2003 or 2004; what's needed is actual citations to actual articles from those outside the pagani themselves. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The article covers the emergence of a new and interesting area of religious observance, and is certainly notable among a large subsection of the community which it encompasses. Some of the references are weak it is true, but there are now enough reliable references there to establish verifiability and notability, most especially the first three references listed. Per Wikipedia's long-standing policy, when in doubt an article should be kept and improved rather than simply deleted. Deletion allows for no improvement of the article, and continual improvement of Wikipedia is what we strive for. I have already made some edits to improve the quality of the references, I would hope that other editors would spend more time productively on improving this article rather than on writing long pieces agitating for its deletion. --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment let's not confuse the phrase this article covers with the religion. Paganism is hardly new, neither is it's observance in Minnesota. If the term isn't even in common use among that community (as shown by one of the references recently added), it is going to be hard to meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Our point is that the usage is rising rapidly and as the citations shown below and above show it is being picked up by non-pagans and non-Minnesotans. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: While most of you folks in this discussion may not be biased against pagans, many people are 'out there', including on Wikipedia. What you do here WILL have implications for us as a people. Don’t want to believe me? Go look at this wiki-link right now and then come back. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pagans Socrates, Alexander the Great, Plato, Herodotus? How about Sargon of Akkad or Shankara of India? They don’t count? That list is hardly neutral and is obviously biased towards Christianity. I suspect some Christian put it together to keep track of modern pagan writers.
I know you folks know full well the insane history around the Wikipedia entry for Evolution and that whole debate. That's where I first started lurking on Wikipedia. You are and always have been used by Fundamentalists for their own ends. I commend you as a group for fighting back whenever and wherever you can. You missed one (see above link) and we can fix that. The history of the entries around abortion document this too. Here are some politically significant secondary citations you may consider just a 'trivial' mention of us. Christian groups are now talking about us and the ‘threat’ we pose for daring to exercise our first amendment rights under the Constitution: http://www.generals.org/prayer/root-52/prayer-reports/minnesota-prayer-guide/ You can find us about 1/3rd way down, the main site is out of Texas and we are apparently about as evil as the Swedish Socialists of Duluth and the abortionist founder of the Women’s Health Center in the Twin Cities. We have also come up at a Christian Conference in Washington D.C.: http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=1339 The D.C. Christian conference attendees heard about our explosive growth not just in Minnesota but all over the English Speaking world and a they are no doubt pondering what to do about it. While the program synopsis of the panel is brief I think the panel discussion itself was considerably more detailed. I for one do not consider their mention of us here in Minnesota at a Fundamentalist Christian Conference in Washington D.C. trivial. I have kids to protect. Considering how instrumental the ‘C Street’ cabal was in the ‘Kill the Gays’ bill in Uganda (which was passed) I don’t take this development lightly at all. I’d like to end my addition of new secondary citations on a more positive note. like the others above a friend (Momhen) found this link which is apparently a location review for a Real Estate company talking about the pluses and minuses of the Twin Cities area, the Paganistan reference is about three fourths of the way down: http://www.bestplaces.net/backfence/viewcomment.aspx?id=BA0E0724-77DD-42FF-9C35-C41BFE84CEE7&city=Minneapolis_MN&p=52743000 While I am a new user, I am not single issue. This Paganistan entry thing is just my FIRST issue. Once it is handled one way or another I plan on fixing the bias in the first link above and expanding outwards from there. Including into other topics as well. Your Native American entries including at Minneapolis_Saint_Paul/#Religion are atrocious. I’ve been reading up on wiki text protocols as well. Not so much on the social protocols. Keep this entry, we’ll add these secondary citations as we find them.Rev. Jack Green (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comments are a bit unfair to the editors who have contributed to this discussion, all in a very neutral, very constructive way. Other folks "out there" aren't pertinent to this discussion. I'm unsure of the reliability of the first two links you mention. As for the final link you mention above also suffers from the problem that it self published, a comment on a website, and does not meet WP:RS.--RadioFan (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I'm sorry if you feel my comments are unfair but try to see how it makes us feel too. 1) I understand you're trying to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic with secondary source citation and I applaud that to a point but there are still numerous Wikipedia pages for example focused on obscure anime characters far longer than the Paganistan article talking about thousands of real people. Just because fans (secondary sources) write about those characters as much as or more than the characters creators do (primary sources if I understand your criteria correctly). I do think you should have different sourcing criteria for real people as opposed to fictional. 2) Folks out there are pertinent to this discussion because when you make decision about what constitutes a 'legitimate' entry when it concerns living human beings it can have real life effects far more significant than a few fans of Space Pirate Ryoko. They are not the same thing and ought to be treated differently. 3) I am not sure what you mean by 'reliable' in this context. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comments are a bit unfair to the editors who have contributed to this discussion, all in a very neutral, very constructive way. Other folks "out there" aren't pertinent to this discussion. I'm unsure of the reliability of the first two links you mention. As for the final link you mention above also suffers from the problem that it self published, a comment on a website, and does not meet WP:RS.--RadioFan (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep; serious improvement needed. I share some of the same concerns as editors above that Paganistan is an in-community term and not a widely-used term. As a result, it's lacking evidence of the kind of broad notability that subjects should have. The problem is, I'm not convinced yet that the article needs deleted. I'd rather see the article be developed further. If, 3–6 months down the road, the article hasn't improved, then a second AfD would be in order, and I'd be inclined to recommend deleting the article. However, I think the article still has a chance, and I think the best option for incubation is for the article to remain in mainspace and maintenance tagged rather than to get moved to an incubator. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will withdraw my recommendation to delete if the article is moved (renamed) to a more neutral name, such as "Paganism in Minnesota" as suggested above. That move would eliminate my concerns about a neologism as an article title. I would also not object to referenced mention of the term "Paganistan" within such an article with a new name. In return, I ask for removal of blogs and self-published sources as references. Rev. Jack Green, I want to assure you that I have no personal bias against Paganism or Wicca. I am personally friendly toward people of all faiths and to atheists and agnostics as well. I bid you peace. Cullen328 (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I appreciate that and I looked at your User Page enough to see you're sincere. I am just as sincere in my insistence that real people ought to have citation criteria of a different sort than say Marta, an Orion Slave Girl from the Old Star Trek series even though I admit I'm full blown Trek addict. Rev. Jack Green (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the best outcome here will be
deleting this article and starting a newone under the title Paganism in Minnesota.Not move, not merge. Delete and start over.I see that there has been some activity overnight with the article, a move may be appropriate now. Many of the blogs have been removed as references. Thats a good start. I also see that the claim in the intro has been soften to the more supportable "some" call it Paganistan. This still isn't enough to support a dedicated article on the subject so a move, a section in an article on Paganism in the area, but not a dedicated article. The history section still reads a bit like a directory of pagan businesses in the area. It may be that the community grew out of the existence of these businesses but that's not clear from the article and if that is the case (which is what I think the editors are trying to convey here) that must come from some reliable source that explicitly identifies the arrival of these businesses as contributing to the creation of this community. Local news articles about a bookstore opening coupled with "about us" pages from their official websites doesn't cut it. Putting those together and calling it a reference that this defines the history of the community is original research in the form of WP:SYNTHESIS. There is also still some large claims in there that isn't well supported ("This metaphysical shop became a center of Pagan activities" is referenced by a primary source, a bookstore's "about us" page ) RadioFan (talk) 11:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am unclear why there is such haste to delete this article instead of allowing a modest time for it to improve? Deletion is supposed to be a last resort, not the first step. I felt we were moving towards a compromise/consensus with the idea by editor Cullen328 on "Paganism in Minnesota" - and there is a long, documented history of Paganism in Minnesota - EXAMPLE: The Reformed Order of Druids was created at Carleton College - http://apps.carleton.edu/admissions/activities/druids/ However, you appear to be firmly set against that, as well. Can you articulate why? CaraSchulz (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think our comments passed in the night here. Cullen328 and I are in agreement that a broader article on the area is appropriate. However there are still significant sourcing problems that need to be adressed, particularly in the history section. The term "Paganistan" for this area is a bit like the term "Lynchvegas" for Lynchburg, Virginia. It is used by some in the area but not enough to gather enough attention that it's made its way into the mainstream media (which is why both terms bring up zero Google news hits but a number of blogs and local businesses). For the Twin Cities area, it promotes a sense of community, for Lynchburg it's a cutsey term poking fun at the presence of a local bible college. In the end, the terms are useful to local businesses in promoting their products and neither is notable enough to warrant a dedicated Wikipedia article. Not sure what the Order of the Druids comment has to do with this topic though. I hope that a Paganism in Minnesotta can stay on topic better than Paganistan has. The us-vs-them approach to editing this article has drawn this AFD out much longer than necessary. The goal here has never been to be against the religion, the area or anyone associated with it, the goal has always been to improve the encyclopedia. Given the overwhelming number of "delete" !votes, I dont think it appropriate to withdraw and close this AFD myself but hope that an admin will come along soon and close this as a move and improve. Editors of the new article should be careful to maintain a neutral point of view and especially careful to provide reliable sources. This article is going to continue to receive scrutiny.--RadioFan (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "This article is going to continue to receive scrutiny." Heh - yes, by the newpage patrol. What you've had here is a brand new editor (Jdoggiedog) working on his first articles and trying to learn how to do them so he could do more. (Although I don't think he will be doing this anymore) There's a few others, like myself, who are interested in learning the process and the culture and hopeful that we can have time to learn crafting articles through hands-on experience and open collaboration. I'll wait for an admin to let us all know what will happen before I do anything more with the Paganistan article. In the meantime, this WP:SPA will get back to editing articles on gardening, quadriga, and the Twin Cities.CaraSchulz (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No offense is meant with the SPA tagging, it's just more information for the closing admin to consider that is often placed on comments from editors who's first contribution is in an AFD such as this.--RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No offense taken. Just lightening it up. Everyone is a rookie sometime. I was all about working on articles in general (and this one in particular) but I was trying to read up and learn more before I started as I thought there would be plenty of time and I didn't expect the delete conversation to happen so fast. So instead I'm trying to learn on the fly in a way that is probably sub-optimal. You'll probably find me more often in some really obscure sections of history in Wikipedia. Mithridates VI of Pontus and Black Sea history is an area of special interest. CaraSchulz (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
- Mithridates? He died old. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No offense taken. Just lightening it up. Everyone is a rookie sometime. I was all about working on articles in general (and this one in particular) but I was trying to read up and learn more before I started as I thought there would be plenty of time and I didn't expect the delete conversation to happen so fast. So instead I'm trying to learn on the fly in a way that is probably sub-optimal. You'll probably find me more often in some really obscure sections of history in Wikipedia. Mithridates VI of Pontus and Black Sea history is an area of special interest. CaraSchulz (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
- Comment No offense is meant with the SPA tagging, it's just more information for the closing admin to consider that is often placed on comments from editors who's first contribution is in an AFD such as this.--RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move Don't usually vote in these things so I'm not sure if "move" is a normal vote, but there is clearly some useful and reasonably well-sourced information here but the name is also clearly a non-notable neologism. Best solution as noted above is the move to Paganism in Minnesota. Why delete good information just because an over-enthusiastic editor put it in the wrong place? -- InspectorTiger (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I wrote this article because I believed Paganistan fits Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission, and I still believe this. This has been a learning process for me, particularly about the rules Wikipedia has in place to reduce frivolous articles and I recognize the value of these rules. A lot of work is currently being done to improve the references that fulfill the Wikipedia reference rules. I can understand how the use of Pagan Newswire Collective could be seen as not a legitimate source, since it is hard to tell if they are simply promotional or not, and they utilize sites like Wordpress for the dissemination of their product. However, the Pagan Newswire Collective is an acceptable sources since it does have editors and is run by journalists (as sited above). On the Identifying reliable sources page it says, "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case by case basis." Also "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." Neither of these things are true with the Pagan Newswire Collective. Given that the writers of the Pagan Newswire Collective are the experts on this topic, with an editorial system in place, the articles from this source which were originally sited for the article should be accepted as a source for this article. The most significant piece of reference material for this article is Dr. Pizza's completed dissertation "Paganistan: The emergence and persistence of a contemporary Pagan community in Minnesota's Twin Cities". On the Identifying reliable sourcespage it says, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material" and "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan." A request was made for an article devoted to Paganistan, and with Dr. Pizza's dissertation we're able to offer an entire book. Most of the people seeking to keep this article are much newer to Wikipedia than those seeking to delete it. The Please do not bite the newcomers page recognizes that "New members are prospective contributors and are therefore Wikipedia's most valuable resource." and "By empowering newcomers, we can improve the diversity of knowledge, perspectives, and ideals on Wikipedia." Normally with encyclopedias, experts are consulted on articles. It is apparent that most of the people seeking to keep the article know much more about the topic than those seeking to delete it, so hopefully our relative expertise and overall potential will be noted. So far newspaper articles have been presented, a reference in a book, a doctoral dissertation, and work is still being done to improve the article. It is my belief that Wikipedia is not improved by the deletion of this article, while keeping the article helps Wikipedia live up to its mission. Jdoggiedogg (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- General Comment & Additional references
These two additional news references were found by Magenta via the Newsbank Database through the Hennepin County Library System. 1) Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities - Monday, May 23, 1994 “Pagans seek respect and a place to call their own - Religion is legitimate, has spiritual base, followers say…” "They estimate that there are 3,000 to 10,000 Pagans in Minnesota, one of the largest concentrations in the country. They call this area ‘Paganistan’ in honor of the Pagans. " 2) Star Tribune: Newspaper of the Twin Cities - Saturday, October 31, 1992 “Witches and pagans gather for a special New Year's Eve…” “The Twin Cities may have one of the largest pagan populations in the United States, so large that one member calls Minneapolis and St. Paul ‘…the capitol of Paganistan.’” I will try and fit them into the Paganistan article as soon as possible. But this demonstrates some pagans used ‘Paganistan’ in the early 90’s, more by the mid 90’s and even more today and actually I believe most judging by Dr. Pizza’s work. Also much has been made of Dr. Murphy Pizza as an unreliable source and/or a primary source above. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community; most are available via interlibrary loan. UMI has published two million dissertations since 1940. Dissertations in progress have not been vetted and are not regarded as published and are thus not reliable sources as a rule. Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." She has her degree. She was not pagan when she began her research. She did NOT coin the term ‘Paganistan’. Linguist Steven Posch M.S. did. She merely reported it as part of her dissertation. The fact the Dr. Murphy Pizza went native during her research does NOT in any way invalidate her research if it passes peer review. Which of course it did. The Anthropological Community gave up that illogical ad hominem decades ago. If you don’t believe me, I leave it to the curious Anthropology student to go look up the history of ‘going native’ in Anthropology. Anthro-geek that I am, I already know the answer you’ll find. Her dissertation IS a RELIABLE source by YOUR rules. The proper question here is: Is her dissertation a primary source or a secondary source by YOUR rules? How many cultures, tribes and peoples featured in your vast collection of articles are referenced with citations of Anthropology Papers focused on said society? I think I’ll start with the two Native American tribes local to our area, the Dakotah and the Anishinaabeg. If I understand correctly (and I hope not!) what some you are trying to say about primary and secondary sourcing that would lead to the irrational position that a Dakotah Anthropologist can’t research the Dakotah or an Anishanaabe Anthropologist can’t research the Ojibwe. That is not only a violation of Anthropological Scientific principle it would also be borderline racism! Now I also realize that peer reviewed Journals make better citations but the fact remains that even though the consilient reconciliation of the disciplines of Anthropology and Sociology are well under way it is still slow going. Anthropologists still rarely study industrial cultures and Sociologists still rarely study pre-industrial societies. Dr. Pizza is a pioneer in that respect but it makes peer reviewed journal citations harder to find. Fortunately Paganistan also has a Sociologist. Dr. Linda Green. I’ll have to give her a call. Rev. Jack Green ( talk) 01:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Rev. Jack Green (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - I'm sorry, I'm having difficulty understanding the point you are trying to make. Are you for or against the proposed move to a more generic title on Paganism in the area? I thought we had a good compromise here. --RadioFan (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the point is here are more secondary references that Paganistan is in progressively wider and wider use over the last 20 YEARS and Wikipedia sourcing protocols appear deeply flawed when it comes to Anthropological and Sociological criteria. As to the move notion I don't consider it 'good', it is only 'better than deletion'. *Rev. Jack Green ( talk) 03:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seems to be sufficient argument for established media attention ('which media' is a silly argument, most articles on Wikipedia don't enter the mainstream press) and 'it's only a dissertation' is a fairly weak argument on the academic side. Whether the author of that source was part of the movement is plain irrelevant. Remember that all academic sources on Christianity before a certain date were Christians and pretty much all academic sources on atheism are from aetheists. The articles needs improvement - but that's not sufficient cause for deletion. Let's give it some TLC instead. I don't see a big problem with including a bit of contextual information in the name, though I'd encourage we keep a redirect since people are not necessarily going to be able to find an article that includes semantic fluff in its name. Disclosure: I'm a Wiccan. Not that it matters. -Rushyo Talk 06:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The idea that material can be discarded because it was written by someone with an interest in the subject is so counter to the development of Wikipedia to date as to beggar belief. Who would imagine an article on physics or chemistry that rules out input from physicists or chemists? An article on books that rules out input from authors? An article on Christian theology that Christian theologians are forbidden from contributing to? Yet we have this idea in American society - and it is a false one - that those with close interest in a subject that is considered "fringe" can be discounted because they have a vested interest in it. African-American civil rights, LGBT rights, minority religions are just a few examples. There is no reason to discard Dr. Pizza's work just because she is part of the Pagan community. If anything, it is one of the few comprehensive studies of a community that often flies "under the radar" and is especially notable because of that. La Maupin (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So much weight has been placed here on that thesis as a reference that it's received a lot of scrutiny. It doesn't match up to the scholarly merits it's being held up to after looking at how much it has been cited (zero). We can also look at how widely the thesis is held by libraries to gauge its impact on academia. (one holding, at the university where the author earned her degree which likely holds all such publications as a mater of rule). I dont think anyone is discarding Pizza's work simply because she is part of the community she is writing about but that fact is part of the bigger picture which is why that editor brought up in the first place. The idea that something is "especially notability" because she is a part of the community is similarly counter to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. WP:RS tells us that a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper cautioning that Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. This thesis has received no significant review outside of the process the author earned her PhD under, It's not been featured in any scholarly journals, peer reviewed or otherwise. There has been a lot of "find the word" mentioned, which is great but when scrutinizing they dont support the claim that the phrase is in wide use one book even identifies the word as being in use in "some" in the community. In the end, if this thesis was widely cited, the article might not have been brought to AFD in the first place because there would be other references that could be drawn upon from outside the community, but that's not the case so here we are. And again, no one here is discounting this community, the author of this thesis or the religion as a whole, the proposal on the table is to move the article to one on the community rather than the term. All this adds up to a very notable community but a phrase that doesn't meet notability guidelines. --RadioFan (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just want to make sure that I am clearly understanding that what you are saying is that a scholarly reviewed Doctoral Dissertation by an anthropologist doesn't meet your standards. Jdoggiedogg (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So much weight has been placed here on that thesis as a reference that it's received a lot of scrutiny. It doesn't match up to the scholarly merits it's being held up to after looking at how much it has been cited (zero). We can also look at how widely the thesis is held by libraries to gauge its impact on academia. (one holding, at the university where the author earned her degree which likely holds all such publications as a mater of rule). I dont think anyone is discarding Pizza's work simply because she is part of the community she is writing about but that fact is part of the bigger picture which is why that editor brought up in the first place. The idea that something is "especially notability" because she is a part of the community is similarly counter to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. WP:RS tells us that a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper cautioning that Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. This thesis has received no significant review outside of the process the author earned her PhD under, It's not been featured in any scholarly journals, peer reviewed or otherwise. There has been a lot of "find the word" mentioned, which is great but when scrutinizing they dont support the claim that the phrase is in wide use one book even identifies the word as being in use in "some" in the community. In the end, if this thesis was widely cited, the article might not have been brought to AFD in the first place because there would be other references that could be drawn upon from outside the community, but that's not the case so here we are. And again, no one here is discounting this community, the author of this thesis or the religion as a whole, the proposal on the table is to move the article to one on the community rather than the term. All this adds up to a very notable community but a phrase that doesn't meet notability guidelines. --RadioFan (talk) 17:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am glad that we are finally clarifying Wikipedia's stance on scholarly works but in the beginning of this discussion 2 of the earliest delete recommendations did make note of Murphy Pizza's interest in Paganism as part of their reasoning that her work was not a strong source. As to the question about whether the article should be listed under 'Paganistan' or under 'Paganism in Minnesota,' the references in the Star Tribune and on non-Pagan sites shows the term is expanding beyond the local community and people may want that term explained, not already knowing that it refers to Paganism in Minnesota.TeraRose (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One of the reasons Dr. Pizza's dissertation has not been cited is that it is very new, only a couple of years old. It takes time for new work to filter through the scholastic community. Also TeraRose makes a point I've heard elsewhere. I therefore make a counter proposal. How about both. A 'Paganism in Minnesota' page that is more general and the more specific 'Paganistan' article. Rev. Jack Green (talk)19:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This topic is not sufficiently notable to support 2 articles. I will gladly support a section in an article on the larger subject (e.g. Paganism in Minnesota#Paganistan ).--RadioFan (talk) 20:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I've already said, if the choice from On High is move or delete I choose move, but it's not my preference. Rev. Jack Green (talk)20:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (Hoping my formatting is correct for this - I really dislike the way these pages wind up jumbled; editing sectional replies would be much clearer, but that's a topic for different discussion.) Disclosure: I am a member of the Pagan community and have been since the early 1970s. As a term, Paganistan has a history dating back into the print days of the first run of Green Egg magazine, arguably the most important pagan publication of its time. As my copies are in storage, I cannot pull them to cite references; I no longer recall if Stephen Posch is the originator (as mentioned above), but as his involvement in paganism is roughly contemporary with mine, it is probable. As to notability itself, the term is mostly used as a self-referential descriptor, and as such, reported primarily by Pagan media such as podcasts, blogs and the like, which does not generally meet Wikipedia's standards, and herein lies the problem. I do understand Wikipedia's desire for mainstream media documentation in its articles, but mainstream media is changing how it does business as well. Here in the Seattle area, we had a long-running daily newspaper cease print publication, continuing the newspaper online; there are rumors that the NY Times may make a similar move. The Pagan Newswire Collective is attempting to become an reliable source of news for the collective Pagan community, wherever it is found, by feeding news and media to the rest of the world in the manner of the AP, UPI and similar organizations. If the AP/UPI, etc can be considered a reliable source, PNC should be afforded the same courtesy. I would strongly suggest that the article be retained, possibly as part of a larger article on regional pagan communities, either across the US or as a state-by-state series, if such is warranted. --HR Mitchell 21:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moondancer (talk • contribs)
Comment - On Dr. Murphy Pizza - This is the presentation Dr Murphy presented at the America Academy of Religion http://www.aarweb.org/meetings/annual_meeting/past_and_future_meetings/2006/abstracts.asp A18-75 The Fourfold Goddess and the Undying God: Anatomies of Minnesotan Bootstrap Witchcraft Traditions Murph Pizza, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
“Paganistan” – the Minnesota Twin Cities NeoPagan community – emerged from being “Pagan flyover country” in the 1970s to become a flourishing community with a regionally unique, innovative, and evolving alliance of traditions. Self-started by impatient Midwestern occultists mining books, rather than awaiting transmission from a lineage holder, the process of Paganistan creating itself included cultivating an environment where critical engagement, creativity, and innovation are commonplace and accepted within the community. This project examines the Fourfold/Twyern Witchcraft traditions to demonstrate how religious innovations are negotiated within the community, and how their creation has contributed to the religious and cultural character of Paganistan.CaraSchulz (talk) 00:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz[reply]
- Merge or Keep I've not been involved in a deletion vote before, so please bear with me. This is a very localized issue. But I wouldn't necessarily say that it isn't notable with regards to the Twin Cities community. The article itself is certainly in massive need of a cleanup, but I don't think it should be discarded outright. Therefore, if we decide that it isn't worth a stand alone article, I certainly think it could be merged with a Paganism in Minnesota article, as neopagans are certainly an important part of the demographic in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a comment that there have been some nice references especially books, added recently that will make for a great article on Paganism in the area. It's worth mentioned that those books dont mention the term "Paganistan" however. The only book referenced in the article that mentions the term is Clifton's which describes the term as in use by some in the community. Interpretation of these references as supporting this term as being broadly used still seems like WP:SYNTHESIS. Renaming the article Paganism in Minnesota still looks like the appropriate path here. RadioFan (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So far I've counted eight sources which most people here should be able to agree meet Wikipedia's standards as reliable sources and mention or are about Paganistan: Dr. Pizza's Dissertation, " Paganistan: The emergence and persistence of a contemporary Pagan community in Minnesota's Twin Cities"; Dr. Pizza's contribution to "Sacred schisms: how religions divide"; Dr. Pizza's presentation to the American Academy of Religion; Chas Clifton's book, "Her Hidden Children: The Rise of Wicca And Paganism in America"; May 23, 1994 Star Tribune article "Pagans seek respect and a place to call their own"; October 31, 1992 Star Tribune article "Witches and pagans gather for a special New Year's Eve"; April 9, 2011 Star Tribune article "Wiccan prisoner sues, claims bias"; April 2009, Minnesota Monthly article "Welcome to Paganistan". Also, a simple Google search finds a great many references to Paganistan. There is a preponderance of evidence that Paganistan is notable and the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources.Jdoggiedogg (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a game of find the name mentioned in Google. All the discussion above along with the sum total of the coverage will be considered by the closing admin tomorrow. Looking at you summary above...
- Pizza's dissertation is an issolated one which has not been cited by anyone, The paper has a scholarly index of 0 and has not entered the academic discourse and does not meet WP:RS#Scholarship as a result which also cautions us to not place WP:UNDUE weight on single studies in such fields
- Chas Clifton's book clearly identifies the term as being in limited use within the community
- The Star Tribune articles make passing mention of the term and are focused on specific events and issues involving Pagans in the area.
- The Minnesota Monthly article is a 2 paragraph puff piece.
- The WP:Search engine test doesn't help establish notability here.
- So we have a dissertation, 1 book that doesn't even support the term as being in common use and a couple of passing mentions in the newspaper and some Google hits. I think sufficient references are available for the overall subject of Paganism in area so that a very well written article can be produced. This discussion has grown with multiple points of view coming into play, has moved from a majority calling for delete to a compromise of a name change but has now become rather circular with a number of editors insisting on retaining the title. Retaining the title "Paganistan" violates WP:UNDUE IMHO. Does it help that anyone who searches on the title "Paganistan" will be redirected to the section on the phrase in Paganism in Minnesota or is it "Paganistan" or nothing?--RadioFan (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the redirect helps. The use of Paganistan for the region is spreading faster among pagans generally than among mundanes, cowans or 'muggles' - non pagans. I will reluctantly accept 'Paganism in Minnesota' and work from there. I'm glad you appreciate the references we have found. We are digging up more. Rev. Jack Green ( talk) 20:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So far, no decision has been announced about the the article Paganistan. Opinions have been expressed that articles referenced should be adequate references. Conversely opinions have been expressed that articles referenced should not be appropriate references. If the decision is made that the Paganistan listing does not meet the Wikipedia standards, then an article will be written about Paganism in Minnesota. However, at this point, the issue is Paganistan, and an attempt is being made to stay focused on the issue. As Dr. Pizza noted, Paganistan is a distinct community with its own history, customs, culture, values and identity. She also noted that the term Paganistan was in common usage when she began her study. Given the scholarly study of this community, and the references to Paganistan in other media, it is still my belief that Paganistan is notable and worthy of an article in Wikipedia.Jdoggiedogg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I stick to my original dissertation that the content of the Paganistan is certainly notable and of local importance to the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, as its large populace of various pagan groups is certainly an unusual demographic. However, the Paganistan in its current form, in my opinion, read more like a magazine column than it does something that is encyclopedic. Does this mean it isn't notable? Not necessarily, but the article itself specifically needs lots of copyediting to make it read more like an encyclopedia article and less like a magazine column. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a game of find the name mentioned in Google. All the discussion above along with the sum total of the coverage will be considered by the closing admin tomorrow. Looking at you summary above...
- Suggestion. Forgive me if this was mentioned already above, but perhaps we can agree that the topic of the Neopagans community in the Twin Cities region is notable, but the term "Paganistan" is not notable. That being the case, perhaps we can move the article to Neopagans community in the Twin Cities region, leaving "Paganistan" a redirect to said article.--PinkBull 13:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since apparently points were missed, I'd like to go through and quickly summarize. Despite efforts to downplay its significance, Dr. Pizza's dissertation on Paganistan does satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. In it, Dr. Pizza describes Paganistan as having its own history, customs, culture, values and identity. Concerning notability, aside from Dr. Pizza's dissertation, there was the April 2009, Minnesota Monthly article "Welcome to Paganistan", both of which are significant coverage in reliable sources as described in the General notability guideline. Concerning neologism, there are mainstream references to Paganistan dating back to 1992, and on page 4 of Dr. Pizza's dissertation she clearly says that the term was in common usage when she began her study. Despite this, if it is decided that the entry for Paganistan is not worthy of a Wikipedia listing, work will be done to develop an entry for Paganism in Minnesota.Jdoggiedogg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 27 May 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 the consensus is established that the content is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article. Deryck C. 11:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Theories of practice in environmental governance[edit]
- Theories of practice in environmental governance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essay / original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. This is also the sort of text that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so vacuous that no reasonable person could be expected to make sense of it:
This article focuses on domestic practices. In order to consider how such a theory affects environmental governance, a sound understanding of the theory of practice is required, what it entails and how it works. Its relation to environmental governance is then discussed as part of the environmental governance network and managing environmental resources. The reasons for why focus is on practices and not behaviour in relation to the environment are set out. The discussion then examines how society can alter practices to make them more sympathetic to the environment. Using examples, the paper examines 3 theories of practice, Foucault’s concept of discourse and its effects on societal practice, Bourdieu's theory of distinction and finally Giddens structuration theory. The article concludes with an analysis of theories of practice, focusing on some key obstacles to successful a practice change.
- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Essay, synth, amongst other things. Seems to be of a pair with this article and my comments there also apply. Has a class been set a topic? --AJHingston (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is an orphan article with a non-searchable title chock full o' free form social science gibberish. For the deletionists among you who are appalled at my use of the Google machine to determine whether there is the likelihood of adequate sourcing out there in the wind, ummm, this one brings back 7 hits, all Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, or spam. Carrite (talk) 02:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. & others. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article.--JayJasper (talk) 19:27, 24 May 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. Full of dubious statements, complete lack of sufficient reliable-source coverage to demonstrate notability ~ mazca talk 00:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Josip on deck[edit]
- Josip on deck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Unknown, unsigned rapper with three mixtapes. The claims to notability are hard to believe. For instance, the idea that a rapper would be unsigned despite being approached with "plenty of major deals" since 2009 is not credible. It's also claimed that his YouTube received over a million views but YouTube says 400K and even that achievement is suspect since the article later boasts of "creating thousands of profiles using hacking techniques". Note also that this is clearly an autobiography and in fact, Josip on deck's website included a link to his Wikipedia article an hour after its creation. Pichpich (talk) 11:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Plenty of unreliable sources. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article appears to be a vanity page, and of the dubious claims made in the article per nom. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I get what everyone's saying, but it could be useful to have an article just for if this guy ever gets big. It needs lots more sources though. RcsprinterGimme a message 20:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm unable to find any significant coverage for this person in reliable sources. Subject does not yet appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow Talk 00:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This article is the sole contribution of the new editor JosipOnDeck (talk · contribs), which in itself suggests to me a possible COI concern. The references used are not third party sources. And lastly, I must mention the issue of capitalization. While this issue could be addressed with a simple page move, if this person was notable, odds are their article creator would have titled the article "Josip on Deck" or "Josip On Deck" instead of an obviously rushed "Josip on deck." Thus, it seems as if this article is more of a "getting the word out" piece rather than anything meant to improve our encyclopedia project. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks indicia of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obsolete standard in today's music industry record deals are no longer indicia of notabiltiy.They are a sufficient but not a necessary criteria to establish notability. This is with respect to the above remark by Pich, to wit: For instance, the idea that a rapper would be unsigned Also, IMO Wikipedia is demographically structured that POV might creep into near-unanimous decision=making processes to the extent that the ownership and distribution of late-model laptops may reflect a given, contingent distribution pattern. For instance, in Compton, or in Bedford Stuyvesant, where many par labels exist in a mixtape underground, access to public computers in libraries and colleges may be subject to overcrowding, thus limiting access of those populations to the infrastructure required to express their side of the NPOV equation. Nuff said. Bard गीता 18:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are sufficient but not necessary: I fully agree and I never disputed that in my rationale. However, it's highly improbable that a young kid with big dreams would turn down multiple offers from major record companies. In other words, my point is that the article is full of bs. The article's claims of notability are fabricated and there's no indication on the web that genuine non-trivial coverage exists to make up for that. Nowadays, this wouldn't be the case for an underground rapper with a sizable community of fans. Pichpich (talk) 19:32, 27 May 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Small-scale fishing[edit]
- Small-scale fishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- JamaUtil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
"colloquial term for intercepted cell phone communication". Article has only one source, which doesn't appear to mention the term. The only topics that come up during a search are about fishing. Christopher Connor (talk) 11:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Allegedly "its existence has been widely reported" but no evidence provided to that effect. I am tempted to say hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, I came across this article while looking for documentation of how bin Laden was tracked. The technology does exist, but this is a truly bizarre name for it. The existence of this technology should be merged to one of the interception articles. 137.187.194.154 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 24 May 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 unanimous delete. Deryck C. 11:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2012 (Xzibit album)[edit]
- 2012 (Xzibit 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)
This article is a hoax, as no sources even state the name or existence of this album.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC) DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing to verify it (will) exist(s)... and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no source, almost nothing here, looks like to early for this article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:HAMMER/WP:CRYSTAL. Eauhomme (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with the above users that WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL apply here. No coverage found in WP:RS; does not meet WP:ALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 00:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is probably based on some blog posting in which someone heard that the rapper is working on the album. Regardless of whether it even exists or not, it's way too early for an article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:43, 26 May 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. CSD G5:Creations by banned or blocked users -- DQ (t) (e) 15:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Separation of Godhead (Divine Love Separation)[edit]
- The Separation of Godhead (Divine Love Separation) (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 Divine Love of Rahasa Lila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This book fails the General notabiliy guidelines - there is no significant coverage in reliable sources is are independent of the subject. If this article about a book were to meet the "GNG", it fails WP:NBOOK, as it is self-published - see www.archive.org/details/TheSeparationOfGodhead
It should be noted that a version of the article was:
- not the result of a deletion discussion;
- not created by a blocked editor; and,
- includes an assertion of significance,
no WP:CSD applies.
In context, it should be mentioned:
Bad faith has nevertheless been assumed. Good faith should almost always be assumed.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What criteria are you basing this on? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good point, and point taken. I did not advance any particular cogent reason for deletion in the initial nomination, other than precedents. I will modify my nomination rationale asap. Thank you for your very constructive criticism.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Don't worry, I've messed up some nominations by forgetting the closing brackets (]]) for a couple days. That was embarrassing! Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good point, and point taken. I did not advance any particular cogent reason for deletion in the initial nomination, other than precedents. I will modify my nomination rationale asap. Thank you for your very constructive criticism.--Shirt58 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As noted by Shirt58, this does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. Google turns up no reliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My delete stands for the added nom as well. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:Notability (books). Neither book nor author can be found on Worldcom, Google Books or Amazon. The claim to be published by OUP is false - note that no ISBN is given. The book has been self-published on-line and can be seen here - click on "Read On-line." The first page says that it is by someone else. Three passages of text I checked at random have been copied from here, here and here. I have added to this nomination The Divine Love of Rahasa Lila by the same author: delete for similar reasons: no ISBN, no entry in Worldcat, Google Books or Amazon, sample text I checked was copied from here. Background: this is part of a long campaign of self-promotion - many articles about the author have been submitted under different variations of his name, using over 20 sockpuppets - see SPI case. JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 20 May 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) 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Comisar[edit]
- Steve Comisar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Vanity article. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn the original concerns have been addressed by editing of the article by Jodi.a.schneider and myself. If there are no more comments I'll probably non-admin close this in a day or two. ttonyb (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – We can work on editing this to make it less of a vanity article on Mr Comisar's behalf, but I would rather not go through the several deletions and re-writing the article every single time. Mr Comisar is a noteworthy individual although not widely known. Nobody is claiming that Wikipedia is a vanity contest, but Mr Comisar has been in the news, he is significant in google searches, and he has authored books. While it is not in the league of getting him on the cover of the New York Times, it is relevant to a wikipedia page. In certain circles, Mr Comisar is anything but a "nobody".
- His appearances remain constant as a part of the curriculum put out by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners which does in fact train numerous government agents and private investigators in large part on information provided by Mr Comisar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartacusXXX (talk • contribs) 09:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article needs a complete rewrite, the sooner the better. Notability is hard to tell. There appears to be a GQ 1-pager on him in the Aug. 2003 (can anybody confirm?). To use the book, "America's Guide to Fraud Prevention", a source establishing that he's actually Brett Champion would be needed. The "solar powered clothes dryer" incident could presumably be sourced to its original appearance (1980's? offline searching in any case); it does get briefly mentioned on Page 221 of Organic Housekeeping: In Which the Non-Toxic Avenger Shows You How to ... By Ellen Sandbeck. Does this make him notable? I don't know... Once the appropriate sources are found, it should become clear one way or the other. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I found this copy of the article. This single article hardly supports notability. Unless more can be found I do not see he meets WP:BIO. FYI - I could not find this on the GQ site and because the copy of the article is a copyright violation of the original text, we cannot point to it as a reference. ttonyb (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for digging up this article. That's not a 1-pager but a feature article with 5+ pages of text. While we cannot use a copyvio *link* in the references, the printed version of the article is certainly a valid reference. That can also be used to reference that he's Brett Champion. Apparently in 1996 he was on "everything from Dateline NBC" to "Crook & Chase", and given that this article is several years later in 2003, there's an argument that he meets WP:BIO. Thanks to whoever started cleaning this up--it's actually passable now, in my opinion. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've asked asked the resource exchange project to verify that the GQ article actually appeared. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ttonyb, does the response at the resource exchange project; check seem sufficient to establish the veracity of the article? Jodi.a.schneider (talk)
- Comment – Based on the response, I think we can use the GQ article as a ref, but I don't think it is enough to establish notability for the article. BTW - Thanks and good work tracking this down. ttonyb (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some additional references to the Talk page. Is that persuasive on his notability? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Add them to the article and based on the Times and Reuters article, I'll !vote to keep the article. Nice work. ttonyb (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dumped the references in; hopefully somebody will cleanup formatting and integrate info. Since you nominated it, the easiest thing might be for you to <strike> and withdraw the nomination. Thanks for identifying it as needing proof of notability! Without his full name it really wasn't clear. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:20, 25 May 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) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of programs broadcast by Eleven[edit]
- List of programs broadcast by Eleven (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 classic wikipedia not a directory territory. These are simply lists of shows broadcast by the networks. They're not encyclopedic, difficult to maintain, and basically covered by numerous other pages, including the primary network pages. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 11 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, Sandstein 07:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indeed wp is not a directory. Szzuk (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete'. Again WP is not a directory and as said above the page will be more of a burden than it will be useful to anyone. Adwiii Talk 11:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 21 May 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. The original nomination objected to the lack of appropriate sourcing for the article (along with several arguments not really tied to policy). In the nearly a month that has passed, the article has been sourced. No single editor has provided any other cause for deletion, and there is no reason to expect that any more debate is forthcoming. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enough Already! with Peter Walsh[edit]
- Enough Already! with Peter Walsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
STRONG Delete: no TV ratings/reviews have been reported - online/print- since premiere; far more TV shows are more notable and lack a page on wiki; low hits on search engines like yahoo.com/google.com/youtube.com; nothing more than a vanity page by a fan/employee of the show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.246.237 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 April 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, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of reliable sources as per WP:TVSERIES --Whiteguru (talk) 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have added some sources. The series airs on OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network which means it is on a national cable network and should at least be considered for inclusion per WP:TVSERIES. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:59, 4 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, Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:05, 11 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, Sandstein 07:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can this AfD be closed, at least as a "no consensus" keep? The main objection, a lack of sources, was remedied two weeks ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is nothing that specifically says this article needs to be deleted. All major problems that were listed originally have been fixed. It may need some expansion but it doesnt need to be deleted. Adwiii Talk 11:12, 20 May 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brotherhood Foundation[edit]
- Brotherhood Foundation (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 never released an album through a record company (just 2 independent release); it contains no references (just an EL to "the Dutch Music Encyclopedia of Music Center the Netherlands", which doesn't seem to indicate notability); in general, no indication that this band meets either WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC; I was concerned sources might exist in Dutch but not English, but I note that nl.wiki doesn't have an article either. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete WP:GNG applies fairly clearly. i kan reed (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 21 May 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 appears to be a general consensus that this article in some form should be kept. There's clearly good reasons to modify the content substantially and potentially rename it - this can be discussed on the talk page. ~ mazca talk 00:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Customary Aboriginal law[edit]
- Customary Aboriginal law (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 suggest deletion of this article because I find it both ignorantly careless and racially offensive, and for those reasons worse than useless. These are stronger words that I am comfortable in using, but that is really how the article looks to this (non-Aboriginal) Australian. The issues with this article seem to me to matter very much, because the topic is very important.
I suggest that the article is ignorantly careless, for two reasons.
- First: it refers to Aboriginal customary law (its more usual name) only as existing "before European colonisation", making it appear that, with colonisation, Aboriginal law died out. However, it has not died out but continues to be practised and developed in Aboriginal communities. This is recognised, albeit partially and indirectly, in Australian law.
- Second: while acknowledging that Aboriginal customary law differs from one Aboriginal people to another, the article provides evidence only from one area and ignores the others - even to the extent of apparently assuming that there is only one Aboriginal language, whereas even today there are many. These seem to me to be errors way beyond improvement through further verification, but rather to support a case for "go back and start again".
The article is also, to my mind, racially offensive (which is why I originally proposed simple deletion - but an Admin asked me to prefer WP:AfD).
- First: to make it appear that Aboriginal customary law died out with European colonisation is, effectively, to deny a major aspect (perhaps second to none) of present-day Aboriginal identity. To add the necessary discussion of later periods would be a major undertaking, amounting to writing a wholly new article.
- Second: there may also be racial offensiveness in that only one Aboriginal culture is cited and all others are neglected - but, as a non-Aboriginal, I shall not express a view on that.
The Admin proposes that I should instead edit the article: however, while I have expertise on law in Australia, I am not qualified to write on this topic; and, until someone else were to do that, this piece would remain. Therefore my very strong preference is that it should go, and quickly. Hopefully someone who knows about Aboriginal customary law will soon write a replacement.
If anybody would like a highly viewable introduction to Aboriginal customary law, an Aboriginal law elder has told me that she approves the film Ten Canoes (2006). Please continue viewing the DVD, into the documentary discussion of law after the story itself has finished.
The first sentence of the article carelessly switches from "Aboriginal" to "Indigenous", which - as can be seen in Indigenous Australians - has a broader reference. That could easily be fixed, but I don't see any point in a small fix. Likewise, if I were to remove the material that I find objectionable, I would do that fix and then leave only the first two paras, which wouldn't amount to a useful article. Wikiain (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEFORE. This is fixable, so the rules require that we fix it rather than deleting it. Cutting it back to a stub in the meantime is perfectly acceptable (and that's what I would suggest in this case).—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Pretty clearly an encyclopedic topic. Keep and fix. Go for it, nominator. Carrite (talk) 02:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite: I know something about the concept of customary law, but I do not know enough about Australian Indigenous law - that is, expertise is required - to be able to write about it without serious cultural offence. That is how I think it would look, here in Australia. It is what I think is happening, very badly, with the current article. Wikiain (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The official basis of this nomination appears to lie in mere semantics that could be fixed - if they are broken - by a few simple edits, which is not sufficient reason for deleting an entire article. However, the nominator's main objection seems to be that the article implies that Customary Aboriginal law ceased to have any (much?) legal significance after European colonisation. Indeed, I cannot help but recognise the political agenda that the nominator is pushing with this AfD nomination: greater political recognition of Customary Aboriginal law in Australia. Deterence Talk 03:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deterence: my point is factual, not political - although I will admit to a political motive for making the factual objection. My initial point is the fact that Aboriginal customary law continues to exist. If you would like to look into the politics around this, you might like to look at the official position regarding proposed constitutional reform in Australia: <www.youmeunity.org.au>. At least in Australia, it is not possible to recognise Indigenous identity without recognising the continuing existence of Indigenous law. (I would prefer not to characterise Indigenous law as "customary", which in the history of the western legal tradition has normally been a put-down.) Wikiain (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to get into an argument over what is - essentially - a rather pedantic issue regarding semantics, (such as your objection to the use of the word "before" in the first sentence of the Lede). But, it is a bit much to throw around pejorative labels like "ignorantly careless and racially offensive" simply because the editor implied - correctly - that any legal significance that "Customary Aboriginal law" may once have possessed in Australia was, rightly or wrongly, rendered to a state of constitutional abeyance by colonisation and the legal institutions the colonisers brought with them. I recommend an examination of the Doctrine of Efficacy for more information on this legal issue, (which, surprisingly, does not appear to be in Wikipedia). I am reluctant to say much more on this issue because, in my experience, Aboriginal issues have become something of a sacred cow in contemporary Australia, where any comment that is even remotely critical or negative about Aboriginal people, or their culture, is met with venomous hatred and intolerance. (Please note that I am not accusing you of such behaviour.) Deterence Talk 13:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is just that, in fact, Aboriginal customary law continues to operate. It has never depended on being constitutionally valid. That it does not count as "law" in the eyes of the Australian legal system does not entail that, in an encyclopedia, it should not be described as a type of law. Wikiain (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that a bit like complaining about past-tense references to the use of the horse and buggy as a means of transport after the arrival of motor vehicles, simply because it is still used and desirable in some remote corners of Australia? A simple caveat would address any misunderstanding. Deterence Talk 22:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is just that, in fact, Aboriginal customary law continues to operate. It has never depended on being constitutionally valid. That it does not count as "law" in the eyes of the Australian legal system does not entail that, in an encyclopedia, it should not be described as a type of law. Wikiain (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to get into an argument over what is - essentially - a rather pedantic issue regarding semantics, (such as your objection to the use of the word "before" in the first sentence of the Lede). But, it is a bit much to throw around pejorative labels like "ignorantly careless and racially offensive" simply because the editor implied - correctly - that any legal significance that "Customary Aboriginal law" may once have possessed in Australia was, rightly or wrongly, rendered to a state of constitutional abeyance by colonisation and the legal institutions the colonisers brought with them. I recommend an examination of the Doctrine of Efficacy for more information on this legal issue, (which, surprisingly, does not appear to be in Wikipedia). I am reluctant to say much more on this issue because, in my experience, Aboriginal issues have become something of a sacred cow in contemporary Australia, where any comment that is even remotely critical or negative about Aboriginal people, or their culture, is met with venomous hatred and intolerance. (Please note that I am not accusing you of such behaviour.) Deterence Talk 13:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deterence: my point is factual, not political - although I will admit to a political motive for making the factual objection. My initial point is the fact that Aboriginal customary law continues to exist. If you would like to look into the politics around this, you might like to look at the official position regarding proposed constitutional reform in Australia: <www.youmeunity.org.au>. At least in Australia, it is not possible to recognise Indigenous identity without recognising the continuing existence of Indigenous law. (I would prefer not to characterise Indigenous law as "customary", which in the history of the western legal tradition has normally been a put-down.) Wikiain (talk) 12:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the article is in an atrocious state, but I believe it could be fixed with a little elbow grease. If the article is kept, I'll try and have a crack at it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep as the topic is notable, but agreed with all of the above that the content has major issues and needs work. Customary law does exist in parts of Australia, and while it has no formal status in Australian courts, it is sometimes referred to by judges and magistrates in cases relating to remote areas, especially in the Northern Territory, where there's even some legislation which recognises its role in defining proper relationships between members of a group. A minor issue - the title makes sense to us Australians, but the word(s) "Australian" or "in Australia" should be in the title somewhere. Orderinchaos 22:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus developing? Thank you to everybody for your responses. I think we have a developing consensus. All of us seem to agree on two things: (a) there should be an article on this subject matter; and (b) the title "Customary Aboriginal law" is unsatisfactory.
- Since a choice of title is to an extent a definition of the subject matter, I will propose "Indigenous law (Australia)". That would serve several purposes:
- It would be a signal for the possibility of a category or general topic "Indigenous law", which I think, would be a good thing. Articles "Indigenous law (USA)", "Indigenous law (Canada)" and "Indigenous law (New Zealand)" might readily appear. I think that would correspond to the current tendency in international scholarship - Indigenous law experts in these countries are in very good touch with each other. Hopefully they will become editors here.
- Negatively, I think it would be good to omit the expression "customary", because in colonist law it is a put-down - "we have law, but you have only custom". The British and French colonial empires did that constantly.
- At the same time, I think it would be good to omit "Aboriginal" from this title. The expression used to mean, in Australia, what are now referred to as "Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander" - e.g. in the Australian Constitution prior to the 1967 referendum. And the main Australian judicial decision recognising Indigenous interests, Mabo v Queensland (No 2) in 1992, is principally about Torres Strait Islander law. "Indigenous" includes both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, as in the article Indigenous Australians. But, if "Aboriginal" should nonetheless be distinguished within that - see Australian Aborigines - would someone with the required knowledge please do so.
- If someone with the knowledge to do so wishes to make a move in such a direction, please do. I will keep watching, with great interest. --Wikiain (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Customary law is the legal term used to indicate that body of informal (less formal?) laws and rules that develop within a community over an extended period of time (usually measured in centuries) and, eventually, earn some degree of legal recognition and enforceability. While customary law is usually sourced from indigenous communities, (whatever "indigenous" means in this increasingly cosmopolitan world - i.e. who on Earth are the indigenous people(s) of Britain after 2 millennia of invasions?), customary law can also develop among (or be imported with) people(s) who have settled relatively recently, so indigeneity is not a prerequisite for customary law.
- As a further point, the term "customary law" is not used in a negative or derogatory sense in the legal context. While "customary law" is usually held to be the poor cousin of Statute, Common Law and Equity, vis-a-vis its enforceable legal authority, this is not necessarily the case. Indeed, many of Britain's customary laws are steeped in tradition and prestige and the Courts would be loathe to allow their violation without a very clear and express imperative from Parliament (statute) that left no other option. That said, ultimately, customary law generally possesses less enforceable legal authority, which is not to negatively imply that it is inferior or possesses less moral authority in some way.
- My suggestion for a more appropriate title for this article is something like, "Customary Law of the Australian Aborigine". Deterence Talk 02:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with your first point and had not wished to suggest otherwise. As to the second point, however, we are dealing here with a colonial situation. Moreover, unlike other British colonies - such as those in Africa - in Australia there was no statutory or judicial "recognition" of Indigenous law. That was so in colonial days and, with minor judicial exceptions, remains the case. Mabo (No 2) did not "recognise" Indigenous law - it gave some status in Australian law to certain Indigenous interests in land, irrespective of whether those interests also registered in Indigenous law. --Wikiain (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very much against it being called "Indigenous" law. The Torres Strait Islanders are a distinct cultural group, and it would be potentially offensive to imply that Aboriginal law = TSI law. I also don't think it's a good idea to lump the two very distinct systems together in one article for the same reason (although Torres Strait Islander customary law or similar would be a valid article topic). Otherwise I'm broadly in agreement with what's been proposed here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I was thinking that the article would have introductory discussion similar to the first two paragraphs in Indigenous Australians. --Wikiain (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be against the name change to "Indigenous law" simply because that's not what it's referred to in Australia, either formally or informally. The name "customary law" - which has no cultural or colonial implications beyond that it has a different existence to the Australian legal system and can be referred to on some matters between members of certain groups - is covered in university law courses, can be found printed in legislation (as I linked in an earlier comment), etc, and therefore seems sensible to use. Orderinchaos 16:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The expression "Indigenous Law" is used by the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), which is the principal database of Australian law <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/indigenous>. AustLII lists there the Australian Indigenous Law Review and other publications that use the expression. That's more than good enough for me. --Wikiain (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note in reply that your understanding here is mistaken - "Indigenous law" in this context relates to all interactions between indigenous people and the law, not just customary law. If you read the link you've provided, and others like it, you'll see that pretty quickly. Orderinchaos 22:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The expression "Indigenous Law" is used by the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), which is the principal database of Australian law <http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/special/indigenous>. AustLII lists there the Australian Indigenous Law Review and other publications that use the expression. That's more than good enough for me. --Wikiain (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very much against it being called "Indigenous" law. The Torres Strait Islanders are a distinct cultural group, and it would be potentially offensive to imply that Aboriginal law = TSI law. I also don't think it's a good idea to lump the two very distinct systems together in one article for the same reason (although Torres Strait Islander customary law or similar would be a valid article topic). Otherwise I'm broadly in agreement with what's been proposed here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I agree with your first point and had not wished to suggest otherwise. As to the second point, however, we are dealing here with a colonial situation. Moreover, unlike other British colonies - such as those in Africa - in Australia there was no statutory or judicial "recognition" of Indigenous law. That was so in colonial days and, with minor judicial exceptions, remains the case. Mabo (No 2) did not "recognise" Indigenous law - it gave some status in Australian law to certain Indigenous interests in land, irrespective of whether those interests also registered in Indigenous law. --Wikiain (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My suggestion for a more appropriate title for this article is something like, "Customary Law of the Australian Aborigine". Deterence Talk 02:22, 24 May 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Iris Wedgwood[edit]
- Iris Wedgwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable writer who apparently was part of the British aristocracy. It is asserted that she published several novels and two nonfiction books, but I can find nothing that would make her and her work notable per WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. It would appear that if the books did indeed exist, nobody ever took particular note of them. The most notable thing she appears ever to have done was to maintain a brief correspondence with Joseph Conrad. Unfortunately, this hardly merits an article. Qworty (talk) 05:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a JSTOR review-- do you have a password? It appears her books do in fact exist. Trilliumz (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Merge" into her husband and childrens' articles. Merits a mention that Cicely, the early lady historian, and her brother John who got remarried to another early lady historian, grew up with a mom like Iris who had written 2 non-fiction books (one of which is still remembered), as well as several novels. Expanded article with what I could find quickly. It appears that major expansion of Lady Wedgwood's article would require research in print and password-protected sources, and it's not clear how much you'd find. Suggest we also leave a note and a link asking for someone to check on that JSTOR review.
- If, of course, it were possible to devise suitable critieria for notability for WP:MOTHERS, this lady would certainly qualify :)
- I'm going to tag this one for WikiProject Feminism-- for obvious reasons :) Trilliumz (talk) 13:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. What is an "early lady historian"? Cynwolfe (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By "early" I was trying to get at the idea that there was a time before it was customary/de rigeur for almost all women to be economically self-supporting and/or work outside the home ... YMMV as to when that "women outside the home" break point takes place ... it has yet to happen in some parts. (Not hip to all the jargon of this field, hope I did not de-rail our point here. If I'd had the material in the commments below, I'd have opened the discussion with a vote for "Keep" instead.) Trilliumz (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, btw, she's not aristocratic but upper middle class. I do not know who user:Qworty is but his incompetence is staggering. And he is vandalising articles for some reason. He should be banned quite honestly. Flying Fische (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also note that user:Qworty vandalised this article before he stupidly nominated it for deletion. Flying Fische (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She and her books were notable in their day, and once notable always notable. Even looking at the public page of the Jstor article, the review in The Geographical Journal of her Northumberland and Durham was two pages long. There also appear to be reviews of Fenland Rivers in The New Statesman, The Geographical Magazine, and The Illustrated London News [12]. The necessity for library research to expand an article should never be a reason to delete it. Voceditenore (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Women's History – Voceditenore (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I did a Google book search for "Iris Wedgwood" AND "The Iron Age" OR "Perilous Seas" OR "Fenland Rivers" OR "The Fairway" OR "The Livelong Day" [13]. Her books are mentioned by American journal of archaeology, The Geographical Magazine, and others. The Illustrated London news: Volume 188, Issue 2, 1936. The Publisher: Volume 145, 1936. Revue historique: Volume 178, 1967. I added one references to the article. There is evidence her books were reviewed, even if we don't have access to the full reviews. Dream Focus 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—In the worse case, this article should be merged with Sir Ralph Wedgwood, 1st Baronet, her husband. But I don't think that is necessary.—RJH (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable author of both fiction and non-fiction books. More effort is likely to produce more reliable sources than have been added already. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable author, though the article pays too much attention on her familial relationships. Dimadick (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Novelist of the 1920s with 3 of her books out on the very mainstream publisher Hutchinson. There should be material on her in the long grass... Correspondent of Joseph Conrad. Carrite (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have edited and expanded the article and removed the material conjecturing that she would have been proud of her daughter and that her "vocation as a novelist clearly influenced her abilities as a mother." This kind of padding is unwarranted. Her main books now have the full bibliographic information. Re her publishers, note that Faber & Faber who published Northumberland and Durham and William Morrow and Company who published the American edition of Fenland Rivers are no slouches either. Frankly, I'm a little unconvinced by the recent addition of a review in a non-notable blog which mentions Fenland Rivers in a review of a book by a completely different author, but never mind. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your expansion of the family's literary millieu does a great job of establishing a factual basis for how this mother-daughter situation produced 2 generations of published female authors. My additional points on notability would be: "Wrote practical non-fiction book still useful as of 2004. Prolific women writers of the 1920s and 1930s are notable on the basis of sheer persistence that opened the doors for other women." Trilliumz (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said it's a relatively harmless link, but the mention seven years ago of this book as being useful by one person in his blog, does nothing to establish the author's notability. I also changed the description of the link in the footnote which had wrongly implied that the blog entry was a review of Wedgwood's book. It was the review of another book and hers was mentioned as one of two books which could provide information on the setting. Voceditenore (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your expansion of the family's literary millieu does a great job of establishing a factual basis for how this mother-daughter situation produced 2 generations of published female authors. My additional points on notability would be: "Wrote practical non-fiction book still useful as of 2004. Prolific women writers of the 1920s and 1930s are notable on the basis of sheer persistence that opened the doors for other women." Trilliumz (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge (to husband's article). The article offers no indication of any particular notability as an author, and in fact barely touches on this aspect of the topic's life, being almost exclusively focused upon genealogical/society trivia, apparently indicating that her 'notability' was almost purely WP:INHERITED. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge (to husband's article). Not so keen on the case thats presented here aside from the fact that WP:inherited in notability seems to come to mind for her works. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per voceditenore. Sources clearly establish her as notable per the guidelines at WP:Author.4meter4 (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Based on the evidence presented by Voceditenore and Dream Focus. If her literary output were presented adequately in her husband's article, it would be susceptible to an off-topic tag, which in turn would point to a need for a legitimate content fork. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sources show notable author of the time period. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — sources and novels listed demonstrate notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would note that (i) notability has not been established under any specific criteria in WP:AUTHOR, (ii) keeping hammering "sources", "sources", "sources" is unavailing when few-to-none of these sources appear to address the topic's purported reason for notability (her literary career), nor appear to "address the subject directly in detail" & (iii) her "novels" do not add to her notability, only third-party coverage of them would. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews of her books (i.e. third party coverage) either require subscription, e.g. [14], or research in an actual library. [15] It doesn't mean they don't exist, and can't/won't be added as editors get hold of them. Numerous stub articles about authors begin this way. Voceditenore (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dream Focus and Voceditenore. It appears quite likely that Wedgwood meets WP:AUTHOR criteria 3, i.e. her work has been the subject of multiple reviews. Kaldari (talk) 23:05, 26 May 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. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
James Dixon Boyd[edit]
- James Dixon Boyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable teacher who fails both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC) Qworty (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ACADEMIC "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." - Professor of Anatomy, Cambridge University is a major highest level academic post at a major academic institution. DuncanHill (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In fact easily passes "both WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROF" (which in fact are exactly the same page!) when you read the linked obit. Just because the article is lazy & incompetently done, the AFD should not follow it. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- New Scientist called him the "founder of modern physiology" in 1964.[16]. "Non-notable teacher", eh? Please read WP:BEFORE. Snow keep, I think. Fences&Windows 18:27, 20 May 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) 04:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Boyd (paediatrician)[edit]
- Robert Boyd (paediatrician) (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 doctor, failing WP:RS, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:PROF. Qworty (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:PROF criterion 6 as principal of St George's Hospital Medical School and WP:ANYBIO with a knighthood. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per WP:PROF and WP:ANYBIO as stated by Phil. DuncanHill (talk) 11:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fellow, not just a member, which is routine, of Royal College of Physicians. Fellow is a distinction here as in similar professions. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep as notable for his role as principal of a college, but needs expansion to justify this article's existence further. What has been his contribution to medical science and paediatrics? JFW | T@lk 08:34, 22 May 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. sources have not been adduced and the personal attacks on the nominator don't provide any policy based reason to keep this. Spartaz Humbug! 03:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fabian Peake[edit]
- Fabian Peake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Miserably fails the WIKIPEDIA notability standards for WP:AUTHOR and WP:ARTIST. I stress the word WIKIPEDIA because the article's author is in the habit of creating articles for non-notable persons and then arguing for their inclusion based on notability standards that come from outside Wikipedia. In this case, we have a contributor whose disruptive article creations [17] and eccentric reasoning [18] and personal attacks [19] are bordering on WP:CRANK, as he attempts to add numerous articles based on his genealogical research, in violation of both WP:OR and WP:NOTINHERITED. I suggest to other editors and to the closing admin that ONLY Wikipedia policies be used to guide the debate, completely ignoring outside arguments that have nothing to do with how notability is established for WP purposes. Qworty (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:RS showing notability are conspicuously absent. Chester Markel (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the brief content to his wife, Phyllida Barlow, who is notable. He fails WP:ARTIST, though not by too much. Some of the nominators other noms are pretty poor quality too, while we're on the subject. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong leep I note the nominator's habit of vandalising articles about notable people or nominating them for deletion. pathetic Flying Fische (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion on the habits of the nominator is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. This deletion discussion will be decided on the merits of the article, not on the merits of the person who made the nomination. If I were the reviewing administrator I would totally disregard your purely ad hominem comment. 80.168.197.161 (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Has had a few shows, but I'm not finding any reviews. Can anybody provide some? Abductive (reasoning) 12:51, 21 May 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Peterson[edit]
- Matt Peterson (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 minor league baseball player. As far as I can tell, he is no longer playing professionally. Despite playing 10 years in the minors, he only spent a handful of games at AAA. His references seem to be WP:ROUTINE. Alex (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Was able to find this in a search, but it's the only thing I saw that would help at all for notability purposes, and even this is local coverage. Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:WPBB/N which clearly states that a player must have played in the major league level. Does not meet WP:GNG, as it does not have significant coverage in multiple sources. The coverage in the sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage that only briefly mention Peterson. Overall, there is a lack of in-depth coverage in multiple sources to demonstrate notability of a WP:Run-of-the-mill minor league player. —Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 21 May 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. Deryck C. 11:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kilner jar[edit]
- Kilner jar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed Prod. Vestigially-sourced article on a topic whose sole claim to notability appears to be a tenuous WP:INHERITED connection to Jeremy Clarkson. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Actually, Kilner jars were a very familiar item in British households for over a century and became a generic name for preserving jars in much the same way as 'Hoover' became a generic for vacuum cleaner. They will be less familiar today and a useful article for any Wikipedia users too young to remember them. --AJHingston (talk) 08:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Preserving Jars currently redirects to Mason jar (which is the type of preserving jars I'm familiar with -- though under a different brand name). If substantive reliable third-party information could be found on Kilner jars, I'd suggest merging them under the former name -- but until sources can be found, there's really nothing to merge. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't deny the difficulty of sourcing this well. There are thousands of references to Kilner jars on line but on the history they either lift from Wikipedia, are not themselves reliable sources, or are not written in an encyclopedic way. References to the jar just use it as a generic term and some refer to something not sold under that name. But the facts and notability aren't in dispute. The best sources are likely to be written, eg in books about home bottling or in material about glass collecting, and the jars bearing the Kilner name exist (the article has a photograph) and trade catalogues will have survived. The best book sources I have found is of this sort Blueberries, cranberries, and other vacciniums By Jennifer Trehane and The collectors' encyclopedia of antiques or here on a precursor but there will be better. I'm against deletion where the facts aren't in dispute and good sources will exist. I'm not, though, against having the main article as Preserving Jars with types and history discussed there, especially as it will be easier to source (the Mason jar article is also weak on sources). But it will prompt a war over who invented them, as Kilner founded his firm before Mason patented his version in the US (a 19th century US patent is not a reliable source for attributing invention in the absence of other evidence and it is usually safer just to note that somethng was 'first patented in ___ by ___ in ____'). --AJHingston (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a really obvious keep I'd say - really well known British product (and the points made above about Mason jars vs Kilner jars are a sound argument). I'm surprised there's not much reliable online information about the history of the company or the jar. There have to be good sources out there - I'll see what I can find in printed sources later. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obviously notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: lacking any explicit basis in WP:N for the opinion, I would suggest that "obvious keep" and "obviously notable" should be interpreted as mere knee-jerk reactions. Such things are only genuinely 'obvious' when plentiful reliable third party "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" make this obvious. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ! I cannot imagine a better example of notability than a brand name becoming the generic name for a common domestic item. --AJHingston (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A quick search of the guardian website produced over 20 articles which used the term Kilner Jar, generally in recipe directions. Sorry, but this is a really obviously notable product - it's, as AJHingston suggests, Hoover like. There are some sources about the history that I might have time to deal with later. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebuttal: I would point out that WP:Notability explicitly requires "sources [that] address the subject directly in detail" and that "articles which used the term Kilner Jar" (however many they may be) do not meet this threshold. I would point out that it is easily conceivable that "a brand name becom[es] the generic name for a common domestic item" without generating such depth. I would further point out that we currently lack WP:RS capable of sustaining anything beyond a WP:DICTDEF for the topic. This is the flaw in relying upon WP:Inherent notability, rather than on third-party-sourcing-based notability -- it can all too easily result in keeping non-viable articles. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ! I cannot imagine a better example of notability than a brand name becoming the generic name for a common domestic item. --AJHingston (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think Kilner jars are very well-known. Sourcing does seem a bit thin/dificult. Is this source be helpful/reliable? http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/wiki/Kilner_Brothers (Msrasnw (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- PS: these might also be useful
- * A piece of art (?) http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/journals/conservation-journal/issue-57/book-in-a-jar/
- * The current (?) company http://www.rayware.co.uk/Kilner.aspx
- * Jones, R (2009) What's who?: a dictionary of things named after people and the people they are named after, Troubador Publishing Ltd (The entry on 291 on p130 is for the "Kilner jar".) Or is this one of the books that borrows stuff from us?
- * The preservation of natural history specimens, (1968) Volume 2 Reginald Wagstaffe, John Havelock Fidler - discusses the successfull use of a new type of Kilner Jar at Liverpool Museum
- * Home economics: Volume 24, 1978 reports on "The British Dual-purpose Kilner jars with metal lid and screw-band are popular, and a new Ravenhead Kilner jar has been launched recently with glass lid, separate rubber ring and polypropylene screw-band."
- * Fish.& Food,Min.of Agriculture (1989) Home Preservation of Fruit and Vegetables, Stationery Office Books; 14th Revised edition edition - (is a HMSO publication first issued in 1929 and discusses Kilner jars and how to use them.)
- Hopefully these may be of use to reference the article - but I am not sure which would be useful and where to put them. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- None of these sources would appear to "address the subject directly in detail". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more possibly useful refs
- Shephard, Sue (2001)Pickled, potted, and canned: how the art and science of food preserving changed the world, Simon & Schuster
- Wagstaffe, Reginald and John Havelock Fidler (eds) (1968) The Preservation Of Natural History Specimens. Volume Two - Zoology - Vertebrates. Also Botany & Geology. H.F.& G.Witherby. London
- Also a UK trade site: http://www.kilnerjarsuk.co.uk/
- Hope these might help (Msrasnw (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- I think Kilner's were awarded a prize medal at the 1862 International Exhibition exhibition for "Bottles and glass for useful and scientific applications". (Claimed on Kilner's advertising in the Lancet June 6 1868. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Some more possibly useful refs
- PS: these might also be useful
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, as notability has been established in the discussion below. I would also like to remind Flying Fische that their comment constitutes a personal attack and is not appreciated by the Wikipedia community. Deryck C. 11:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lil Tudor-Craig[edit]
- Lil Tudor-Craig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There don't appear to be any significant WP:RS to support the notability of this individual as an artist or as anything else. GHits are dismal, and GNews brings up nothing at all, not even in the archives. Qworty (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Another utterly stupid nomination by a vandal. Flying Fische (talk) 17:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think the first 2 sources used in the article ([20][21], noting that the first is behind a paywall that I can't access, but WP:AGF on its content) are enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. -Atmoz (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I will assume good faith on the part of the nominator, I do agree with Atmoz that these sources provide evidence of notability. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:26, 25 May 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 as vandalism. Chester Markel (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Battle For Life[edit]
- Battle For Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails the notability guidelines of WP:GNG. A Google search for "Battle for Life" and "Jayit" returned nothing other than the Wikipedia article page, and the article fails to give any sources. Inks.LWC (talk) 02:03, 20 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) Inks.LWC (talk) 02:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Game does not meet notability standards, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - with no firm release date there isn't even any certainty that it will be released. --NellieBly (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it does not pass the GNG. We can recreate it if the game is released. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G3; tagged as such. Even the supposed publisher, Jayit Games, doesn't seem to exist; see this search. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the creator has a habit of creating hoax articles. Looks like I'm heading over to WP:AIV. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Lowell[edit]
- Jonathan Lowell (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:TOOSOON, yet to be notable 18 year old "hip hop producer" and "occasional emcee". Dennis Brown (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note A speedy wouldn't bother me, but I think it would have gotten booted out. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 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) 01:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Speedy delete per WP:G11. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedied as spam, replica currently exists at User:Johnson617/Jonathan Lowell. – Athaenara ✉ 06:03, 20 May 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' - Peripitus (Talk) 09:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Karina Grundy[edit]
- Karina Grundy (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. gets zero gnews hits which you would expect at least one. gbooks has a mere 5 hits [22], 2 of which are the LLC books based on wikipedia. the emerging photographer award is hardly a notable award nor a top photography award. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I want to err on the side of caution, If the awards she has received are from nationally recognized sources then fine else, there is not enough to support WP:Notability criteria.-- CrossTempleJay talk 16:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- it is not a nationally recognised award. merely an award from a city's newspaper. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; no detailed references about this person so WP:BIO isn't met. The only award the article lists her has having been awarded was from a city-specific newspaper. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 9 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, 13 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) 01:38, 20 May 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) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Strachman[edit]
- Daniel Strachman (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:AUTHOR. Author of business books, but has not "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Google News shows he's quoted periodically on relevant subjects but neither he nor his books have received significant coverage in independent sources per WP:GNG.ScottyBerg (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The guy is a major player. He's published a ton of books with Wiley, one of the oldest and most respected publishing houses. Qworty (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that. But they haven't been "subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." ScottyBerg (talk) 19:12, 8 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, 13 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) 01:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, while according to a strict interpretation of our guidelines this article should probably be deleted, I believe in this case we should ignore all rules and keep it. Subject appears to be at the very top of his field and has been quoted many times in the press, eg The Washington Post, CNN and so on. Also his wedding was mention in the New York Times, the guy has got to be notable. doomgaze (talk) 01:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient media attention to meet the threshold of notability. Chester Markel (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See Articles about him in the NYT One of them actually has the headline: "Head of Tiger Management Considers Taking On a Partner" (July 1, 1997). If the NYT writes an article devoted specifically to the mere possibility of someone taking a parter, that person is clearly very notable. That's substantial coverage way beyond the ordinary. As for reviews, According to Book Review Index, his Essential Stock Picking Strategies. was listed among the Best Investment Books of 2002 by Barrons ( Jan 6, 2003 v82 i52 p31) and reviewed in Reference & Research Book News Nov 2002 v17 p105; Julian Robertson was reviewed in Traders Jan 1, 2005, in Futures (Cedar Falls, Iowa) July 2005 v34 i9 p79 and in Reference & Research Book News Feb 2005 v20 i1 p135 . DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Eight books published by the ultra-respectable Wiley on hedge funds and like issues makes one a "recognized expert" on an aspect of human enterprise and worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 21 May 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. slakr\ talk / 04:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jessie Kerry[edit]
- Jessie Kerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible autobiography (not to mention hoax) about a non-notable entertainer. The article has quite a bit of information but I couldn't even find so much as an IMDb listing. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:04, 20 May 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) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bookatable[edit]
- Bookatable (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 have searched for reliable sources to establish notability and have only turned up press releases and company promotional materials. This appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 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) 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Small dotcom company. No refs. Stupid idea. Will go bust. I love the internet but can't imagine a time any time soon when I'd book a table using it. Szzuk (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as commercial spam. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 21 May 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) 03:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anews[edit]
- Anews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor news agency of dubious notability. Article created recently by apparent sock, from a long-active sockfarm that has been busy promoting the journalist who is reported to be the director of this company (cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José-María Siles) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 15 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) 01:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Delete as non-notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 20 May 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meghan Chavalier[edit]
- Meghan Chavalier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - she wasn't notable the first time her article was deleted and she isn't notable now. Does not meet general notability and does not pass WP:PORNBIO. Should have been deleted as reposted material but speedy deletion was disputed. Harley Hudson (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 15 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) 01:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from an IP that were typed directly into the article itself: I'm not sure why Wikipedia is always trying to delete this page about Meghan Chavalier. She is one of the most famous transsexuals in the world. Is Wikipedia homophobic? They don't have any problem with Jenna Jameson's page and Meghan Chavalier has written 2 books and released 2 music CDS available on Itunes, Amazon and everywhere else in the world. Get over it Wikipedia even transsexuals can be famous, believe it or not. I will never donate another dime to your website. Try Googling her...maybe that will help in your decision for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.184.0.173 (talk • contribs) moved from article to AfD page by LadyofShalott 09:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- "Famous" is not the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:NOTABILITY is, which must be established through independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. The existence of a thriving LGBT Wikiproject and the well-populated Category:Transgender and transsexual people belies any accusation of institutionalized homophobia or transphobia. Harley Hudson (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep winner of adult awards and notable as a writer as well.Nirame (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- She has received one "Tranny Award", a non-notable award created by a private pornographic studio, and there are no reliable sources that indicate that her self-published books are notable or that she is known as an author. Harley Hudson (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly fails the GNG, zero GNews hits, all GBooks hits are either compiled from Wikipedia pages or the subject's own self-published books. Fails WP:PORNBIO and all other relevant SNGs. The claimed award is actually a website poll (with unverifiable results) conducted by a porn studio the subject works for, and is neither independent nor significant; it's in the nature of an "Employee of the Month"-type award. While the article claims the subject has appeared in "feature films," there's zero supporting evidence on this point, and one identified film, "TV Cowboy", turns out never to have been released, according to the subject's own website. Virtually all the references are either pages controlled by the article subject or similar promotional pages. There's just nothing out there to support this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
La Carmina[edit]
- La Carmina (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 sameless self-promotion by some girl who has done nothing to deserve her own Wikipedia article Barbaraferreira (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. It's definitely self promotion, and who has even heard of her? This is an example of why professors don't let students use wikipedia: it can be edited by ANYONE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.140.197.41 (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I third this motion. Useless waste of space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.235.36.126 (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. As indicated in the references cited on the article, she is an author with books published by Penguin and Random House, a TV host for major networks, and has been featured in major publications such as The New Yorker. For what it's worth as the main contributor to the article, I'm fairly certain I'm not her. Feather Jonah (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 15 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) 01:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This blogger passes WP:BIO in more ways than one, and the article is adequately and reliably sourced. I question whether this nomination was done in good faith (or maybe if there's even some meatpuppetry going on) because I find it highly suspicious that a user's very first contribution is an AfD. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This blogger is definitely notable and the wording of the article does not suggest self promotion. Also as Erpert said, first edit AfD doesn't seem right, but I'm assuming good faith. JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 04:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Massive WP:RS coverage. Chester Markel (talk) 05:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has large amount of reliable sources, so passes WP:N. This may be a possible bad faith nomination. Doh5678 Talk 15:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Erpert et al. A quick skim through the article and the references is more than enough to establish notability - frankieMR (talk) 16:52, 20 May 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 , early closure per WP:SNOW. Marasmusine (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Call of Duty: Evolution of Online Multiplayer[edit]
- Call of Duty: Evolution of Online Multiplayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While there is no denying that Call of Duty is a force of nature in the video-game world, I come to question the necessity of a complete overview of the entire series while good information is already provided on the articles for individual games in the series itself. Ultimately, I find that this article breaches WP:GAMEGUIDE as well as general notability requirements, with much of the content sounding like a glowing advertisement for the game itself. Given, if the article can prove itself to be encyclopedic and useful for series-coverage as a whole, this article should be kept. But in its current form, the article is more apropos for the Call of Duty Wiki. Marlith (Talk) 00:34, 20 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) 03:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This was a school project apparently. I don't know why this wasn't kept to userspace. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Apparently a school project that has gone amok. Non-encyclopedic content with only end refs that do not at all support the text of the article. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V and probably WP:SPAM as well. What concerns me even more is the gratuitous "pats on the back" under the guise of "peer reviews" by other students at Talk:Call of Duty: Evolution of Online Multiplayer. In reading them it is clear that they all either don't understand the first principles of Wikipedia or are just plumping each other for better marks on this project. The talk page content fails WP:NOTBLOG, but fortunately the talk page will go when the article goes. In tracking the members of this school project overall their contributions to Wikipedia have been more disruptive than anything else. - Ahunt (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For better or worse, that's a common part of online courses. An assignment will require a student to submit their project and then comment on other student's projects, providing feedback for the students and simulating participation, so the teacher can take another bong hit and finish getting 100% on GTA IV. This was for a brick and mortar school though, so I'm not sure why they did it... ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is pretty much my take on it too. Questions were asked of the instructor, but no answers were forthcoming. The semester is now over I guess, all that remains is the sweeping up. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not encyclopedic. It was thrown together. Szzuk (talk) 10:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete for reasons already listed. While someday an well sourced article analyzing the evolution of CoD's multiplayer could be feasible, there's nothing here that can be used in that article. --Teancum (talk) 12:15, 20 May 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.