Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 December 22 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. balanced-ish headcount, plausibly meets WP:N, has a lot of links for a stub/start article, but the article has been expanded and the inappropriate external links removed. WilyD 11:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8[edit]

List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is primarily a directory of external links. A previous revision tried to remove the external links, at which point the article became primarily a list of redlinks. See the discussion on the article's talk page for a dispute about whether the external links are appropriate. In any case, neither possible version of the article seems to me to merit inclusion. Noiratsi (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - only one of them has an article. Also, I don't see much that can be discussed about such programs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Normal content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion. There are lots of articles that contain links to official web sites, such as List of software for molecular mechanics modeling per WP:ELOFFICIAL. Yet for some strange reason, these other articles haven't been nominated for deletion. I asked Noiratsi to create an RfC to see if there's community support against official links, but they declined to do so. I really don't know what to do if editors refuse to seek consensus against WP:ELOFFICIAL, but I do know that normal content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion. The topic is obviously notable given the significant coverage of reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Indeed, Noiratsi's nomination doesn't even make the argument that the topic is not notable. What's more, Noiratsi even approved of the article when it was created (sorry, I don't have the diff- I'll try to dig it up later, I'm going back to sleep now.) Again, this is an content dispute masquerading as an AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did mark the page as reviewed shortly after it was created, and at the same time I tagged it for external link issues. The resulting discussion about the external links was what led me to propose deletion, but I'm sorry if I made it sound like the external links were the primary reason for this nomination. I brought the article here for discussion because list articles like this are intended to summarize already existing content for navigation purposes. The other articles you mention certainly need discussion and improvement, as I said at Talk:List of Start Menu replacements for Windows 8, but that's no reason not to consider each in its own right. Since almost no content yet exists for this list to navigate, I stand by the nomination. --Noiratsi (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not every list article is a navigational aid. Some are a source of information in themselves, as WP:LISTPURP makes clear. The fact that this list isn't useful for navigation isn't a valid reason for deletion. You could, however, argue that the subject isn't notable. I can only find one halfway-reliable source that has compiled such a list (this one, upon which the article is based), so this article probably doesn't meet the notability guidelines for lists. I've only done cursory research into this, though, so I'll hold off on !voting for now. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and particularly the link to WP:LISTN, which I wasn't aware of. (I'm still learning!) How about a merge of any useful content to Start menu#Evolution for now? That section already includes a brief mention (in the final paragraph) of some of the items on this list. --Noiratsi (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note that Noiratsi has still not provided a single reason why this article fails to meet notability. Again, this is a content dispute masquerading as an AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I realise the nomination was imprecise and I apologize. In the end though, deletion discussions aren't about whether people agree with the nominator; they're about what other people think should happen to the article. I may not have offered the best reasons, but that is why the discussion is taking place - to establish what definite grounds for deletion there may be, and to keep the article if there aren't any. As such whoever closes the discussion won't be 'counting votes' and I'm sure they'll take your defense of the article into account. --Noiratsi (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTPURP - this list serves absolutely no purpose other than to show users which programmes offer a start menu. The article is encyclopaedic and given the nature of the content which it aims to cover, there is not much more that it can cover that wouldn't be able to be covered in the article on the list of features removed from Windows 8 or the Evolution section on the Start menu article. James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:42pm • 09:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as discussed on the article talk page this article seems to only have two possible modes: 1. a list of external links or 2. a list of predominantly redlinks, since only one of the subjects has a Wikipedia article. In the case of the first mode it clearly runs afoul of the policy WP:LINKFARM and probably WP:SPAM as well as it would merely exist to promote products for sale. In the second case it would be a list of non-notable subjects and therefore the list itself would be non-notable and should be deleted. In either case the article should be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just want to be clear that the article is a stub. Windows 8 is brand new and the article can be expanded and improved through normal editing process. Even if I'm wrong about WP:ELOFFICIAL, that's no reason to delete the article. The main issue here is whether this topic meets WP:GNG. I believe the article, although a stub, is well-sourced, and many more sources can be found. So, over the course of the next 10 days, I will be creating a list of secondary sources. This seems like a pointless exercise since anyone can do a Google News search, but if that's what I need to do to save the article, that's what I'll do.
List of reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If your argument is that the subject of the list itself is notable, even though we have no Wikipedia articles on the majority of the list items, then we get back to the result of a "keep" here being a list of redlinks. You can't have a list of external links as that votes the policy at WP:LINKFARM. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Windows 8 was just released. Of course, we don't have articles yet on these programs. What did you expect? These articles don't create themselves. We have to write them ourselves. Hopefully, we'll get editors to create them, but this is all brand new. Fortunately, we don't have a WP:DEADLINE. And given that long list of reliable sources above, I'm fairly certain that we have enough sources to create stand-alone articles for many of these programs as well. But these things take time. At least I got the ball rolling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although most of the links provided above by A Quest For Knowledge are reviewing/promoting one particular Start Menu replacement app (whereas what we need here are sources that establish the notability of the list – i.e. sources that have compiled a similar list of Start Menu replacements), a few of the links are relevant. Specifically:
Which is more than enough to establish notability, in my view, and I don't know how I missed these articles during my own search for sources. In response to Ahunt, and the other delete !voters, it doesn't matter that only one of these utilities has an article. From WP:LISTN: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". DoctorKubla (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since DoctorKubla posted, I've found 3 4 5 6 7 more sources which discuss these items as group:
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lists of external links, especially for commercial products for sale, are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia. See WP:LINKFARM, criteria 2. The concept itself should be discussed in the Start menu article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree the external links aren't appropriate, so I've removed them. I may well be reverted, but my point is that the external links can be dealt with through ordinary editing, and aren't a valid reason for deletion. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pointless to remove WP:ELOFFICIAL links since we're going to add them back after we create individual articles. But I won't revert you. But after the AfD is closed, I'll probably open an RfC. I really don't see a problem. We're here to serve our readers, after all. Removing official links just makes the article less useful to our readers. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a long list of external links is clearly a violation of WP:LINKFARM. Official links allow one official link on the subject of the article, not creating a list of external links. If the individual articles on each piece of software were created then each article could have an official link, but the article we are discussing here would only have wikilinks to the individual articles. - Ahunt (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we haven't created those articles yet. So, it makes sense to temporarily have them until we create the articles. I don't know why you want to force the reader to Google for these programs' web sites. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because it clearly violates Wikipedia policy to have an article consisting of external links to products people can buy. That policy is not just bureaucratic, it was decided by community consensus long ago for a reason, to prevent exactly the sort of external link spamming you are proposing. If the choice comes down to a list of spam links or deletion, then this article should be deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Official links are there to supplement the encyclopedic content of an article and "to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself." Wikipedia is not here to help people find a start menu for Windows 8; we should instead be documenting the fact that many people have chosen to do so. If people come here looking for a start menu replacement, they have come to the wrong place entirely and shouldn't be at all surprised when they don't find any links to sites containing such things. --Noiratsi (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LINKFARM. The argument that we need to provide a list of X where none of X actually exist as articles is fallacious - lists in the encyclopedia are lists of articles, not lists of external links. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the article again. The external links have been removed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I see are external links - it doesn't matter that they are formatted as references and go to PC Magazine reviews. You really need to go read this. Really. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't considered external links. Those are sources. BTW, I really don't understand this attitude that this article must be complete in order to be in article space. It's a stub. Windows 8 just came out for heaven's sake. It takes time to write these articles. I've proved that this topic is notable. Finishing the article is something that can be done through the normal editing process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Windows 8#Reception. The various sources lead me to conclude that the general topic of Start menu replacements for Windows 8 has received sufficient media attention to be deemed notable by the GNG, but at this point the list of replacements seems pretty trivial. I'd suggest that the list is not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone list, but the rapid emergence of Start menu replacements (and the list thereof) is a valid topic for inclusion in Windows 8#Reception. --Orlady (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per usefulness and a strong need for this article. I just bought a new computer and was horrified by the windows 8 user interface, I couldn't even find out how to restart the computer. So I started searching for "start menu windows 8" and found that millions of other users were searching for the same thing. Among other search results I found this wp article, and noted it was threatened with deletion, and that's how I found this discussion. I don't care if you call it a linkfarm, the links in the article and this discussion have been very useful for me. The only thing I miss is a comparison between all these alternatives so I didn't have to compare them myself. Put the links in the article and this discussion together in an article called Comparison of start menus for windows 8 Roger491127 (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not a directory. It is not the job of this site to help you find a replacement for your start menu. If people think that should be part of Wikipedia's remit, this is (in my opinion) not the place to discuss it. In other news, I do feel that the addition of a lead paragraph to the article has improved its credibility. --Noiratsi (talk) 11:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List topic meets the GNG, handily proven by A Quest For Knowledge. All objections so far, including the nom's, can be addressed by ordinary editing.  The Steve  22:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to a lot of conversation with several kind editors in recent days I now agree that the issues should be addressed by future editing and that deletion isn't appropriate or justified. I apologise for some stubborn and short-sighted arguments. —Noiratsi (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nom didn't have a valid reason for deletion and has subsequently withdrawn. Can you please indicate which part of the article is a technical manual and why that's a valid reason for deletion? Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unencyclopedic, and not really a regular "list" because it's mostly of external links, with only one item on the list actually linking to an article. Zerbu 00:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Second, being well-referenced is actually a good thing as it proves that the topic is notable. Third, having only one WikiLink item on the list is not a valid reason for deletion. That's fine if you want to !no vote to delete it, but you have to come up with a valid reason first. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And make into a suitable combination article with some text. It can't stay this way, with just links and references, but either tie present title, or Comparison on Start menu replacements ... or Start menu replacements ... it could be the basis of an article. The individual items on a list do not have to be notable, and I have never seen a guideline that says otherwise--just as DoctorKubla says. The confusion is because there are many lists, where, to prevent spam, we do make such a requirement--among these are such articles as "List of business in City X " or "Alumni of College Y" or lists of people generally, but there is also a place for combination articles. Agreed, we're not a web directory, but this can be satisfied by requiring some degree of documentation for the individual entires, as is present here. DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a technicality that does not merit an article separate from Start menu. I don't see a substantive discussion of the replacements that goes above the technical stage for tips with computer usage. Hekerui (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough information to create a paragraph per item on the list. It's the holidays in the US and I just haven't had a chance to start adding it. Hopefully, this weekend I can get started on one of them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would that be more technical information on the individual entries? I don't think that would improve the encyclopedic merit of this page. Hekerui (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be a paragraph summarizing each item. I'm not sure what you consider technical but I'll try to avoid it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
  • Strong keep Nominator has withdrawn, and the article can be expanded from its current stub status. —Darkwind (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge into the main Windows 8 article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.56.52 (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This can become a useful summary article. Convert the deprecated inline exlinks to create "legitimate" redlinks where apropriate. Roger (talk) 07:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that the current state of the article may be unsatisfactory - particularly in the color usage - but the content should be kept. Kubigula (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of online music lockers[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an internet shopping guide. This sort of thing belongs at Consumer Reports' website, not Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable and noteworthy companies, encyclopedic and certainly quite educational use of page. — Cirt (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's two keep votes that open with remarks about notability, which is not mentioned in the nomination. I know it is normal to make notability based arguments at AFD, but this is the exception to that rule. Nobody is even remotely suggesting that the three services compared are not notable. They all have their own articles and I would not even think of nominating them for deletion. What is being suggested is that having a consumer-reports style side-by-side comparison, cmplete with red and green highlights to let you know who is good and who is bad, is a violation of the idea that Wikipedia is not a shopper's guide. We might as well change the name of this article to "according to Wikipedia Google Play is awesome". Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, so it is the colors you object to? They are used this way on many other comparison articles to indicate feature support. I couldn't find anything in the MoS about this type of article. --Pmsyyz (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do object to the colors, but that is something that could be fixed by editing. Why I think it should just be deleted is explained fairly clearly, with links, in the nomination. Whether there are other similar articles or not I do not think this is appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with changes - The article itself could de with being renamed to remove 'comparison' from the name. The comparison should feature as part of a greater article about the storage of music on-line. Or the article could be merged into Cloud_storage potentially with a section for types of storage (documents, files, music e.t.c) and then the comparison could remain there. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 20:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and discuss the title. This is a distinct category of products, and I don't think it should be merged into the very general article on cloud storage--that article would be unworkably large if it contained the details of everything that cloud storage can be used for. It might, however, be possible to combine with very closely related subjects and make it into a List of online media lockers" or some such title. Having list like this is not a violation of NOTDIRECTORY, because Consumer Reports is not a replacement, at present, since it's in large part a subscription service--and because it very unfortunately and for me infuriatingly does not cover computer technology with the same degree of detail and specificity that we do; and its purpose is different also--one of the key things it does is to make recommendations, which is of course totally outside our scope. And that's why this is not a shopping guide. FWIW, I too very much object to the use of colors, especially bright colors, on this list and all similar lists, and perhaps we should have an RfC about limiting their use when necessary for emphasis or differentiation & using some less obtrusive shading to provide navigation on long lists--but that's not the question here. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to side with the nominator here, the individual stores are notable but their comparison is not. Where are the sources that give substantive coverage of the comparison? There are none because all they would do is what this article does, list individual features. Wikipedia can't be everything, and it should not be a shopping guide, and that's policy. Nominate the rest of comparisons, too, their existence proves nothing. Hekerui (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editors are reminded that lists are not all objective, and that referenced entries (like what is there now) are acceptable. What is a valid entry can be discussed on the individual talk pages.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of England[edit]

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

Fails WP:OR TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominate the folowing related articles for deletion under similar rationale -

Can anyone please also nominate the other articles and link them all to the discussion here, so that a joint discussion may be able to decide on all of them? (I am not familiar with multiple nominations and so I am not sure how to do it) Thanks Done TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - By George, hold on old chap - this "subjective" list contains 50 references - yeah, I know, the person who put them in hadn't heard of cite tags - so there's certainly some objectivity in there. They refer to articles from the BBC, the Guardian ... cultural icons themselves. Can we find more and better citations? Sure we can. British Postal Museum & Archive "Icons of England" - includes Big Ben, Cup of Tea, Cricket ... the list should sound familiar, because it's culturally shared and richly documented. Or try Culture24: ICONS of England - the Spitfire, the Red Telephone Box... or BBC News: New Icons of Englishness unveiled - guess what: Stonehenge, Cricket, Cup of tea, Routemaster Bus ... room for one more here? try Historic UK: Icons of England - you know what's coming: Cup of Tea, Routemaster Bus, Spitfire, Jerusalem, Stonehenge ... Notable? Of course it is. Is the list inclusion criterion clear? Yes - an icon's in if we can find "multiple, reliable sources" for a thing's being an icon of England. Will it take a while to look through the mass of sources? Yes, but there's no hurry. Keep.Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is not whether or not we have reliable sources for inclusion of an item in the list. It is whether or not the list requires Original Research on the part of the editor, or judgement whether or not to add it. [I dont see how you would need to judge whether Obama lies in List of US presidents, but here its another matter altogether; even if both lists have reliable sources]
That is, unless you choose to directly the entire list copy from one of the sources, which will then go against the WP copyright policyTheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
per an editor's subjective assertion that something is subjective, when the sources say it isn't? Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are only giving their opinion. You may see Pussy Riot as a Russian icon, and I may not. These articles are not objective enough for an encyclopedia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some things are pretty uncontroversial, like the Houses of Parliament or ghastly food (note that the snap of a roast dinner clearly features overdone meat, probably tougher than shoe leather) but others are more borderline: for instance, why The Haywain and not The Fighting Temeraire. Its the existence of a huge middle ground that make this article unworkable.TheLongTone (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all the articles admit to impossibility of the lists being definitive by stating that they are lists of potential cultural icons.TheLongTone (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are not stupid objections. The plain solution is to require say 3 (or maybe 5) reliable sources for EACH icon, and thereby to exclude "potential" icons which I agree is unacceptable. The result would be to prune the list, drastically, which I suspect is what we all want. An icon is guaranteed to be found in multiple reliable sources. If not, it's not an icon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the point of almost repeating myself, Nobody here claims that we cannot find reliable sources to support the London Bridge's claims to be a cultural icon of England. What we do say is that synthesising such a list by ourselves (than basing it on another sourced list) will be a breach of Wikipedia policies which say that we CANNOT do so. If you really need to have such a list, why not convert the least contentious ones to prose and add to Culture of England?? Nothing stops a prose article from stating what has been said. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 08:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No breach of policy (such as WP:SYNTH) is involved. All list articles — indeed all articles, period — involve collecting materials from different places; there is no other way of building any article. What is at issue is whether there can be clear criteria to delimit this list, and sufficient reliable sources to identify items that meet those criteria. Since the answer is a definite "yes" to both questions, the list may stand. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually because there a seven billion people on Earth, the answer to your first question is a definite "no". - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between which sources can generally be relied upon to get facts right and which sources' opinions carry weight. These lists rely on opinions, which are per se subjective.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are sufficient good, reliable sources in the case of England - I doubt that's true for the other nations. A single source may be an opinion, but firstly the opinion of the BBC or the Guardian (for example) is better than the opinion of a blogger, and secondly when 3 or 5 good, reliable sources agree then Wikipedia may reasonably assume that there is intersubjective agreement on the matter. Otherwise, every fact and theory no matter how well attested is just "subjective". WP:RS is our standard and we should stick to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On this list: the reason given about other lists is nothing to do with this list at all, to keep or not.
On the other lists, the answer is that if there are sufficient sources on the FYR of Macedonia, as seems improbable, then there would be reason to keep. In the case of England, there are excellent sources, so the cases may well differ. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note the list is for potential cultural icons; there's plenty on the list that I doubt will ever become actualised- Argos catalogues, Treasure Houses of Britain, Tiptree Jam. Maybe there's an excellent source for Argos catalogues being an icon; THB is a marketing organisation, Tiptree Jam? Are Duchy Originals on the list too? List of cultural icons found on a shelf in Waitrose. Ning-ning (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Argos catalogues have gone, along with Lunch (I ask you) and Andrex. Is Waitrose a cultural icon, btw?TheLongTone (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Rewritten) Rather than argue any more, I thought I'd try a better defined list. There are just 7 items that were quickly sourced; no doubt others can find a few more. Most of the sources in the old article failed to assert "cultural icon" status so they had to go, along with nearly all the unsourced entries, it was worse than it looked. See what you think.
(Closing Admin - please note that earlier !votes applied to the original listcruft article.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly agree that this is a much more sensible list (& list length), but am not sure as to whether including strictures on criteria for inclusion will be effective in preventing the list bloating to the previous absurd level. Nice to see G.G. Scott's telephone boxes btw: I think they were absent from the old article.TheLongTone (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Restricting the list to objects should cut down on bloat, though using Attenborough for an example confuses the issue. Big Ben the bell, and Big Ben the cultural icon- isn't the bell just a part of the whole icon (tune, tower, striking the hour)? Also, relying on three sources to mention the magic words " cultural icon" is going to bias the list towards modern-day cultural references. For example Bellarmine jugs, the tomb of Edward the Confessor, Ned Ludd are some old cultural icons, which perhaps won't have the term applied to them. How should the list be expanded? Searching for the term "cultural icon" wherever it's used, or testing whether something has been defined as one thrice? Ning-ning (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. It's only a start, and of course everybody is free to make improvements. I mentioned Attenborough as he was there before but it turned out that independent sources for his iconic status were hard to be sure of, a very specific point: if it's too picky, let's drop it. On bloat, we just watch and revert (and if need be discuss or warn), now we have sharp criteria. On growth, however works for you. On Big Ben, believe it's actually the bell tho' everyone thinks it's the whole thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have refrained from voting so far but I remain unconvinced. Yes, Attenborough could qualify; the Greek film Attenberg is actually named after him and takes for granted that the audience recognise his oeuvre. There will be many other sources out there though many will be equally difficult to pin down. But how can we really qualify a list which has to work for all recorded history? Are we talking of cultural influence, tourist sites, well known people? John Locke or Thomas Paine might be said to have had great cultural influence but are they cultural icons? If not, why not? Asking whether people have used that exact term seems pretty unsatisfactory to me. It probably is not a term previous generations would have used, but they would have described the same thing in different ways. And why should the sources be confined to English? Arguably wide recognition in non-English speaking countries ought to count for more, not less. --AJHingston (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - complete OR bogus POV nonsense, cannot be reliably sourced, inherently OR, bogus. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is it natural and/or acceptable for Wikipedia articles and list to contain the criterion (and a proper explanation and justification) for inclusion in the article space? I have seen them as comments, but are they acceptable in the articles themselves? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, and I was wondering about the right way to do it also. Articles are supposed, I believe, to indicate obliquely why they are notable, without using the word. To JoshuSasori, there are many published books with "Cultural Icon" in their title, so people out there certainly think the concept is notable. To AJHingston, whether the term could even have been explained to someone of Locke's generation I rather doubt - Locke would have thought the term irrational; and in the Middle Ages it would surely have been thought blasphemous. So I suspect it only makes sense to a more modern mind, say 20th century. Perhaps also each nation's icons are necessarily different, so separate lists may make more sense than attempting any more cosmic all-in-one definition. Just a thought. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of things tourists want to be photographed near when they visit England?TheLongTone (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Photogrpahing a cup of tea? Sorry but no. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I think that we can all agree that cultural icon is a valid and notable topic. In general, a list of elements that are part of a notable subject is valid if the individual entries can be shown to also be notable. Each of the lists in question consist of elements that have articles, so the individual elements are themselves notable. The point of contention in tne nomination is that putting together such a list is original research consisting of synthesis. As multiple reliable sources can (and should) be used to determine incluson i the list, to that extent this is not original research as it is the opinion of tertiary soruces that are used to make this determination. With respect to this being synthesis, there is not going to be 100% agreement from everybody in the world on whether an item is a cultiral icon. As such, any such list that would attempt to follow the nominator's reasoning would be doomed to be named like "List of cultural icons of France as determined by the BBC" or some such. It's not synthesis to list items together that are generally known as cultural icons by third party sources even if they aren't always tehexact same sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the English list because it has a real criterion and real sources. Hold off on the others to see if they can be handled similarly. They should not have been nominated together, because they are of different natures. Basing a list like this on sources is the only possible way to do it. The qualification of the list is indeed subjective, which is why we cannot do it ourselves. ThWe could argue whether for the English list 3 sources or 2 are needed, and how specific they need to be, but that can be decided but the concept of cultural icon is more than notable, more even than famous--it's a combination of famous and of being famously distinctive and characteristic. I do not agree with Whpg--we cannot include everything notable in a country, or everything notable in a country that we here judge particularly important and characteristic. We have no business making such distinctions. We can appropriately however, decide on objective criteria for such distinctions. The non-English lists at present do not show that. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Delete The attempt to establish objective criteria for the List of cultural icons of England fails spectacularly because it's made by a user. The cut-off is necessarily arbitrary and the sourcing of the other pages is terrible. Delete them all, the country articles are sufficient. Hekerui (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A search for ikoną kultury produces a number of hits for Barbie, Batman and Jesus Christ- the first a result of a Polish edition of "Barbie Culture" by Mary F. Rogers, which has been (mis)titled "Barbie as a Cultural Icon", the second from a review of a US book on Batman, the last a translated segment from the Catholic Encyclopedia. I think this shows the notion of cultural icon is somewhat Anglocentric. Another example is Norman Wisdom, claimed by some British writers to be an Albanian cultural icon- the only hit for ikonë kulturore is My Little Pony. The list I'm really looking forward to is Cultural icons of the Wahhabi. Ning-ning (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, defining a "cultural icon" is inherently subjective, and thus WP:OR. A list of cultural icons as designated by some external authority might be notable enough, but that is not what these lists appear to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lankiveil (talk • contribs)
  • Delete: An inherently subjective list, even if sources are found for it. A List of big trees or List of nice paintings will always be doomed for deletion, even if some published source has compiled such a source before—what is a "cultural icon" for one person will be a national disgrace or bore for another, and no "official list" can change that. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subconscious mind... I used TheLongTone's words almost exactly... I must have read this before... הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree with Hasirpad here now. There is no way we can remove the list of subjectiveness. Delete. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well sourced, no original research. Everything is, of course, subjective, but the list(s) use unoriginal research; they merely repeated what other sources are telling us. The subjective judgements are not those of Wikipedia's editors, so it does not violate WP:OR. WilyD 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This argument becomes recursive. What are the critia for deciding which sourcs are reliable?TheLongTone (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fair question, and one at the heart of Wikipedia. Ultimately we can only go by what exists out there in the world, and by noticing what seems to be agreed and respected out there. Beyond that you're into the philosophy of knowledge - how do we know anything at all, etc. The point here is that multiple sources agree that the concept "cultural icon" exists, and they also agree on what constitute major icons, just as people agree quite well on what is a "table" when it's wooden, waist height, and has 4 legs, but less well when it's of a quirky and ingenious design. There are many books with "cultural icon" in their title, by the way. Here are some:
  • Brooker, Will (2001). Batman Unmasked: Analysing a Cultural Icon. Continuum.
  • Edwards, Peter; Karl Enenkel, and Elspeth Graham (editors) (2011). The Horse as Cultural Icon: The Real and the Symbolic Horse in the Early Modern World. Brill. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Foudy, Julie; Leslie Heywood; Shari L Dworkin (2003). Built to Win: The Female Athlete as Cultural Icon. University of Minnesota Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  • Nelkin, Dorothy; M Susan Lindee (2004). The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. University of Michigan Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  • Biedermann, Hans (1994). Dictionary of symbolism: cultural icons and the meanings behind them. Meridan.
  • Heyer, Paul (2012). Titanic Century: Media, Myth, and the Making of a Cultural Icon. Praeger.
  • Reydams-Schils, Gretchen J (2003). Plato's Timaeus as cultural icon. University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Gilbert, Erik (2008). The Dhow as Cultural Icon. Boston University.

--- Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Headcount strongly favours keeping, New York City Subway is already 124k, so merger is impossible WilyD 12:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Subway in popular culture[edit]

New York City Subway in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article is WP:TRIVIA. Any notable popular culture references could easily be incorporated as a section in New York City Subway 1292simon (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Oppose. The article is too long to be incorporated as a section. There are several articles related to the NYC Subway existing as separate articles due to being too long. Vcohen (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD !votes usually take the form of keep/delete, rather than support/oppose, for the sake of clarity. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Vcohen (talk) 10:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article was split from New York City Subway in January 2007, and has grown since then, so it wouldn't make sense to merge it back in. And this list isn't WP:TRIVIA; that guideline is about "trivia sections" full of unintegrated miscellaneous facts, whereas this is a perfectly legitimate "in popular culture" article. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, "in popular culture" is an essay. "Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." 1292simon (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think a relevant essay trumps a completely irrelevant guideline. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While comprehensive, it's not a good article in other ways: it's very badly sourced (of the 3 refs, one is a forum, one is a business website, and only one is a real published reliable source), and it's a list whereas Wikipedia style generally prefers paragraphs of prose. But even the proposer suggests a partial merge rather than outright deletion, and I think leaving it here is better than merging for reasons of length. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination misunderstands WP:TRIVIA which does not seem to have been read. The nomination seems to be suggesting merger into another article and that would not require deletion. Warden (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per DoctorKubla and Warden, although the classifications should be changed from Start to List. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a fine "in popular culture" article. No reason to delete. If you want to improve it, fine. But there are much more important things to do. Borock (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the policy, and too lazy to look up right now, but it seems to me that if the "popular culture" work is notable there does not really need to be a secondary source saying that the subway is featured in it. It can be the source itself. Borock (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information is not trivial. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure if WP:TRIVIA applies considering the organization and clear focus of the article as a 'popular culture' directly and not an indiscriminate list of facts. Mkdwtalk 23:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Violates WP:V, in that the article is not based on independent, third-party sources. Basing the article on independent, third-party sources is what helps ensure that we do not stray into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory. If the article were indeed compliant with WP:V, we would be easily able to demonstrate that reliable sources had found at least the majority of these facts to be relevant and important when considering the portrayal of the New York City Subway in popular culture. Instead, the article is a simple laundry-list of facts. Each individual fact may be verifiable (as WP:V does permit verification of individual facts through primary sources), but the collection of those facts into a representation of "this is what it's important to know about the portrayal of the New York City Subway in popular culture" cannot be verified.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article topic only "violates" WP:V if the entire content is unverifiable, ie "Martian literature makes multiple references to the New York City Subway", not current unverified in the article. Primary sources are allowed in Wikipedia. If the article says "The Bee Gees recorded the song 'Subway' for their 1976 album Children of the World", the Bee Gees song "Subway" suffices as evidence. To demand the New York Times or something also state ""The Bee Gees recorded the song 'Subway' for their 1976 album Children of the World" is just silly game playing. --Oakshade (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my argument (and WP:V) again. I agree that individual facts can be verified to primary sources. No problem there. WP:V also states that articles need to be based on independent, third-party sources, though. An article which consists of nothing but facts verified by primary sources is not based on independent, third-party sources. There's a level of primary sourcing that's acceptable and even necessary. Entire articles that consist of a list of disjoint facts sourced to primary sources are way beyond that acceptable level.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New York City Subway. I agree with some editors above that this content is notable. However, it seems that in practice we add this sort of information as an "In Popular Culture" section to the main article. Now, Kww brings up some important concerns. There's very few references to most of the information in the existing article; I think that, should this information be kept in one form or another, it certainly needs to be worked on and improved. --Lord Roem (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to New York City Subway. Even though many of the entries here are true, they are unverifiable and pure WP:FANCRUFT. We can easily create a new section on the main article called "In Popular Culture" where we list only well-known featuring of the subway (i.e. the entire film, show, or song is centered around the system). This includes The Taking of Pelham 123, The French Connection, and Take the A Train. All the other entries referring to music videos, TV shows, and others that only show quick passing subway scenes should be removed (e.g. Macy Gray's I Try video, World Trade Center (film), Saving Face, and Futurama's The Luck of Fryrish) because the system is not the primary focus and thus, no one cares about them. Almost every movie, show, and video shot in NYC will feature the subway. Does that make them notable to mention here? No! The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The existing article for the New York City Subway is far too large as it is. Only a separate "In popular culture list would suffice. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I think any article could withstand the impact of the sourced items. That a section became an overwhelmingly bloated list of trivial material sourced only to the material itself isn't an argument for splitting it out, it's an argument to start removing material.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Due to the premature closer & resulting reopening, this deletion discussion was archived by AnomieBOT, I've reverted those 8 edits restoring this deletion discussion to the relevant delsort pages & removed from archives. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Converted to prose this would make for a fairly comprehensive article, certainly containing too much information to live as a mere section on the main subway page. --Grahamdubya (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though comment, I've noticed some "in popular culture" sections on individual service pages (e.g., the 6 train); perhaps standardizing those and extending the same to station pages makes more sense? --Grahamdubya (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls... now, which subway d'ya think??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is too substantial for a useful merge, and will be easier to develop separately. I think almost everyone here except possibly the nom is convinced that the material is appropriate. and kww's argument can be met by better sourcing.The content of an article does not have to meet the requirements fro mblp or WP:GNG; verifiability is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern can not be met by "better sourcing". It's been built on an improper foundation, in that the article is not based on material found in independent sources, it has been based on material found in primary sources. Even if someone managed to find a review of "American Dragon" that mentioned that "Jake" sometimes "rides in the subway to get around", that wouldn't be a source that indicated that Jake riding the subway is in any way relevant to the concept of the NYC subway's impact on popular culture. There's nothing here that is worth saving, much less "substantial". "Substantial" and "bloated" are distinct concepts, and this thing is just bloated.—Kww(talk) 04:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I disagree that you have discounted GNG. For an article to exist, it needs to be notable, not just verifiable. Otherwise we would have articles like Wooden telegraph poles in popular culture, which would list every show ever made because they all feature telegraph poles at some stage. The Legendary Ranger's suggestion above seems like a sensible solution IMHO. 1292simon (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, legitimate as a breakout article. Frankly, I feel that "in popular culture" sections are the devil, and if a breakout is what it takes to keep such fluff out of the main article, that's good enough for me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. A legitimate split per WP:SUMMARY. oknazevad (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless better sources are added. Miniapolis (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per the G3 (hoax) criterion. Deleted by Delldot (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batty ball[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Fails WP:GNG with no significant and independent coverage from reliable sources (see Google News search and Google News Archive search). OlYeller21Talktome 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A fairly obvious hoax... I have a fairly strong suspicion that Aston Crawley is the same AstonM1997 who created this article. Clearly not "played in most countries," and the world rankings are the same three names over and over again. In my book it falls just shy of G3 (vandalism).
On an unrelated note, in the spirit of fairness, I've attempted to facilitate a page move that Aston had accomplished through copy-and-paste, by tagging Battyball for G6 (maintenance) deletion so that Batty ball can be moved there. This is simply because, inasmuch as this sport exists at all, it exists without a space. If the move is carried out before this AfD is concluded, I'll handle any necessary AfD-redirecting. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops. I should have checked for it being a hoax. The article has been deleted so I'll close the AfD (unless the deleting admin closes it). OlYeller21Talktome 03:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Theodor Herzl. The nominator having withdrawn, this can be closed. I rely on (Hasirpad) to carry out the merge, and agree with him that much or most of the content is usable. No prejudice to a future split, but this should be decided by consensus on the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Theodor Herzl. Courcelles 02:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herzl family[edit]

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

Non notable family per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect: I agree with the nominator, but most of the content, suitably abridged, would do well at Theodor Herzl. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 02:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes:
    1. This page is a poor machine translation from the corresponding page in the Hebrew Wikipedia: he:משפחת הרצל. I have created an interwiki link and noted this on the article's talk page as per WP:CWW.
      1. I've finished retranslating the article from Hebrew, it makes much more sense now. I have also rescued some of the more mangled references (which were horribly machine-translated, hewiki-templates and all) but not the further reading section and the external links (two of which were dead - in the Hebrew article as well - and I have commented them out). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    2. The Hebrew article is a split page from he:בנימין זאב הרצל, section "שנות צעירותו" ("His youth"), indicating that Herzl family is probably a mistranslation of the article's name, and the correct title is probably Family of Theodor Herzl.
    3. Much of the information contained is already mentioned at Theodor Herzl#Family; most (but not necessarily all) of the additional information at Herzl family is unsourced.
      1. Upon restoring the sources, as mentioned above, the article is better source than it appears at first sight, but lacking inline citations. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Despite the above, it is not unlikely that the subject of Herzl's family is a notable topic in Israeli scholarship, and sources for notability in Hebrew should be searched. (But a merge and redirect for now will do no harm).
      • Based on the above, I think the best move would be to redirect and transplant the references, and supplement the information missing at Theodor Herzl from scratch. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of government[edit]

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

This article has WP:OR concerns, and consists of an image, a dicdef, and a collection of quotes. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - article is of no practical use and the topic could easily be summarised (if it already hasn't been) in Government. On top of that, the pasting of a 1200 word 'quote' seems excessive and a probable copyright issue! Sionk (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that you think it might be a copyright issue...clearly you have no idea who Herbert Spencer is. Given that you have no idea who Herbert Spencer is...clearly you are not qualified to vote on this issue. Huh. Obviously you think you're qualified enough to vote on this issue...when in reality you're really not. It seems like that anybody who would vote to delete an entry on the scope of government is really not qualified to vote on the issue.
So please folks...if you haven't read Herbert Spencer or John Stuart Mill then please remove your vote until you've actually made a reasonable effort to study and research the topic. --Xerographica (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whether or not an entry should be kept or deleted depends on its notability. You don't delete an entry because it has problems. If you want to improve an entry then you discuss improvements on the entry's talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, notability is not the only reason to keep a page. If it violates policy such as WP:OR, it should also be deleted. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So rather than trying to resolve the issue on the talk page...your solution is to delete the entire entry. If the useful diagram is removed then would there be any justification for this deletion proposal? --Xerographica (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. It's WP:OR, a violation of policy. Thus, it cannot remain. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed it. Therefore, there's no justification for this proposed deletion. In the future, please show the common courtesy of first bringing up issues on an entry's talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 23:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, the entire article is OR. It must be removed as well. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Great, delete the entry and I'll simply recreate it using nothing but quotes. That way, it will be impossible for you to claim that it is OR...given that nothing in the entry will be original. --Xerographica (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, that's why there's Wikiquote. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I replaced what I wrote with a quote so now nothing on the entry is "original". Wikiquote isn't organized by concepts. --Xerographica (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You are correct, Wikiquote is not organized by topic, but it is a collection of quotes, versus Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                      • And you are correct that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Except, the "minor" detail that you're obviously missing is that the very point of Wikipedia is for editors to work together to make improvements to entries. You've shown absolutely no interest in working together to make improvements to the entry on the scope of government. You didn't bother sharing your concerns on the talk page and instead proposed that the entry be deleted. --Xerographica (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I have doubts that this is a distinct subject from government itself, but in any case the fact that 90% of the article is a quotation calls for WP:BLOWITUP as the only fate for it in its current state. If I deleted the quote, there would be nothing left of it. Mangoe (talk) 21:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the huge quote farm. Whether or not this thing is kept, that had to go. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe and WP:BLOWITUP. I think only the first sentence can be kept; not only are the "passages" inappropriate, but the second sentence is just conservative propaganda. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the fourth sentence is libertarian propaganda, which I tend to agree with, but it needs a source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to Justification for the state. The article topic and title lacks precision and conciseness. (And as the article stands now, it is simply a re-cap of left-right politics categorization, without statist/anarchist extremes.) The quotes which Xerographica supplied, while inspiring and interesting, were not properly edited into a presentation that helped the reader. (Indeed, they lacked proper citation beyond the name of the author.) The See also section, as well, was a collection of loosely related articles. And now, post-paring of the quotes and SAs, the article is totally useless. I hazard that Xerographica wants to incorporate the quotes into WP so that readers will have access to the concepts and learn more about government. S/he can do so better by editing the articles related to those authors to give readers recaps of what authors X, Y and Z thought about what the proper scope of government should be. Justification for state and other existing articles are better vehicles.--S. Rich (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - This is Wikipedia, not Bartlett's. The subject is definitely article-worthy, but the article itself is a mess. The article limits itself with its use of stock American political terms, with no clarifications or citations to back up the large assumptions it makes. I think the article has to be entirely re-written; I don't see anything worth keeping. Therefore, I concur with all previous WP:BLOWITUP-based arguments. Lord Bromblemore (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Before the removal of the quotes, this was POV; after it, there is an absence of substantial content. There are dozens of articles which contain the various aspects of this, I strongly discourage the prospect of incorporating quote farms into WP. Brief illustrative quotes, certainly, but where long arguments such as Spencer's are necessary to develop an idea, they belong elsewhere. We have a structure to articles, and it consists of description of reference, not assembling quotations. DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally redundant to government. Hekerui (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article clearly seems to be have been created in error (an error in the source material, perhaps?). Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mark's Church (Manhattan)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. Mark's Church (Manhattan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe the article was created in error:

  • There is no "Stuyvesant Avenue" in Manhattan
  • However, there is a "Stuyvesant Street", and at the intersection of Stuyvesant Street and Second Avenue is the Episcopal St. Mark's Church in-the-Bowery
  • The article has no sources (and, technically, makes no claim of notability)
  • A fairly extensive Google search brought up nothing on a Catholic St. Mark's Church in Manhattan
  • The search included sources on Google Books often used by the editor who created the article

My conclusion is that this article was created in error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked for "Stuyvesant Avenue" in Brooklyn and the Bronx before I filed, and checked out the other Catholic St. Mark's Churches but none seemed to line up with this article's information. Unfortunately, the editor's creator doesn't seem to be editing anymore, but it occurs to me to send him an e-mail in case he has some more information which may help clear up the confusion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:Tom harrison under criterion A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flashymo[edit]

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

I'd CSD this, but I'm not sure any criteria for that fits here. Not seeing any evidence that this even existed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd say somewhere between hoax and vandalism. Chris857 (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't this fall under G3 criteria for speedy deletion ? Ezhuks (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Winscombe Youth Theatre[edit]

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

Previously speedy deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion then recreated, still with no assertion of notability and no references. Clearly fails wp:gng Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was not deleted under criterion A7. It was nominated under that criterion, but the nomination was declined, as it is in part an educational institution, which is exempt from A7. I deleted it under criterion G11, but then restored it, as I decided that, although the early versions of the article were somewhat promotional in tone, it was not such blatant advertising as to justify speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Google News and Books provided nothing relevant and useful aside from this event listing. It also seems the website hasn't been updated since last year so they probably haven't been very active recently. A different search provided this and this which contain some useful information but it wouldn't be sufficient. Through that same search, I found this, a profile for one of their members, a few more news articles here and here (these two are both for Honk), here, here, here and here. They participated in a Winscombe festival here and performed West Side Story in 2003 here. I also found this which mentions a keyboardist who plays for them. Not only does their website mention the LAMDA exams, I found this newsletter that mentions it. A better article could be written with this but I think it wouldn't be enough and I can't find any evidence for the 1990s plays. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Unfortunately, this is a classic example of a common situation. Someone thinks that an organisation is a good cause, and deserves to be better known, so they come to Wikipedia and write an article about it, without any awareness of Wikipedia's notability requirements. I do sympathise with such people, who sometimes put a significant amount of work in, only to see that work thrown away. However, the fact remains that this is a minor, local theatrical group, with no evidence anywhere that it satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The Article is notable as apparently Theresa Hemming's daughter is a west end actor as well as attending the youth theatre for 5 years also other students have been successful in the west end; I thought that people would be interested in the famous actors roots. Winscombe Youth Theatre is also still active as there has been adverting on the School website (that they use as there rehearsal and they use the stage to preform there shows), Spotlight and Wikipedia:Spotlight/Newsletter that they did a show back in June 2012 apparently a sequel to The Wizard of Oz and that there next show is about Cats and Dogs I guess that they are going to preform in June 2013. (Andwhy1 (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable - even with the excellent research done by SisterTwister. --Bob Re-born (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No ref's to show that this youth thatre project is ingerently notable in itself. It's noble, but cannot inherit notability from 1 (perhaps) individual (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - No sources in the article to substantiate notability, slim-pickings on the world wide web to do so either. Unless there's a book that lends significant coverage, I'm feeling a delete here. Go Phightins! 15:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- An amateur theatre company is almost certainly NN. My guess is that its continued existence depends largely on the enthuiasm of a few adult leaders. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW (non-admin closure) JayJayTalk to me 21:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of journalists killed in the United States[edit]

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

This is merely a list of victims of crimes (in some cases), or accidents, or unsolved deaths, many of the people on it being non-Notable. There is already some comment about this article on its talk page.GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When you read the definition "discriminate" and "indiscriminate" information at Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information and examples are given, I doubt whether you can actually tie this list to indiscriminate class. The list has a focus and all the members of the list meet the requirements of that focus. The items are displayed in a thoughtful way with prepared categories and listed in chronological order with table sorting for preferred readability. Every item has been verified. The list is open as more cases are likely to occur in the future. Lastly, I would like to point you to :Uncle G's essay "On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate". If you wish to make this argument, please explain why it is indiscriminate.Crtew (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence:
  • Keep per Computer. Individual entries in the list do not have to be notable, only the subject of the list. There has been much written about journalists killed or detained in the US, hence this passes WP:LISTN — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. LISTPURP: This list and others meet all of the criteria set out by WP:LISTPURP, which spells out the proper reason for the creation of lists. Those reasons given on the policy page are: 1) Information, 2) Navigation, 3) Development, and 4) Beneficial List and Category redundancies. First, the list allows information to be displayed (time of death, medium and news outlet, place, short description and references. Secondly, navigation is enhanced as this list and the other serve as a "Table of Contents" for the topic of killing of journalists in the US. Third, in terms of development, the benefits of such lists are already apparent for those of us who are creating content about the journalists and related human rights/freedom of speech issues as we can see which articles need work or creation. Fourth, the list of this type does have redundant categories, such as Category:Journalists killed in the United States, and there are some lists for wars that even include templates. All of these allow different kinds of displays that enhance Wikipedia's use depending up the needs of the information seeker.Crtew (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable list of (mainly) notable individuals. Clear inclusion crieteria too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep We've already had this debate for lists of journalists killed in other countries, so I think we need to stop trying to delete these lists. The individuals listed were killed because they were journalists, so this is not simply a list of murder victims with a common profession. Human rights NGOs publish lists/reports of murdered journalists and this subject is studied in academia. Seems to me the only way to vote on this is "keep."David Straub (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not find this to be an indiscriminate list. The focus and inclusion criteria are clear, and the individual entries are well-cited. Location (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The deaths (or arrests) of working journalists are an important and notable topic. One indicator of the topic's importance is the existence of the Committee to Protect Journalists. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably SNOW per Orlady. Journalists killed simply because of their occupation is an encyclopedic topic with a wide variety of sourcing. The nominator hinted a list in which journalists were killed in accidents, or random crimes, etc but the list doesn't show it. I don't see any valid policy based delete reasoning in this debate. Secret account 18:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Disick (2nd nomination) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Disick[edit]

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

This article is a recreation of the Scott Disick article which, by consensus, is now a redirect. Additionally, no explanation is given in this article for the "Lord" appellation which is probably a hoax or a joke. SQGibbon (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School District 39 Vancouver. Non-admin closure. PKT(alk) 20:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. George M. Weir Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable school; elementary schools are generally considered to be non-notable per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. TBrandley 16:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to school district article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. While not notable on it's own the district is notable. Mike (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to School District 39 Vancouver - standard practice. Nominator should have just gone ahead and done this - there's no need for an AfD. PKT(alk) 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you all seem pretty unanimous, I'm going to be bold and redirect it myself. Since I posted this comment and am not an Admin, someone else who didn't post here will have to close this AfD. Please do. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It's now a Redirect. Someone please close this AfD. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that School District 39 Vancouver makes no mention of Dr. George M. Wier Elementary School? Ryan Vesey 20:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what you mean. The Wikipedia article has it listed as "Weir" in the template. The School District lists it on their School Directory as "Dr. George M. Weir". PKT(alk) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madeira Fortress[edit]

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

This is one of five articles created recently -Labyrinth City, Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca- all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratto and his personal website at [yurileveratto.com/]. I can't find reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG. I'm taking them to AfD individually as someone might possibly come up with sources even though I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. This sounds like an interim report on archaeological work. That is a variety of WP:OR. When the work is published properly, preferably in a peer-reviewed journal, it may be appropriate to reinstate the article. This also applies to 4 other AFD noms based on the same website. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is not an interim report, but was intended to make sure different users could get informations on this important arcjaeological site, almost unknown. Sources are reliable: Atoform is a Brazilian official photographic archive that recognized the archaelogical work. There are other reliable sources of Bolivian and Colombian origin..Franciscos58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscos58 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentAll the sources are to articles written by Yuri Leveratto, who is a fringe author.[1].Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Archeologo40 is a WP:SPA whose only edits have been to articles promoting Leveratto or to AfDs involving him. Dougweller (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability and sources are not reliable.Nickm57 (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This link can be added as a peer reviewed journal :
  • [2]

ThanksCholo50 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • CommentI don't see this as a peer reviewed journal, and I do see that the article is by our ex-tourist guide with no archaeological qualifications Yuri Leveratto, what a surprise! Why isn't there a real academic report on this? Why are all the sources to the same person? Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)
Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)
Cholo50 (talk · contribs)
Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)
190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)
190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)
190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)
190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)
186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus was that available sources didn't reach WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 19:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Petroglyphs of Quiaca[edit]

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

This is one of five articles created recently -Labyrinth City, Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca- all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratte and his personal website at [3]. I can't find reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG. I'm taking them to AfD individually as someone might possibly come up with sources even though I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, due to being at the twilight zone where notability problems and WP:FRINGE overlap. Even if we could find another (independent) source with substantial coverage, I doubt it would represent a mainstream view of this kind of topic so we may never be able to have neutral content on this topic. bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: these petroglyphs are important. It is true that when I created the article, for lack of time, I added only the source of the Italian antropologist that described them, anyway other sources can be add.Franciscos58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscos58 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentLeveratto is not an anthropologist but a fringe author.[4] Among other places, he publishes in Nexus magaxine, and their website sayd NEXUS is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained." He has no credentials in archaeology or anthropology and his work experience is as a guide and working for cruise lines. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. Paul B (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability and sources are not reliable. By the way-all these photos on the five pages - that are from Leveratto's website, were apparently uploaded to Wikimedia Commons by the author. Does that mean he also wrote these WP articles himself, citing himself as the source? I assume so.Nickm57 (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch! If he keeps it up I will open up a case at WP:COIN. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trinchera Fortress[edit]

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

This is one of five articles created recently -Labyrinth City, Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca- all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratto and his personal website at [5]. I can't find reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG. I'm taking them to AfD individually as someone might possibly come up with sources even though I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the archaelogical site is very important. It is true that when I created the article, for lack of time, I added only the source of the Italian antropologist that described the ancient city, anyway other sources can be add, the fortress is known and was studied different times and is very important in order to understand the Andean pre-history.Franciscos58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscos58 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Leveratto is not an anthropologist but a fringe author.[6] Among other places, he publishes in Nexus magaxine, and their website sayd NEXUS is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained." He has no credentials in archaeology or anthropology and his work experience is as a guide and working for cruise lines. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability and source is not reliable.Nickm57 (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)
Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)
Cholo50 (talk · contribs)
Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)
190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)
190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)
190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)
190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)
186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruins of Miraflores[edit]

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

This is one of five articles created recently -Labyrinth City, Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca- all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratto and his personal website at [yurileveratto.com/]. I can't find reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG. I'm taking them to AfD individually as someone might possibly come up with sources even though I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some IPs are editing these articles, and after I posted this AfD one added [7]. The website has a section on unsolved mysteries[8], mainly UFO related. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the archaelogical site is very important, and in this article there are no connection with paleo-astronauts theories, but only archaelogical conclusions.

The sources are reliable (NEXUSMAGAZINE is worldwide recognized, and the fact that sometimes autors write UFO related articles has nothing to do with archaelogical research); Antika.it is a reliable archaeological site, well respected.Franciscos58

    • Comment "NEXUS is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained." It fails WP:RS as a source for archaeology. The Antikia article is by a fringe writer who believes the Sumerians came to America.[9]. Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is properly written and sources are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archeologo40 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that Archeologo40 is a WP:SPA whose only edits have been to articles promoting Leveratto or to AfDs involving him. Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)
Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)
Cholo50 (talk · contribs)
Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)
190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)
190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)
190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)
190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)
186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth City[edit]

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

This is one of five articles created recently -Labyrinth City, Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca- all sourced to or based on Yuri Leveratto and his personal website at [10]. I can't find reliable sources to show that it meets WP:GNG. I'm taking them to AfD individually as someone might possibly come up with sources even though I've failed. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, due to being at the twilight zone where notability problems and WP:FRINGE overlap. Even if we could find another (independent) source with substantial coverage, I doubt it would represent a mainstream view of this kind of topic so we may never be able to have neutral content on this topic. bobrayner (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: the archaelogical site is very important. It is true that when I created the article, for lack of time, I added only the source of the Italian antropologist that described the ancient city, anyway other sources can be add, (especially from Brazilian magazine and even archaeological related magazine). The site is known and was studied different times and is very important in order to understand the contacts between Andean and Amazonian pre-history.Franciscos58 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franciscos58 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Leveratto is not an anthropologist but a fringe author.[11] Among other places, he publishes in Nexus magaxine, and their website sayd NEXUS is a bi-monthly alternative news magazine covering health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained." He has no credentials in archaeology or anthropology and his work experience is as a guide and working for cruise lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability, all sources are self published -- see WP:SPS. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of notability and the single source is not reliable.Nickm57 (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This source can be add as peer reviewed journal
  • [12]

ThanksCholo50 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • CommentI don't see this as a peer reviewed journal, and I do see that the article is by our ex-tourist guide with no archaeological qualifications Yuri Leveratto, what a surprise! Why isn't there a real academic report on this? Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The following editors may be the same person (they all edit the same narrow range of articles and all the IPs geolocate to Bogota Colombia.)
Franciscos58 (talk · contribs)
Cholo50 (talk · contribs)
Archeologo40 (talk · contribs)
190.146.254.220 (talk · contribs)
190.147.16.36 (talk · contribs)
190.146.116.208 (talk · contribs)
190.65.163.106 (talk · contribs)
186.115.57.7 (talk · contribs)
--Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was SNOW keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton-Udell High School[edit]

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

School without independent sources to prove notability. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 15:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve, per norm that high schools are notable. AllyD (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a high school, and it just needs to be improved a bit more, as it is already notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it notable? And can you prove that with independent reliable sources? The Banner talk 20:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, high schools can be assumed to be notable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My dear Sue, you now quite well that WP:OUTCOMES is not an argument for keeping an article. The Banner talk 20:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why, because you and the other minority deletionists say so? Don't be patronising. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep High schools are considered notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JayJayTalk to me 20:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moravia High School[edit]

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

School without independent sources to prove notability. Fails WP:GNG. The Banner talk 15:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is consensus that it needs to be cleaned up, but notability is not in question. (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 15:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jalalabad Cantonment Public School & College[edit]

Jalalabad Cantonment Public School & College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Before nominating, I tried my very best to find sources. However, a cursory search I performed yields nothing reliable... And thus I have to bring it here. It is supposedly one of the best schools in Bangladesh, at least per the page, but unreferenced peacock words do not establish notability. It fails the most basic standard... WP:GNG and also fails WP:ORG. I suppose the creator is a proud student of the school. Sorry, but I feel this should go. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean up! You'll get almost nothing reliable about Bangladeshi (and Indian) schools and colleges in Google search. Same issues with researchers, scholars. Anyway, that is a educational institution of Bangladesh where the main language is Bengali and Bengali Google search shows the educational institution is notable. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understand, but regardless of its notability, this is still spam and spam should go. And possibly speedied. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am the creator.why this page is spam for u?thanks for your comment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditi Choudhury (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way you write this is a mild example of spam. As mentioned in the Teahouse, please read WP:Your first article. And brush up on your English language skills please Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not spam really, the article needs to be Wikified. There are thousands of more articles in Wikipedia in similar or worse condition. They are clearly WP:NEWCOMER and don't know how Wikipedia works (see they have added the official website in reference section and not external link section). I can do the Wikify work after seeing this AFD discussion! You can help too! -Tito Dutta (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not biting the newbies, I am addressing what should be deleted. It is more than a matter of Wikifying. This, in my view, is blatant promotion written in a non-neutral way. The creator most likely is somebody affiliated with the school, (see his/her Contribs) which is clear conflict of interest. Its better to start from scratch (if it was notable) than to keep. And by the way, I fixed your typo. :) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is really not a spam.if you were a bangladeshi u would have heard the name of this institution.and when we write in wikipedia anyone can edit it.so i may have write it wrong.but others can write it well Aditi Choudhury (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content might not be spam, but the style of writing definitely is. Also, having heard the name don't make it notable and you need multiple third party and reliable sources to establish notability. Understand the rules before playing the game, have you heard? (And how would you know whether I'm Bangladeshi or not?) Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Calm down! I have posted a message at your talk page (since that is not the topic of the discussion), where I have tried to mention my opinions on the article. --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{ec}} :: Oh come one! Everyone in Wikipedia writes or edits articles on the place (street city, country) they live or the school, college, university they attended. They are not writing article on them or their relatives or friends. That shouldn't be an issue(specially if it is a notable institution with thousands of students). But, yes, the article is written like a promotional content, that is an issue. But, I think this was not deliberate and "wikify" should be the answer here! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. All thy spam removed. Good. I might even consider a withdrawal... Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, all the Bengali newspaper articles, (reliable source) I have found they have just mentioned like the school has again topped in this board exam or three or four students of this school have won this national talent hunt. I have added a Bengali newspaper article, that's has dedicated one or paragraphs in the article. There are few more similar article. But, I have not got any article where the school (or college) is the primary or only topic of discussion! BTWY, Google Books does not have any information on this school (because the school was established in 1999?)! --Tito Dutta (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am a ex student of this institute.now i read in a university.all bangladeshi people know anything which has cantonmnent in it, that's why i said u r not a Bangladesh institutes are really notable in edcation of bangladesh. u have to say what is wrong.the help section is very clumsy to find any information.belive it or not it took me 3 hours to know how to upload picturesAditi Choudhury (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

tito datta , i think u sent me a message.if u can edit it do it please.i wont edit anything in your work.but i can add new things,cann't i?Aditi Choudhury (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

every newspaper in bangladesh,thats a tough thing.every newspaper mainly highlite the result of dhaka in hsc,ssc,jsc,psc examinations.and u will see minimum one institute in those results have cantonment in its name.my institute is in sylhet.so you have to read the paper thoroughly to find the institutes which did top result in sylhet divison.this year our institution was second in hsc exam in sylhet board.there are also adamji cantonment public school & college ,ishphani cantonment public school & college etc in other divisons.Aditi Choudhury (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: it has some basic references establishing some fundamental level of WP:Verifiability. Some of the spam has been trimmed, and I've trimmed out some more WP:cruft (an encyclopedia reader doesn't care if a place has its own cafeteria and dorms or no, how big their computer lab is etc). Recognised/registered educational institutes above the elementary school level are de facto Notable by policy, aren't they? We've established this place exists, so it meets WP:N and WP:V. Just needs some watchlisting to make sure it doesn't accumulate spam. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone tell me if this pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murari_Chand_College can use hostel ,library why cant i?Aditi Choudhury (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I have added features & believe me the users who will read this article will only read that article to read those features.for u dorm,lad or other thing don't matter much but for those readers it matters.they visit the site to know about these features. this institute got a national award in 2004.problem is the verification.that time online service was not good but the institute got the prize for sure.every prospectus of jcpsc announce this.Aditi Choudhury (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator is biased against Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.242.35 (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's bad faith, and FYI, I love Bangladesh. Not Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 15:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOW (non-admin closure) Go Phightins! 21:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rancheros visitadores[edit]

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

Put up for PROD in 2008 unsuccessfully and since then there have been few if any content edits according to the page's history. The entire article's text is unsourced and there's no reason to believe that anytime in the future it will be expanded or built upon. Cat-fivetc ---- 10:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep seems theres quit a bit of coverage on these folks exhibited here and [1] but especially here. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Hey Arnold! characters. Courcelles 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helga Pataki[edit]

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

Of the five sources, one is a broken source in Google Books that only seems to verify the character's VA; the other two sources are primary. "External links" also has a primary source and a 404 that can't be wayback'd due to robots.txt, making any verification of its content impossible. I can't find any reputable sources on this character, nor is any out-of-universe notability established. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the appropriate character list per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in the interest of building a consensus. There are no reliable third party sources with significant coverage to WP:verify notability, which would be a fair reason for deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Hey Arnold! characters. Courcelles 02:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold (Hey Arnold!)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2008. Nothing but OR. No sources, no out-of-universe notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hillsboro wireless tower[edit]

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

I would say this article pertains to WP:FAN's of Oregon. The article also provides a reference for its being torn down some 60 years ago. I don't beleive the sources would indicate that the unnamed tower is notable. Not sure where to catagorize this. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It is unclear what basis there is for deleting the article. Notability is mentioned, but the cited claim it was the second tallest steel tower in the world easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NN. Also mentioned is that it was torn down a long time ago. That is not cause for deletion, otherwise articles about long dead people and, say, RMS Titanic should be deleted too. —EncMstr (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree. But don't exceptional claims require exceptional sources? We are taking the Hillsboro Argus' word on the matter? For all we know it is a hoax on their part. I'm also unsure as to how being the second number anything makes it automatically notable. If it were the second tallest building then I could agree. If it were the tallest tower I could agree. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A 60+ story tall tower seems reasonable for the intended purpose, and it also seems likely to really have been the second tallest in the world in 1921. The combined claim does not seem particularly exceptional. Even if it were, it is not a basis for deleting the article. —EncMstr (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 19:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VMproject[edit]

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

I previously placed a WP:PROD on this article with the rationale "No evidence that this software is notable.". The Prod was removed by an IP (along with all the maintenance tags) with the comment "This software is notable. The company has more than 1200 cutsomers now and it also has an article in French on wikipédia. I have quoted two sources that deal with this software" Having customers is the common factor to all businesses and their products (otherwise bankruptcy looms); the issue here is notability, which is not demonstrated by simple assertion. As for the two offered links, one is the firm's own site, the other is a business tool directory listing. I've interwikied to the French article, which is no better (and has the same original author, whose account name resembles that of the company). So I'm bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No significant coverage found. It may exist and have customers but that doesn't make an article appropriate. Neither does having an unsourced article on a non-English Wikipedia with apparently lower standards than this one. --Michig (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Software is non-notable as far as I can see (even when using google.fr), it merely seems to exist. Company doesn't fare well in the GNG department either. Creator seems to be an SPA with COI issues who has now been blocked. Purely promotional. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above, as promo advert/spam with insufficient refs to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renaming can be done boldly through the usual channels. The Bushranger One ping only 17:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False document[edit]

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

Original research, and no relevant hits for "false document" on Google Books. I suggest a redirect to exposition. Spannerjam (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. This article suffers from a severe lack of focus. Despite the assertion in the lead that "a false document should not be confused with a mockumentary", it then goes on to list scores of mockumentaries as examples. There's a few flat-out forgeries mixed in, and there's a lot of crossover with fictional book, epistolary novel and found footage (genre). As far as I can tell from the lead, I think this article's supposed to be about novels which cite, and quote from, non-existent documents, in order to create a sense of authenticity. While I did find a few sources that use the term "false document" to refer to some sort of literary device, none of them appear to define it in the same way as the article. For example, in this New York Times article, Eileen Pollack (who apparently taught a seminar on the subject) says that the intent of a false document isn't to fool anyone, but to "make them think about the nature of reality"; she gives Spinal Tap and the Blair Witch Project as examples. The book Twisted Society (p. 288, footnote 347) describes Robinson Crusoe as a false document because it is "an account of supposedly factual events that never occured". And then there's Fiction as False Document, which is about the work of E. L. Doctorow, who incorporates real historical figures into his novels to blur the line between fact and fiction. All of these sources seem to be using the term to loosely mean "fiction presented as fact", which is a bit too broad a subject for a Wikipedia article, encompassing pretty much any book, film, etc that claims to be based on a true story.
Nevertheless, I'm reluctant to !vote delete because I'm certain that false documents as defined by this article are a real phenomenon – I've come across them often enough – and I'm surprised that I can't find any sources discussing the concept. One book mentioned in the article, The Invention of False Medieval Authorities as a Literary Device in Popular Fiction, is more the kind of thing I was hoping to find, but it's only available in snippet view. Worth noting, however, that the term "false document" doesn't appear anywhere in the book, so there's probably a different name for this kind of thing. I'll keep looking. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the concept is real, does not mean the term is (a supposed literary technique). But perhaps I misunderstood you? Spannerjam (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the concept is real but the term isn't, the article should be renamed rather than deleted. Hence my !vote below. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. I'm satisfied now that the concept of citing non-existent documents to lend credibility to a work of fiction is a real and notable literary technique, used by Steven King, Enchi Fumiko, Edmund Morris, Alan Moore, Chaucer (who cites Corynne and Lollius), and Isaac Asimov, among others. But the term "false document" is generally used to mean something different, so the article should be renamed to something more appropriate (I'd suggest Fictional document). And it goes without saying that the listcruft should be substantially cut back. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP has difficulty holding on to articles about concepts, even well-known ones, when the concept doesn't have a specific name. I wonder if that is the situation here. I find myself agreeing with what the good Doctor says and I'll have a further think. If it is relevant the article started out life in 2001 (!) and has had many editors. There is also Category:False documents. Thincat (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is absolutely a relevant and significant concept -- and you can find more sources that pre-date the article if you look for " fictional document". I say keep. DS (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, refocus. See also Necronomicon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I commented above). By chance I have stumbled on a particularly interesting example, the claimed source of Historia Regum Britanniae. The concept is well documented and exemplified and not to be dismissed as OR or assessed by Ghits. The article as a whole needs a great deal of sorting out and pruning. Thincat (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure) --LlamaAl (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Kocamis[edit]

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

Reason Willdawg111 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet notability guidlines established by WP:NMMA. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This nomination has been relisted for about a month and its clear there is non-consenus (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 02:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gyula J. Obádovics[edit]

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

The subject of the article seems clearly to fail WP:PROF. Few of his publications seem to be indexed by Google Scholar, and still fewer have received any citations. Only one of his publications seems to be indexed by MathSciNet, and only three by Zentralblatt. None of them jumps out as being especially notable or significant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know how significant the awards listed in the article are but as a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [14] he passes WP:PROF#C3. I suspect that the lack of coverage in Google scholar is more due to his work being pre-internet and not in English than in its significance. The lack of coverage in MathSciNet and Zentralblatt is more of a concern, but I think his evident local notability within the Hungarian mathematics community should be enough to make up for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think you're mistaken. He's not a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Member profiles there all indicate what kind of membership they have (Regular/Corresponding/External/Honorary), as well as the year of their membership. None of this information appears on that profile that you linked to. Moreover, his name does not appear on a search of the mta.hu members, nor is it in any of the lists of members available from the mta.hu website. Apparently, he's not a regular member, a corresponding member, an external member, or an honorary member. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is a member of the Köztestület of MTA. Any Hungarian citizen can be a member, who has a Ph.D. or equivalent degree. There are, I don't know, maybe 20000 members. Eppstein's above ref mixed up two search engines of mta.hu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.181.202.103 (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am striking my comment, since it seems to be based on a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article conspicuously makes one of the common newbie mistakes: Give biographical details in chronological order first; mention anything that could constitute notability later. It should be exactly the other way around. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of national level awards. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the awards listed even notable (an explicit requirement of WP:PROF#C2)? Google has never heard of any of these awards, as far as I can tell (at least, in English), which strongly suggests that these are not notable awards. Also, most academics have won some awards. How do these awards distinguish this particular academic? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obádovics is apparently a mathematician but has only two publications that reached Mathematical Reviews. Neither seems to have been cited. This is an obvious case. Tkuvho (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of those awards is actually the highest ranking state order, the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary, but its name was translated differently in the article, that's why Google couldn't find it. He has several books and other publications, and according to the Hungarian wikiarticle he was instrumental in the spread of computer science education in Hungary. (I know it's not a valid argument but even I heard about him and I'm as far from mathematics as anyone can be.) The article needs some improving. – Alensha talk 23:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, if he was born in 1927 then he spent most of his career under communist rule, and I'm not sure academics were allowed to publish in Western countries, so it's no surprising that an American mathematics review site doesn't list them. – Alensha talk 23:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Alensha. Even allowing for difficulties of communication between Communist and non-Communist countries during the Cold War period, WP:PROF#C1 is fairly obviously not met - in fields like mathematics, at least some major academic journals from Communist countries were indexed in Zentralblatt or Mathematical Reviews, and publication in Western journals, while sometimes difficult, was not uncommon, so one would expect at least a little more evidence on GScholar than there is. However, the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary, together with GNews results (allowing for Hungarian name order) and some of the other biographical details, do suggest he probably meets WP:PROF#C7 (and quite possibly #C4) - but it would be nice for someone to confirm this from Hungarian sources. PWilkinson (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, pending confirmation of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Hungary award. That award is sufficient in itself, regardless of strength of publication. (signing later -- forgot to sign at the time: -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • Question is the award of the Order of Merit verifiable anywhere? I'm having trouble, but I don't speak or read Hungarian. RayTalk 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per all the above, if the Budapest University of Technology and Economics website is a reliable source: here (if my Google-Translated Hungarian is good) they mention Obádovics as one of two of their alumni to win the "Knight's Cross" class of the above-mentioned Order of Merit. (Also, if the Knight's cross class qualifies for #C7.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 04:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Changed !vote per consensus below (Tkuvho and Lankiveil) that the "knight" level of the Order of Merit does not meet Criterion #7, and there is nothing else going for keeping the article. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 07:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Both the "order of merit" and his allegedly large publication list are entirely invisible from the point of view of the English wikipedia. Therefore they constitute an argument in favor of retaining the page in the Hungarian wiki, which is not the subject of this page. What year exactly did he get his "order of merit"? One wonders to what extent he may have gotten it as a result of being a well-connected party apparatchik rather than a notable scientist. Similarly, it is altogether unobvious that his allegedly numerous "publications" (invisible in the standard english sources such as mathematical reviews and google scholar) may not be merely teaching manuals that do not establish his notability as either scholar or professor. It is odd that someone with an h-index of about one-half should pass here. Tkuvho (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, notability does not have to be in English—either one is notable, as mentioned in any reliable source, no matter what language—or one is not. Secondly, had you followed the link I gave you would see that he received the Order of Merit in 2003—so which "party" are you referring to? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 14:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I checked your source. It does mention Obádovics. But it also mentions several hundred other laureates of these prizes. Note that the "knight's" prize is not the first, nor the second, but the sixth level of this national prize. What you are essentially arguing is that several hundred wiki pages be automatically added for each of those names. I emphasize that there is no evidence of notability as a scientist. The link you provided is the best evidence that the page should be deleted. Tkuvho (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A comparison with Vilmos Totik sheds light on the present academic. Totik has 170 articles in Mathematical Reviews, inspite of language problems. Tkuvho (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is precisely the question I asked (somewhat unclearly) in my first post above: is the Knight level of the Order of Merit a PROF-C#7–worthy award? (The other hundreds of laureates, though, seem to be those of even less noteworthy awards.) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • lovagkereszt is the level he got. According to the hungarian page, this is the last of the six levels of this national prize (I assume the hungarian page is more accurate than the English page which lists additional levels). I don't think that kind of thing establishes notability particularly if no other factors are present. Tkuvho (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability seems to rest on the "Order of Merit" prize, but that prize is at the sixth and most minor level. With no disrespect intended to the subject of this article, that's not quite good enough. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per discussion above of the level of notability of the Order of Merit at the most minor level; there were no other grounds for notability. RayTalk 21:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears notable, but sourcing for a WWII / cold war era Hungarian mathematician is difficult to come by. I think we should defer to https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ob%C3%A1dovics_J._Gyula Tha Hungarian Wikipedia needs attention and improvement, and this is not helped by our rejecting tranlations of their articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Barr (footballer)[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who became a sports physiotherapist, but doesn't appear to be notable as either. Cloudz679 12:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this link appears to show he was merely a trainee at Luton, despite what is claimed in the article, which I have been unable to find a reliable source for. Cloudz679 12:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 12:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 20:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as a footballer, he is not even close on passing WP:NFOOTBALL. However, I believe his positions as a physiotherapist in several top-level clubs the last six years would give him some coverage? The sources in the article this and this, makes the subject close on passing GNG, and I believe there is enough coverage out there to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He fails WP:NFOOTBALL epically, and GNG as well - the second ref given by Mentoz86 is a local news piece, and the Teamtalk thing appears to be some kind of blog (regardless of that, I've not seen anything anywhere else). Being a physio doesn't make you notable (unlike a coach, assistant manager or manager) - physios, even for professional clubs, are not always fully-pro themselves. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Club physio isn't a position with a high media profile, and the TeamTalk piece, although in-depth and devoted to the subject, isn't enough on its own to pass WP:BIO. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Claims that notability was established were without any support or sufficiently rebutted. postdlf (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi[edit]

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

Lack of sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. Of the sources on the page, only one (The Daily News) has any more than a passing mention of Hameedi, and even that hardly consists of significant coverage. He might pass either criteria #1 or #4 of WP:AUTHOR in his native Pakistan, but I can't find any sources to verify that (some may be available in Urdu, however). It doesn't help that an IP-hopping editor with a clear COI keeps spamming the article talkpage and those of any editor involved in the article with useless additional "sources" (e.g. [15], [16], [17]). Yunshui 雲‍水 08:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete if no further reliable sources are presented. The Dawn article is talking about Hameedi being honored by the Pakistan Children Writers Guild- a non notable organization that he founded. The "three awards " from this clipping [18] are not any type of recognizable named award, they are just "certificates" from a government agency, and the source doesnt even say what the awards are recognizing him for. There is a blog from Dawn, but it has the big disclaimer on the bottom "The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group. " So there is nothing in the article nor in my searches that shows WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR has been met. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepdear editors

please do not delete this page.this page is v help ful to research students also.This is a senoir most teacher's page.Please donot delete it. Whereas you should improve it soon.thanks.This article is very helpful to wikioedia kiving persons .Please donot delete it. Thanks!!!

Dear ! please do not delete Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi.It is the best page.All reliable sorces are here.Proff Syed Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi is very ill now a days.He will die to see the deleted page.Please save Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi.Some one is jelous to Mr Justice007 and you. Please protect Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi. Thanks ! Thanks!

Dear Friends pls do not delete Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi pls It is a good page to pay a tribute to a senior teacher. O.K friends! pls help me as seniors. Thanks Here is a fotograph of Mr Hameedi

thnx --Hasbi syed (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)preceding comments moved here from various talkpages on editor's behalf. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:notability, notability is visible. TariqMahmood09 (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

umm, per WP:N notability would be visible through significant coverage by third party reliable sources. As discussed above, none of the coverage appears to actually be significant, reliable AND third party so you will need to explicate as to how WP:N is actually being met if you wish your opinion to be counted. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Reliable sources states;

"In general, the most reliable sources are: peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers."

The daily news, a mainstream newspaper's journalist writes about the subject and academics tribute the subject as this,

"Paying tribute to Mujeeb Zafar Hameedi's half a century services in promoting children's literature, Masood Ahmed Barkati, who himself a noted children's writer, said he (Mujeeb Zafar) devoted his all life in promoting children's literature in the country and exploring new worlds of children's writings."

The whole article is written and connected to the writings of the subject, directly or indirectly. It is written about him not by him, it is independent third party source, that is not one or two sentences, that is full passage covering and describing his work in scholarly way. In the policy there is no specification of the degree of the length. As the primary sources 1 and 2, the subject has received appreciation certificates (awards) from the Federal Ministry of Education Government of Pakistan and was nominated for Sitara-e-Imtiaz. In the wiki-rules, there is no any description about awards that should be from where?, and recognised by whom?. I am confused between rules of the "wikipedia'" and "personalpedia". As the policy, trivial sources can also establish the notability. Subject of the article indeed and of course is a notable in my view and understanting of the wiki-rules in the exact concept of the meaning.Justice007 (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the WP:ANYBIO about awards requires 1) proof and 2) that the awards are "well-known and significant award or honor". All we have is essentially a press release that states he got "certificates" from the government. That is not "a well-known and significant award or honor".
and while the wikipedia article writing must be done by third parties, the sources must also be third party sources.
significant coverage and not merely trivial passing mentions of the subject is required in these reliable third party sources see WP:42 - we are lacking in the combination of _significant_ coverage in _reliable_ _third-party_ sources. The "significant coverage" is not in reliable sources, and the reliable sources dont have significant coverage.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well-known to whom?, to you or any nation, and please tell me the meaning and description of "significant coverage", and do not devote your time to refer WP:42 again and again, the source is in accordance to that.Justice007 (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if you are too lazy to read the damn links, I am not going to waste my time copying and pasting them here. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with the Daily News article is the lack of 'significant coverage - no-one's disputing that it meets WP:RS. All it says is that Hameedi spoke at a meeting of a group he founded, and that another member of the group said something nice about him. He's mentioned in literally two sentences, neither of which tells us much about him - and that's the best source in the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 02:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I agree; I do not see the notability or significant coverage. --Jeronme (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Although it seems Wieard deleting a children books writer page lack of sound references !! and Lacks notability Shrikanthv (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please do not delete great scholor Proff Dr Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi's great article.Thanks editor ! :)

--118.103.224.4 (talk) 11:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC) moved from talkpage on user's behalf by Yunshui 雲‍水 11:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sources cited don't demonstrate notability (none constitute significant coverage) and there doesn't seem to be anything better out there. Hut 8.5 11:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete

No deletion

You all are skilled editors.Never should delete a good article as Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi while you should always to improve twisted article,this skill is also known as editing and you know dear editing for wikipedia is not an easy job , u know :) Please improve and Bring to life Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi , a respectable teacher and senior citizen also! Thanks wiki editors :) --118.103.224.4 (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Sheela :)[reply]

The problem is that the subject doesn't satisfy our notability guidelines. This concern cannot be addressed through editing - if the subject isn't notable then no amount of editing will change that. Hut 8.5 15:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per notability and verifiability concerns. Also, the persistence and apparent desperation of the IP editor (who even hit the Deletion Policy talk page with a rant) strongly suggests a WP:COI/spam issue as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karachi-based IPs have spammed just about every page connected with this article; just take a look at the talkpage archive (or the talkpage history of any editor who's ever so much as added a semicolon to the article)... I'm assuming it's all the same guy, but I've never yet worked up the energy to put them all together in an SPI. Yunshui 雲‍水 22:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability issues-maybe a move to another Wikipedia would help abolish the notability concerns. Kevin12xd... | speak up | take a peek | email me 02:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I just performed a search for information on this author, in the Urdu language, which yielded a plethora of results. Because this author is notable, I would suggest we keep the article and add more reliable sources to support the statements within. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 00:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • while sources do not need to be in english, they DO need to be produced and not just be claimed to exist. can you point out these sources?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't speak Urdu, but a Google search for the Urdu name of the subject given in the article [19] doesn't look promising. There are only 40 hits, several of which are clearly unreliable forums, Facebook and Google Groups. There are also things like [20], which seems to be user-submitted content (and hence is unreliable), and [21], which briefly mentions his name in an article about a conference. Hut 8.5 14:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well he's not very quotable - [22]. I can see that there's one IP editor now spamming editors in panic, which doesn't suggest to me much in the way of validity. For notability reasons, it's a delete. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability cannot be established by all the embarrassing fawning that has landed on the article's talk pages, here, there and everywhere. I must be nuts to even post, because I absolutely do not want my talk page spammed. This frantic pleading for editors to improve the article is just misguided and desperate. Lost cause due to lack of proper sources. I'm sure he's deserving of this worship and adulation in certain circumstances, but we are an encyclopedia, not an iconic fan page. Fylbecatulous talk 18:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacking sources independent of the subject, as with any subject that is foreign based I would revise if we can show sources in that language that show the persons notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability unclear even after extensive discussion and ample opportunity.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note

As I stated above in my Keep comment. First my plan was the article to be deleted, and again created by me but I have changed my mind. My respective editors could not search the sources but I do. Here are the two good reliable sources 1 2 that have significant coverage about the subject and established the notability. I hope this helps and other issues of the article should be fairly discussded, not the idea of the someone's general conclusion.Merry Christmas to everyone.Thanks and cheers.Justice007 (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can't evaluate the first source as it's in Urdu and the format doesn't allow any sort of machine translation, but the second one appears to be some sort of promotional material for two of his books. Hut 8.5 21:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"some sort of promotional material"??.What do you mean?. We are looking forward subject's notability not the author's review, what he writes and how he writes, and there is no any promotional content is added in the article from the source. Urdu source can be accessed by editors who know the Urdu language. Please be fair and neutral.Justice007 (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand. If the source is promotional material for the subject's books then it isn't independent of the subject and doesn't establish notability. Nor am I criticising the other source for being in Urdu, I'm just noting that I can't evaluate it. Hut 8.5 23:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand very well, in the article just two words "brilliantly" and "great sensitivity" are mentioned, are those promotional?. In that subject of area it is very normal words to appreciate someone's literary work, while level of the government, children's books and its authors are not encouraged. From the whole short article, you have penetrated those two words as not independent source of the subject. Please you try to understand fairness and do not search the skin of the hair, it might be considered "not good faith"?.Justice007 (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first source cannot be translated, so can't be used as a source unless a true and accurate version can be provided in English. As Hut says, the second is a very, very glowing review about books, but nothing about the notability or importance of the person. Nothing in those sources helps the article. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe our sources are required to be in English. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that they can't be validated either. If the Urdu-only source is not reliable, how would anyone know? We would need it validated and confirmed. The language isn't a problem, the content may well be doktorb wordsdeeds 08:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IT transformation[edit]

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

WP:NEO. Only reference is one blog (which much of the article ripped from wholesale before it was cleaned up) and attempting to search for the term found merely some buzzword heavy IT consultant marketing sites and this: [23] lambasting it as unnecessarily jargon. Rushyo Talk 18:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is simply the sum of "IT" and "Transformation". There's isn't an encyclopedic topic here. --Michig (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 RT (TV network)#Programming. The nominator's position that there the subject does not meet WP:GNG has not been rebutted, nor have sufficient independent RS been added to call the claim into question. I'll leave a redirect behind to the TV network, however, as that way people can at least find the show's name Qwyrxian (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abby Martin[edit]

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

The A7 speedy deletion tag was removed with the claim that the rt.com source is a reliable source and therefore A7 does not apply. In actuality the rt.com site is the network's own site, meaning that the material on that webpage was placed there by her employer. This does not make her notable. Citation #8 and 9 are YouTube videos; the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name, and citation #10 is not about her at all. The stuff in the "Trivia" section is for the most part self-sourced to her own organisation's website MediaRoots.org. I think the article as it presently stands does not establish that the subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and have opened this AFD to get some opinions from people who are more experienced in this area. Thanks. Dianna (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • My research so far is putting this as a very borderline case. She's been discussed by middle east historian Juan Cole on his blog here. She was also involved in a kerfuffle with Senator Rand Paul in which she either "asked him tough questions" or "harassed him" depending on whom you believe, which led to his attempting to get her fired from Russia Today. This event was widely reported in the blogosphere back in July, but I've had a very difficult time sorting out if there are any reliable sources reporting on it. —Torchiest talkedits 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article should be deleted as not noteworthy enough per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Kierzek (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'the video at citation #11 does not mention her by name,'

The title is: 'WeAreChange confronts Rand Paul about how he tried to get Abby Martin of RT America and Mediaroots.org fired and stripped of her press credentials for asking him tough questions in the Capitol building.'

It features her confronting Paul and being interviewed about it.

I could offer a full-length version of the interview if it'd help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKXpzdFQ_I

'citation #10 is not about her at all.' It's (obviously) there to support the claim of Mitt Romney being an interventionist; which helps to explain the story.

Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

Comment: Our notability guideline for people calls for a person to have been the subject of multiple published reliable independent secondary sources. The sources must also be independent of the subject. Here's a link to the guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (people). If the most we can say about Martin is that Rand Paul tried to get her fired, she may only be only notable for that one event. There's more material on this at WP:1E. I am posting these links for Beingsshepherd's benefit since they are a new editor, but also to highlight that the subject of the article is not the source of commentary in multiple independent reliable sources, merely passing mentions, no in-depth coverage of her or her career. Thus she fails the notability criterion. -- Dianna (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beingsshepherd's reply

Ok, I think I can satisfy that: Infowars Nightly News: Thursday (6-7-12) – Abby Martin – planet.infowars.com/uncategorized/infowars-nightly-news-thursday-6-7-12-abby-martin infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used @ 1:02:54 & RT’s Abby Martin : Israel’s War on Truth By Debbie Menon on 11/23/2012 [24] ~ 'Sabbah Report is a certified ‘Google News’ source for news and Op-Ed' http://sabbah.biz/mt/about/ It continues to mystify me, as to why this RT presenter's page IS acceptable: Marina_Dzhashi

Beingsshepherd (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

  • Comment I've tidied the comments above, hope that's OK. I think Beingsshepherd has a point. Alyona Minkovski and the one-line Marina_Dzhashi both exist, so either being a presenter on Russia Today makes one notable, or all three should be deleted. COI: I helped the page creator clean up this article after its first creation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument to use in deletion discussions. If the other articles are no better, they can also be AFD'd. I personally don't think having a job on TV is enough to make one notable; it's not listed at the notability criterion, which calls for repeated in-depth coverage in reliable sources. -- Dianna (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beingsshepherd's reply

Dianna, this may sound impudent; but I disagree.

Before spending the time writing a Wiki article; I gauged what was seemingly acceptable, by looking at other pages. Perhaps my first 2 attempts failed to honour the letter of Wiki law; but I genuinely believed, both: that there would be no problem with a page dedicated to someone who hosts a half-hour television programme, internationally, several times a day, 5 days a week; and that my transgressions could be deemed beginner's mistakes - easily amended.

Presumably, the other RT presenter's articles passed through the same screening process, and were deemed legitimate?

If that's so; then I feel mislead and have had my time wasted.

Maybe you're all a bit jumpy over Wiki's recent 'Brett Straub' Leveson_Inquiry embarrassment. Beingsshepherd (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about; I don't actually follow the news and don't live in the United States. -- Dianna (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some clean-up on the article and gone over the citations individually to see what we've got.

  • citation #1, 15 - her own website
  • Citations #2, 3, 11, 13 - her employer's website
  • citations #4, 6, 7, 8, 9 - MediaRoots - Martin's own website
  • citation #5, 10 - Website of organisation on which she serves as board of directors

That leaves is with Citation #12 (Sabbah Report); #14 WeAreChange.org (Luke Rudowski's website); #16 - website of a book for which she did artwork. I commented out one citation, which is an interview of Martin on a show called Infowars Nightly News, which confirms she is in the media but does not back up any of the other content in the article. WP:SPIP calls for in-depth coverage by independent reliable sources; in other words, someone (other than the subject of the article and her employer) needs to find her notable enough to have written up detailed coverage of her life and career. There's no such coverage in this case. This means that it's almost impossible to get a neutrally-worded article; there simply isn't any neutral independent coverage on which to draw. Therefore it's still my opinion that the article should be deleted as the subject is not notable enough, as Wikipedia defines it, for an article at this time. -- Dianna (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Dianna's analysis of the given sources. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to RT (TV network). It doesn't look like there's enough for an article, but it's a possible search term, and there is the chance that it could be recreated somewhere down the line if more sources become available. —Torchiest talkedits 19:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knoxville Daily Sun[edit]

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

Non-notable online news source. Proving notability for a news source is difficult as there's no specific criteria for them and it can be difficult to find news publications about a news publication that are independent. I'll give it a shot anyway. Subject fails WP:GNG with no Google News search or Google News Archive search results (I excluded the website's publications from the search). The subject also fails WP:WEBSITE as I can't find that it has won any awards. I thought perhaps if it had been widely cited by other news sources that it could be considered notable but I can't find a single care where other news sources have cited KDS but I'm not sure that I was able to perform and adequate enough search to say with authority that it's never been cited. OlYeller21Talktome 17:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. I live in the Knoxville area, but I had never heard of this "newspaper" until seeing this AfD. From reading the article and looking at the online newspaper website, I determined that this "newspaper" is nothing more than a promotional website operated by a website development and marketing company in the area. (I was familiar with the name of the business, having seen some of their other websites.) On this page, the company appears to describe the site as a "web portal for a geographic area". Between OlYeller's searching and my insights, I think we can conclude that this is non-notable. Note: An earlier version of the article was speedy-deleted two years ago. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per OlYeller and Orlady - Orlady's argument in particular convinces me; some locally known subjects do not meet notability criteria, but a truly notable subject should be known locally, except if relates to a very specific interest. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 03:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Orlady. I think we should be generous in our consideration of the notability of media outlets, but under the most generous standards I still find no real indicia of notability, and Orlady's research bears that out. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, OlYeller and Orlady. If it had an actual paper edition I would reconsider. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commencement (unofficial)[edit]

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

Page has been previously been prodded. An 'unofficial' album, unable to find any coverage, consists of nothing but a track list and infobox. J04n(talk page) 12:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparent early version of an album that was re-worked and released three years later. Background for this "unofficial" album is provided in the Commencement (album) article; this version does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow delete. This was clearly going to be deleted, and in deciding to cut it short rather than waiting the full week I was swayed by the fact that the expression "Battle of Suran", other than on Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, seems to appear only in relation to games with a fictitious battle of that name, e.g. wikistates.outwardhosting.com/wiki/Hattem_Mutiny, www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/412/wikis/orcashir, z13.invisionfree.com/TiMorrowind/ar/t14.htm. It does not seem to be a recognised name for a real battle. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Suran[edit]

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

As with The Battle of Kesab (by the same author), this article provides no sources, and, more importantly, no evidence that this is considered by reliable sources to be a distinct, noteworthy battle per WP:EVENT. Just because fighting occurs in an area does not mean that we can ourselves declare it a distinct battle absent reliable sources. We need to wait and see if reliable sources discuss this before creating the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a primary source, so unless and until someone else calls it that, repeatedly, then we are contributing to the usage of the term, not documenting it. I couldn't find a single news source that uses that term for whatever is happening there. I won't even recommend a redirect to one of the Syrian Civil War articles because it's not even clear what's happening. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR at best. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a consensus to keep an article discussing the concept, although editors expressed profound misgivings over the state of the article. AfD can't resolve that. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heim theory[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Heim theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete by WP:POV, WP:RELIABLE/WP:NOTABLE. Seems to be written vainly (NO prejudice or offence - just WP:VANITY?). Maschen (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by WP:NOTABLE. Waleswatcher (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's initialism gibberish too. It doesn't even make grammatical sense. Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is referring to one single wiki policy by its full, linked name without using any acronyms at all "initialism gibberish"? Waleswatcher (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The page linked-to explains. Follow the link and read. That's why it's there. Also, try simply reading your rationale. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nomination was neither properly formatted nor logged in the daily AfD log. It's done, now. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was a notable theory. If it is no longer notable, it would be because of failed predictions — which might also be notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - can't say I understand much of the theory, but notability is not temporary. If it was notable, that's enough. The article could undoubtedly be clarified but it appears to be sufficiently referenced for deletion and notability not to be an issue.Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This project is Wikipedia, not wiki.
  • Comment How was this ever a notable theory? As far as I can tell it was never published in a peer-reviewed journal, a basic criterion that is satisfied by hundreds of thousands of scientific articles every year. Why should this have a wiki article, when the vast majority of those peer-reviewed papers don't? As a professional physicist, I get on average 1-2 emails regarding crackpot theories like this one every week. Does wiki need an article for each of those, too? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're making a fallacious argument based upon conflating notability and reliability. Notability is a function of how extensively documented something is outwith its creator/inventor/self. Things aren't notable because you get mail about them from their inventors. They haven't been independently documented for starters — something that is clearly explained on the page that you are waving around in the initialism gibberish. They are notable if the world independently and reliably documents them in depth, even if that documentation states them to be complete bilge-water. (In such case, we simply get an encyclopaedia article explaining how the subject is complete bilge-water.) Conveying human knowledge is what an encyclopaedia is about, and that includes human knowledge of crackpot theories, as long as said theories have been independently documented in depth by the world at large. So come back with the crackpot theories that you get mail about when you have independent in-depth documentation of them, from identifiable people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Come back, in other words, when you have (for example) the likes of Kelvin F. Long (founder of Project Icarus) writing about them in a book (as is the case for Heim theory — It's on page 295.). Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not "conflating notability and reliability". Reliability (of sources) is one of the basic criteria for notability, see WP:GNG. I don't consider the sources for this article reliable, at least not as sources for a scientific theory (and many of them are comments in internet fora, which aren't reliable for much of anything), nor does the theory have any enduring scientific value. So if we're going to keep it, it will be because it received attention, not because it was ever of any interest as science. That needs to be made very clear in the article. Waleswatcher (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You most definitely were erroneously conflating notability and reliability in the questions that you wrote above. Uncle G (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Every question I wrote above pertains precisely the issue of reliability of the sources used for Heim theory. So.... what are you talking about? I repeat - the sources used for Heim theory are plainly not reliable as sources for an article about science. Perhaps they are reliable as sources that attention was paid to this "theory" or to Heim himself at some point - but if that's the sole basis for notability, it needs to be made very clear in the article (assuming it's not deleted). Waleswatcher (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Science theories have science sources, but pseudoscientific theories will have pseudoscientific sources. Do we expect scientific sources about astrology? Apples and oranges, even if we're talking of an orange that wants to be an apple. --Cyclopiatalk 16:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a notable pseudo-scientific nonsense theory that has had wide exposure in the popular media. The only issue with this article is that it should be written to make it more explicit that it's pseudo-scientific bullshit. Whether we like it or not, Heim theory does exist out there, and Wikipedia should say something about that... Count Iblis (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable theory with RS. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge or redirect to Burkhard Heim. Heim theory can be properly described as fringe science, junk science, pseudoscience. Evidence for this claim is that it has minimal presence in the science citation indices despite having been around for a long time. However, I have sympathy for the views expressed by Count Iblis above. Normally I have no objection to articles on fringe science being in Wikipedia provided (a) that they are notable (b) They do not pass themselves off as mainstream science. However, the notability here appears to be only marginal. What is worse, to my perception, is the deceitful attempts of the article's proponents to pretend that the subject is, in fact, in the science mainstream. Edits of my own that it is not have been removed. The article, as it stands, deceives readers of Wikipedia by insisting on a greater mainstream significance for the theory than the science community grants. It should not be allowed to stand. The best solution may be to redirect to Burkhard Heim, there is adequate material on the theory there. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge and trim It appears to be, essentially, a one man theory. The claims to notability are tied in with the notability of Heim himself, and thus that is the logical place for the content to go, where a greater context can be given. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Do people know of any high quality, independent, secondary sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC
  • Merge and trim on second thought ... That way everyone should be happy that it gets included in WP. Maschen (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and prune I agree with that too, but it should be more than just a "trim". The gory details are not notable (and I doubt there are any secondary reliable sources for them). Waleswatcher (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heim Theory papers, or better extended heim theory papers are found in nasa ads [25], [26], [27]. Since years heim theory is discussed at American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Joint Propulsion Conferences, e.g.:[28] ,[29], [30], [31], [32]. So it was discussed at Staif and Spesif conferences in the past. there are American Institute of Physics conference proceedings where it can be found, like here& there. Its found in literature like the above mentioned book deep space propulsion and also in the aiaa publication by the former head of the nasa Breakthrough Propulsion Physics Program, see also [33]. npov rework and please Keep.--Gravitophoton (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is any single one of those peer-reviewed? If not, why do you think they are reliable sources for a supposed scientific theory? Waleswatcher (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wacky fringe/crackpot theory as it may be, it still is beyond notable as defined by WP:GNG. See also how it comes out in Gbooks: yes, most are UFO books or stuff, but still it's notable meaning it's mentioned and discussed by sources. Notable crackpottery is still notable: astrology, homeopathy etc. are notable for the same reasons. The article should make clear that it is fringe science, and this is a serious issue: but this can be dealt by editing, so it's not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, as far as I can tell from what we have, it's not crackpot. [begin OR] Heim apparently didn't know enough of the difference calculus to know that his results couldn't be right. [end OR] I haven't read his (non-peer-reviewed) papers in the orginal German to confirm whether he made serious mistakes in his analysis, although one of our sources seems to note that there are enough parameters in his theory to match his theoretical particle masses to the observed masses. However, some of the papers about his theory seem to have been published in peer-reviewed journals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment,I('ve already said that I'm in favor of keeping above). I'm for improving the article to give it more of the perspective from modern physics, which would allow one to say that the theory is considered as a crackpot theory more easily than when you merge it in Burkhard Heim's article. The BLP policy has been expanded so much that it also applies to recently deceased persons; it is then much more difficult to say that what a person has worked for a long time is rubbish without some direct quotes which you won't be able to find. Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have already tried "to say that the theory is considered as a crackpot theory" [34] but have been reverted by the crank cabal. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
While I appreciate the spirit of the edit, the edit itself is WP:OR: it's your own deduction from a search engine result. Unfortunately, if the theory is simply not challenged by scientists, then it's the sad situation of proving a negative. Don't know how other equivalent articles solved this, if they did. --Cyclopiatalk 00:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absence from citation databases is objective evidence that a topic has been ignored by mainstream science. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I agree. But it's still primary research, WP:OR. After all, lots of papers rest poorly cited but this doesn't mean they're crackpot science. I understand the temptation to ignore all rules is strong, and it makes a lot of sense. But you put yourself on thin ice if you don't have a strong consensus behind you. --Cyclopiatalk 00:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What here is primary research? Citation databases are among the most reliable secondary sources it is possible to get. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
The number of citations given by a citation database is a primary source for that number, and the deduction of the impact from that number is your own original opinion/deduction on the meaning of that number. It doesn't matter how plausible is the deduction: after all, we also don't allow original theorems here, no matter how rock-solid is their logic and correct their conclusion. --Cyclopiatalk 01:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is preposterous to claim that absence from citation databases does not show that a work has made no impact on mainstream science. An exercise in pseudologic in defence of pseudoscience. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I am not defending pseudoscience, please don't accuse me of that: as a scientist myself, I take it a serious attack. What I am saying is just that, on Wikipedia, we have policies that don't let us use that kind of personal research to support a claim. If you want to change that, discuss on WT:OR about it. I've never said that it does not show that. It does, absolutely. But it's not the point. --Cyclopiatalk 23:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding it difficult to pin down exactly what point you are making. Do you assert that it is not true that "absence from citation databases shows that a work has made no impact on mainstream science". If so, most mainstream scientists will disagree with you. You may care to review Wikipedia:Scientific consensus Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I must have a mysterious talent in not being able to make myself clear.
"Do you assert that it is not true that "absence from citation databases shows that a work has made no impact on mainstream science". - No, I don't assert that. In fact, I said above I perfectly agree with your point. What you did is logically and conceptually sound. But to link a citation database search to support that assertion is original research. The problem is not the validity of the conclusion -it is valid, and I agree with that. The problem is completely internal to WP policies. Specifically, it's that such a search and the deduction is your own personal conclusion, and as such it is not usable for an article. That's what WP:OR and WP:SYNTH rules against. We need secondary sources to support assertions, not editors' own personal research, even if the deduction is apparently (and even patently) obvious. Look at the examples in WP:SYNTH to understand. --Cyclopiatalk 13:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that we agree on the substantive issue - that the mainstream scientific community has not found it to be worth its while to pay any attention to Heim theory. Your notion that the citation databases are primary sources is way outside consensus. The primary sources are the published research papers. The citations to them, which confer notability upon the authors and topics, are the secondary sources. The citation databases, which are compilations of the secondary sources, are tertiary sources. The citation databases have been used for many years as a tool to assess the notability of academic BLPs under WP:Prof#C1 where there is discussion of their use. Common sense and Wikipedia policy coincide. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
No, the citation database is not a tertiary source: it is a collection of many secondary sources. A citation count is a database lookup on this collection, it is the output of a computer program: as such, it is a primary source. Yes, we use it for internal assessment of notability under WP:Prof#C1, but that's only our internal thing. But this is not the point. The point is that regardless of the source of the number of citation, the deduction that it means it had no weight on the community is synthesis. Again, look at the examples there. No matter how sound and obvious the inference can be, it is still original synthesis. It's a reasoning you did on that number, not a reasoning a source did on that number. In other words, it came out of your brain. --Cyclopiatalk 16:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research defines tertiary sources as Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources and holds that tertiary sources can be helpful .... in evaluating due weight. The latter policy article contains much of relevance to WP:fringe theories, which we are dealing with here.Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
It looks like you're a bit confused. WP:UNDUE has to do with the balance of content within an article, not with existence or less of articles, so it's quite useless here. Besides, this still doesn't change the fact that 1)the output of a software that uses a tertiary source as input is not a tertiary source 2)regardless, writing your own deduction from such output is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. --Cyclopiatalk 09:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly, this theory has received plenty of attention, even after Mr. Heim died. The lack of citations seems to be deliberate secrecy on his part, rather than proof that other scientists disagreed with him.  The Steve  22:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why there should have been any secrecy. Heim's work has been publicly available since the early 1980s. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep or merge with author’s article; even if it lacks peer-reviewed citations (pro or con), it seems to have adequate pop- and pseudo-science notability.
I would also like to point out this is the third nomination for deletion (the previous ones were in ’06 & ’07—see the infobox): could someone please rename this page accordingly?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I considered doing it when I first noticed the AfD. Now, though, perhaps we should wait until it closes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but stubbify and rewrite Although "Heim's theory" (of a different Heim) in linguistics will generate more hits in a google search, this rejected theory of everything deserves a short stub which makes it clear that the theory has not been accepted. At present the article is very poorly written with misleading unwarranted tables and obvious failings even in the lede. Reducing it to a stub with a prominent section on criticisms would solve those problems. A similar failed theory of everything is ECE theory. Mathsci (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above would be a good move too. My objection to the article, which I have expressed several times before, is that its proponents refused to let stand any criticism à la due weight. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, stubify, and rewrite per Mathscis compelling argument above. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tedious comment. Since there has been substantial coverage from multiple independent sources, I think that Heim theory passes the GNG. However, notability is not the only reason we might delete an article. This article does have serious problems. The usual issue with fringe theories which arrive at AfD is that they're fairly low on the notability scale so all the sources are written from the same fringe perspective and few in the mainstream have bothered discussing it, making it very hard to write a neutral article due to the imbalance of sources; this is hardly some article about unicorn-healing or atlantis, but it has a related problem. If we don't delete it, then somebody really has to take an axe to the content; what remains should be reframed from a mainstream perspective. bobrayner (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree the article has serious FRINGE/NPOV problems. But you are asking for cleanup, and AfD is not cleanup: if an article has problems that can be dealt with editing, our deletion policy asks us to edit, not delete. --Cyclopiatalk 15:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pressing the delete button certainly is an effective way of getting rid of problematic fringe/npov content; I think it would be unhelpful to adopt a blanket rule against deleting articles which are full of it. (But in this case, I'm on the fence). bobrayner (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Pressing the delete button certainly is an effective way of getting rid of problematic fringe/npov content" - Yes, it is. But one that our policies and guidelines ask us not to use. If you can solve a problem by editing, this is not a reason to delete, per our deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our deletion policy does not quite take such a hard line against deletion; the bulleted list (reasons for deletion) in the first section of Wikipedia:Deletion policy is actually quite broad. Of course, it goes on to say "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion" but that is a should rather than a must; and if regular editing has already been tried and failed, that doesn't mean we must always keep on trying it and failing, when there's an easier alternative which is guaranteed to get rid of the problematic content.
The word "Can" covers a surprisingly wide range. Practically all content problems "can", in principle, be fixed by editing rather than deletion, but some problems only need a ten-second edit whilst other problems have persisted for years. One example that springs to mind is an article which has been broken since 2004; it got AfD'd in 2006, where some editors said content should be fixed rather than deleted; the article was kept and none of those editors actually did any fixing; by 2010 the list was in an even worse state, so it was taken to AfD again; more editors said the content should be fixed rather than deleted; none of those editors actually fixed the content; right now we still have the article, it's still a disgrace, nobody has succeeded in fixing it since 2004, but it's undeletable because somebody will always argue that the content "can" be fixed through normal editing. For certain values of "can". In fact, this article on Heim Theory is making its third appearance at AfD, various competent editors have come and gone over the years, help has been requested at ANI (repeatedly) and at the fringe theories noticeboard; if normal editing has persistently failed to solve a problem, I would find it hard to say - with a straight face - that normal editing is a perfect panacea, removing any need to consider deletion. bobrayner (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you feel we have a deadline, but we have none, on Wikipedia. Personally I think it's up to the editors complaining of problems with the article to go fixing them, instead of trying to have it the easy way, getting them deleted, but I understand YMMV. Still, the point is that it can be fixed, not that it has to be fixed here-and-now. This is a collaborative project of volunteers: if an otherwise notable and germane topic can be improved, we should let people the possibility to do that.--Cyclopiatalk 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misrepresent me. Of course we don't have an absolute deadline; but that is no excuse for leaving crappy content in article-space indefinitely, when we have a tool to hand which can fix it now. Usually, normal editing fixes content problems; but if normal editing has been tried - and failed - repeatedly then there's an easier and more effective alternative. bobrayner (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that in my opinion (and most importantly also according to policies) the fix is worse than the problem. --Cyclopiatalk 13:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This was closed as "no consensus" by a non-admin, but I believe that (1) this is too controversial to be a good candidate for non-admin closure, and (2) since discussion appears to be ongoing, a relist is a better option. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hope the closing admin will be aware of the important policy issue involved in this AfD. This is the balance between mainstream science and fringe science in Wikipedia. In surveying the discussion to date I find that a consensus of a sort has emerged. Most the contributing editors who have a track record of making responsible edits to science articles agree that a) Heim theory falls into the category of fringe science, although it has had some general notability in the past, and b) the present state of the article is unsatisfactory and may be a discredit to Wikipedia. What is not agreed upon is what action to take about it. Suggestions made are delete, redirect, merge or stubbify. I am happy with any of these but have a slight preference for merge as in this particular case it has so far proved impossible to improve the article by editing because of the conduct of its proponents, as explained by user: bobrayner and myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sorry but I see no policy issue here about the balance between mainstream science and fringe science. Crackpottery, no matter how ridicolous, is no different from other manifestations of human culture, and as such if it is notable crackpottery, it deserves an article. That's it. All what we have to be sure is that we represent it as what it is really, and not as something it wants to be. Now, about Heim theory: It is crackpottery, sure, but it is notable crackpottery, and that's why a stand-alone article makes sense. Now, if the conduct of some editors is making it hard to have a neutral and reasonable article, we have to deal with them, not attempt to remove notable information from the encyclopedia. I'm more than happy to help about that, but this is an entirely different issue. --Cyclopiatalk 12:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case you should have no objection to the stubbify option. I hope you would be prepared to watch the article to see that it does not revert to the fringe bloat of the present version. On the other hand, Heim theory is not among Wikipedia's most important articles, and if it were to be deleted because agreement cannot be reached on how to keep it, there would be minimal loss to Wikipedia because there is already much material about it on Burkhard Heim (which itself suffers from fringe bloat). Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
I've put the article in my watchlist. I have no real objection to stubbifying apart from the fact that we would possibly remove sourced information. I think -and it seems here almost everybody agrees- the problem with the article is that the presentation of the content is horribly failing WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. But this doesn't mean we have to slash the information. As for the "most important articles", well, I like to think that every article has the same importance: or, more precisely, that importance is a subjective term -what is important to me can be irrelevant to someone else, and v/v. --Cyclopiatalk 13:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this paper Yoshinari Minami, et al. Field propulsion systems for space travel [35] mentioned extended heim theory as a possible method for a field propulsion system. possible no advanced space propulsion concept of Breakthrough Propulsion Physics is above Technology readiness level 1. We should leave the article, improve it if possible, and wait. --Advanceddeepspacepropeller (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)— Advanceddeepspacepropeller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
That's from a symposium. Any "peer review" (or even editorial review) is that the author is "notable" (not even "reliable", by their standards). Nice try, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it shows that it is discussed at notable propulsion conferences; although parts of the theoretical approach may be defined, the theory is Not yet rigorously articulated and needs further investigation and an article. [36] see Table 1: Examples of Concepts Toward Breakthrough Propulsion and Power] p.5,.--Advanceddeepspacepropeller (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, merge, redirect, or stubbify. Anything, really, but the article as it stands is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and the normal editing process has had no success in bringing it into line with Heim Theory's actual relationship to mainstream science. If this article continues to exist, I expect that its final form ought to be a very short description of the theory's brief flash of public attention and a very brief explanation of its many disagreements with actual scientific observations and confirmed theories. Given that, I do question notability overall, since this theory had only a moment's broad attention and that was years ago (and more than it deserves), but others know better than I do what Wikipedia's precise standards for such things is. (At a bare minimum, I'd say that the actual mechanics and "mathematics" of the theory are not notable by any standard: its public attention had nothing to do with how it actually purports to work.) My last real involvement with this article was half a dozen years ago, and at that time it was simply impossible to find enough mainstream scientists to take an interest in this fringe topic to overcome the dedication of Heim Theory's handful of devoted fans. From the look of it, that hasn't changed. (That makes me dubious about the stubbify option, to be honest, but if some admins keep an eye on the article after that it could work out. For that matter, merging or redirecting to the Burkhard Heim article has issues, too, because it is just as minimally notable and fringe-filled. What has worked for other similar topics in the past?)--Steuard (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What has worked for other similar topics in the past? Hard to say. This is the worst case I have come across due to the uncompromising conduct of its proponents. An editor above drew attention to ECE theory which has been dealt with rather well. However, it started out as (incorrect) mainstream work and is not supported by a cabal so in those respects it was easier to deal with. The article contains the phrase "Evans' claims are not accepted by the mainstream physics community". I have tried to insert a similar comment in Heim theory and An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything but have been reverted by proponents. The latter article also started out as incorrect mainstream work published in a refereed journal but has acquired a fringe following. It may need attention in the future. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep The subject seems to be notable, but I am not sure if this notability comes from itself, or from its creator, Heim. Both ways, I'd recommend keepinf the article and rewrite it to fit encyclopedic standards. I may revisist this later. — ΛΧΣ21 06:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point has been made by several editors that there have already been attempts to rewrite the article to to fit encyclopedic standards. They have failed because of the resistance of the article's fringe supporters. These editors argue that rather have an unencyclopedic article on Wikipedia it would be better to have no article at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I think this may well pass WP:GNG but that should not be the only consideration. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV we need substantive coverage in mainstream sources, describing how this theory differs from the mainstream and why it is not accepted by mainstream physicists. Currently we only have one such source, of marginal reliability, a website maintained by a physicist (reference 31 of the current version); I don't think that's enough. In addition, the proponents of the theory have trimmed back the criticism to make it look ridiculous (It hasn't been peer-reviewed? That's very far from the main point of the criticism.) rather than allowing it to be presented neutrally. I searched Google scholar for more and better mainstream sources but didn't find anything that looked usable. In the absence of enough coverage to make a properly neutral treatment of the subject, and with a significant past history of non-neutrality, I think the best option is deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are indeed considerations within Wikipedia policy that permit deletion of fringe science with essentially no mainstream scientific engagement (as opposed to a bit of popular press attention or interest from people in unrelated fields), then I'd be delighted to change my vote to delete rather than the range of options that I said were acceptable to me above. I'll leave that subtle policy decision to others more expert than I.--Steuard (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The attention from mainstream science is virtually non-exitent and taking Wikipedia:Fringe theories as a guide in dealing with issues like this one, deletion is what I suggest. Hekerui (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete WP:UNDUE, second paragraph: "However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." There's so little information on the mainstream scientific response to this theory that it fails neutrality. Unless additional information on the mainstream science community's response can be sourced promptly, the article should be deleted. —Darkwind (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow delete This was clearly going to be a "delete", and the author's removing of all content has meant that there is no need to wait the week out. ("Battle of Kesab" does not seem to be recorded anywhere except Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Kesab[edit]

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

Just because there is fighting going on somewhere does not suddenly mean there is a "Battle of X". Furthermore, the article indicates the alleged battle started today. Wikipedia is not a news source. Especially given the fact that info coming out of Syria is spotty at best, we're certainly not going to be able to get enough reliable sources to create this now. In a few weeks, if news sources have labelled this a distinct "battle" and have discussed it repeatedly such that it passes WP:EVENT, then the article can be created. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a primary source, so unless and until someone else calls it that, repeatedly, then we are contributing to the usage of the term, not documenting it. I couldn't find a single news source that uses that term for whatever is happening there. I won't even recommend a redirect to one of the Syrian Civil War articles because it's not even clear what's happening. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:OR at best. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator just put this on the talk page: "I am the author of the of article and I live in syria. I think I know what is going on and the news will tell in a few days. I just want to tell you there probably won't be sources of this on google, or the news because it's just a little battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Ethan1012 (talk • contribs) ", which for me, is basically a clear statement that the subject isn't notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a small ongoing skirmish, not a full-fledged battle, with around 130 combatants. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the article creator has blanked the page, so I've tagged it WP:CSD#G7. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kludgeocracy[edit]

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

A neologism that was first used only 2 weeks ago. It hasn't been used widely and it is therefore too soon for us to have an article about it. SmartSE (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The term, even though it's relatively new, has received sufficiently wide coverage within the relevant field. --Xerographica (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? Where? I couldn't find anything. Where are the political scientists who have taken this concept on board in political science journals and books? Where is any newspaper usage other than the small flurry of reports of the original paper around 2012-12-11 (and the opinion piece of the Al-Jazeera journalist who was a week late because of xyr fortnightly schedule)? Uncle G (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • People far more notable than any of us...David Frum, Tyler Cowen, David Weigel, Harold Pollack, Reihan Salam, Kevin Drum...have determined that this concept is notable enough for them to discuss. If it's notable enough for notable people to discuss...then it's notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. --Xerographica (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I notice that you're not answering the simple questions posed. Dodging the question is not a good sign. Perhaps you'd like to try again. Where are the political scientists who have taken this concept on board in political science journals and books? Where is any newspaper usage other than the small flurry of reports of the original paper around 2012-12-11? Uncle G (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, and how come the president hasn't said anything about the concept? Hold on...let me call and ask him. Again, more than enough notable people have indicated that this concept is notable. Obviously you're welcome to disagree...just like you're welcome to draw your own conclusions regarding why political scientists haven't dropped whatever projects they're currently working on. But I don't think we're doing the readers any favors by disregarding what notable people have indicated is notable. --Xerographica (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, the neologism itself doesn't seem to be sufficiently widespread. I'd expect to see a lot more than a few blog entries and news articles that quote the author. A neologism has to have a life of its own. Second, the author is not sufficiently notable, so there is no redirect target. Because that would be perfect. Perhaps this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, and the author will become notable and get his own article and then this will be a redirect to a section that discusses his successfully published work and everyone will win. Not right now. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice - as non-notable neologism. If this really is the "next big thing", then an article with better sources which is not a shameless plagiarism of the original paper can be created. There is no deadline we have to meet in order to prove we're hip to the latest meme. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides the short life so far of this neologism, everything after the first, defining sentence is a unmitigatable editorial. Mangoe (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism, notability issues, reliable sources issues, the term itself is not distinguishable from the essay it refers to in so-called sources, which are all about the essay, not the word. Bogus. JoshuSasori (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism --Nouniquenames 01:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – The term Kludge (hasn't anyone noticed?) has been in Wikipedia for 10 years. Incorporate kludgeocracy into that article as spinoff of the term.--S. Rich (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO; created by an editor known for creating "economic" and "political" articles from one quote, or containing only a selection of quotes. I suspect the Wikilinks "to" this article, which might otherwise give an indication of relevance, were all created by this same edtior. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: A7 ... discospinster talk 01:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teenagers Vs. The Horde[edit]

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

Unremarkable TV show. Unsourced, fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES. Simply not notable. Mediran (t • c) 00:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. It's quite obvious that it was created by the owner(s) of the YouTube channel. Statυs (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No argument advanced that the artist meets WP:BASIC or other critieria. (That a reliable source indicated by the nominator is a deadlink is not by itself a concern with regard to policy, but the lack of a second reliable source does speak to WP:GNG.) j⚛e deckertalk 19:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G o 2[edit]

G o 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A topic about a Christian hip hop performer and psalmist that appears to fail WP:N and WP:BASIC. After several searches in GNews archives and GBooks, not finding any coverage. The only independent reliable source, already in the article, is a dead link. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which dead link is the reliable source? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/good_day_atl/Go2_Puts_Out_Positive_Message_081809 (Fox news). Northamerica1000(talk) 03:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails general notability. Statυs (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is a pretty hard name to search for using Google, but in the absence of reliable sources and without being able to find them, I think it should be deleted. JoshuSasori (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 end of year rugby union tests[edit]

2013 end of year rugby union tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed Prod. Unable to find sources to establish notability. Nouniquenames 15:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 00:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Why has the article been nominated for deletetion when fixtures are getting announced? Rugby.change (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Revolutions[edit]

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

This topic about a band from Cardiff, Wales appears to fail WP:N and WP:BAND. Several searches are not yielding coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tunguska Event (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails general notability. Statυs (talk) 00:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both I am not seeing anything beyond minor, routine local coverage for both of them. Both fail WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacky[edit]

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

This topic about an Estonian musical group appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Custom searches in Google Books and News archives has only yielded this single passing mention: [37]. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm from Estonia and I can confirm the band is well-known. As the article notes, the lead singer has won a notable music award in Estonia. User332572385 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then please show where this knowledge has been recorded. Point to where the history, composition, and work of this group has been written up and published by independent people with identifiable good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are literally no sources found to demonstrate notability. I didn't even find a facebook fan page, which isn't good for notability, but tells me that future sourcing is also highly unlikely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails general notability. Statυs (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps it's the language barrier, but I am not seeing anything that could get this past WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cisco Systems. Deletion was requested because the article fails WP:N, a complaint no one refuted. Any substantive merger would be a horrible UNDUE problem there (as noted). The creation of a "product line" article might be possible, but really shouldn't be done unless it can attirbuted substantially to secondary sources. While it's true that daughter articles can get a bit of a break on WP:N with respect to the subject being the focus of the article, and how in depth the coverage is, the principle of not just parroting Cisco wholesale cannot be abandoned. WilyD 12:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco 7600[edit]

Cisco 7600 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod of an article written like a spec sheet or ad with no reliable sources. Having difficulty finding support for GNG claim Nouniquenames 04:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & merge to an article about this product line, but keep the basic . Anyone urging an outright delete, should explain why a merge isn't suitable, because according to WP:Deletion Policy, merges are preferred to deletions. In any case, WP should contain an article about every major product line from a major company, though not a full article about every individual project. Some earlier merges of similar products reduced the content to a single line giving the name of the product in the main article. Those are destructive merge, and all such sections need to be expanded. A single article about such a company and all its products is absurd undercoverage DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources don't exist, deletion, not merging, would be the most logical outcome. "Destructive merging" would be the next logical step. --Nouniquenames 11:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The company's own source is reliable for routine description of uncontroversial features of a product. Usually, in fact, it's the best source for standards features. Obviously a third party source is needed for judgements, such as "this is a major development in the field", but the article has none of these. But for description, this is especially true for a company producing materials for a technical market--they normally have no need to hype their products, for their potential customers know enough to tell. Therefore in general the specification sheets and similar technical information is reliable, not just for the product, but sometimes for the industry in general. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's routine and uncontroversial, why would it be notable for an article? What would the claim to notability be for a list of such products? Passing mention (a "destructive merge," that is) might perhaps be arguable. --Nouniquenames 00:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the proposed merge destination? -—Kvng 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect into parent article and merge any unique content. As someone may use the search term an the parent is obviously notable and has a great variety of products, this is the logical solution. Redirects are also cheap. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the parent article? -—Kvng 16:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should I assume this is a rhetorical question? Either the parent company or per DGG's idea of creating an article to house all the products, as it is arguable that the product line is notable even if each individual product isn't. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not rhetorical. Perhaps I did not read the discussion here carefully enough but when someone proposes a merge I expect to see a wikilink. Cisco 7600 describes a product line so a proposal to merge it into an article describing a product line does not make sense. A merge into Cisco Systems would create an WP:UNDUE issue. -—Kvng 03:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear, which would be my fault: either redirect somewhere, or follow DGGs advice, but I wouldn't leave it as a stand alone article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see a good case for delete or merge. We need to keep until there is consensus to delete. I know it is bad form not to make a case for keep and I apologize that I don't have time to do that now. -—Kvng 04:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick look at Google Scholar reveals many references to this. WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD you should do some thorough research. AfD is not a replacement for editing nor should it be used to force people to improve an article. Mike (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google Scholar references lots of things that don't establish notability and are not reliable. The fact that there are WP:LOTSOFSOURCES isn't relevant, we need to know what these sources are and why they establish notability reliably. -Rushyo Talk 18:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before nominating, I found only things that don't count as sources. AGF, please. --Nouniquenames 20:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not even assert notability. Hekerui (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We do not seem to have consensus and there's no point in a 4th relisting DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Valley Park[edit]

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

This topic about a business park may be failing WP:N. Google Books only provides passing mentions ([38]), and Google News archive is providing similar results. There are some sources from PropertyWeek.com, (such as [39], [40], [41]), which requires registration to view, but it's unclear if this can be considered as a truly reliable source. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Firstly, the PropertyWeek articles that the nom linked previews to (here's another - [42]) do seem in themselves to establish notability. It would be a stretch to assume that this development received only a "passing mention" in them. WP:N makes it clear sources are not required to be available online. Also additional sources have given significant coverage to this development, even a foreign one.[43][44] --Oakshade (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi User:Oakshade. I stated that GBooks and GNews archives only provided passing mentions, sans/separate from the PropertyWeek.com articles, which I don't have access to. Again, it's unclear if PropertyWeek.com is a truly reliable source. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I appreciate your provision of the two new sources in your !vote above, and I am considering possible withdrawal of the nomination. However, I'd prefer to wait for other editors to opine for now. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Unless this can be expanded to provide significnat coverage that shows notability, it looks to me like a NN industrial estate, perhaps commercial. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AFD only requires the existence of significant coverage, not that they must be in the article. WP:AFD states, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."--Oakshade (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No argument was made for keeping the article, the only suggestion that even a redirect was appropriate was withdrawn. j⚛e deckertalk 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rikochet (video game)[edit]

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

The name of the game was changed to Rekoil and we have an article there for it. The name is not a useful redirect. Odie5533 (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rekoil, as Rikochet was the working title for more than two years, and it would be reasonable to expect it to be used as a search term. —Torchiest talkedits 13:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot to reply to this earlier. That's good reasoning, and I agree. Changing to delete. —Torchiest talkedits 14:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As Odie says, "Rikochet" is a plausible search term, but "Rikochet (video game)" isn't. DoctorKubla (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under WP:CSD#G7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure of deleted article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Brennan[edit]

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

Wholly negative BLP about a lawyer/anti-LGBT activist. Apparently known for protesting LGBT-related legislation, and not much else. I can find no news hits whatsoever, and I stopped looking for sources other than blogs six pages into a Google search for "Cathy|Bugs Brennan". I do not believe this person meets WP:GNG §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiousoranj (talk • contribs) 00:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC) — Curiousoranj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think the subject is notable. The article already contains links to two different news articles (not blogs) that prominently feature Cathy Brennan. I think that's pretty good for its first day online. Also, I don't think this BLP is "wholly negative." It mentions the fact that Brennan helped pass a 2001 law outlawing discrimination in Maryland on the basis of sexual orientation, which many people I think would feel is a positive thing. Also, it contains quotes from Brennan articulating what she believes, things she stands behind. Some of her ideas are "extreme" so it may seem like they are being portrayed "negatively," but I think they are an accurate representation of her central ideas, in her own words. Rebecca (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's Rebecca again, the initial creator of this article. I reflected on the issue of deleting this article a little more. A thorough search actually reveals that the two news stories I used to source much of this article are the only two journalistic sources that apparently exist on the topic of Cathy Brennan. I guess a person who truly met Wikipedia's standards for notability would have more news articles about her. So Brennan is apparently less well known than I thought she was. Also, though I tried to write the article without bias, I probably should not wave away the fact that another editor found this article to be "wholly negative." I don't want to there to be a wholly negative article about a living person, and I'm not sure how the article could be re-written to correct for that. In light of these new reflections, I'm having second thoughts about the wisdom of having written this article in the first place, and I have changed my mind and now support its deletion. Rebecca (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Being the bogeyman of internet trans women with way too much time on their hands does not entitle one to a Wikipedia article. 3hunna (talk) 09:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant "bogeyperson." Rebecca (talk) 10:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the article has now been requested for speedy deletion G7 by the creator. Begonia Brandbygeana (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Troemel[edit]

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

Completing nomination for an anonymous editor. Their rationale, posted on the article's talk page, is below. The IP editor nominating the article also removed a lot of its bulk, including many references (some clearly flawed, others less so) - the version before their edits is here. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References are both Rhizome articles by same author. Multiple secondary sources from separate established publications are required to establish notability as noted in the notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.70.52 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 December 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I've never said that before. Multiple sources found on google: Oyster Magazine: [45], Huffington Post:[46], Artfagcity: [47], Paper Mag: [48]. I'm suspect of the IP editor's motivations in this case. Deleted a lot of innocuous content for a clearly notable subject.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have reverted all of the recent edits by the IP user as vandalism. Additional such edits will result in semi protection (no IP editors)--Nixie9 (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Those IP's edits are certainly strange, and some of the references in the bio seem to be suspect, and maybe I'm not exactly an expert on the topic, but some Google massaging seems to indicate a lot of non-routine, non-trivial coverage of this person. Perhaps it needs the attention of an expert (other than the subject himself) to be better sourced. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mazars#Management. No evidence of independent notability j⚛e deckertalk 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Verity[edit]

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

I declined a A7 speedy on this because there is one (barely) reliable source about him, but that's not really enough for him to be notable, and there don't appear to be any other suitable sources that mention him anywhere. We're left with a fairly insignificant CEO of a fairly insignificant company. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete we do have an article on the chairman of the same company, Patrick de Cambourg, who seems notable. I'm not quite sure we need a microstub for the deputy CEO though, considering the sourcing looks poor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mazars#Management - After multiple searches, I have only found three results here (provides a little bit of information about him), here (mentions his new position) and here (brief mentions). Although it seems he has worked with Mazars for several years and has a significant role there, I don't think there is enough for an article yet. SwisterTwister talk 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect Mazars appears to be a 13000 member international accountancy firm. As such I would ahve expected its executives ("managing partners") to be at least on the firnges of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mazars#Management. He needs independent notability, it is not transferred from Mazars (although that fact may form part of the justification for an article, it's not nearly sufficient for WP:N). In addition WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a legit argument. -Rushyo Talk 18:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still support Rushyo and others' proposal. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://santamariatimes.com/news/local/cowboys-in-the-pink-to-start-latest-rancheros-ride/article_12a6c194-9744-11e1-a16c-001a4bcf887a.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_December_21&oldid=1142635657"