Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 June 12 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before You Exit[edit]

Before You Exit (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND —Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 23:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP: BAND. Small, un-notable band. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are not such a "small" band. They have already released two EPs and have toured with bands such as All Time Low, A Rocket to the Moon, and Allstar Weekend. Their fanbase is large and continues to expand. Page author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BYEsarah (talk • contribs) 00:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — BYEsarah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This band has more than 85,000 likes on Facebook, almost 40,000 Twitter followers, and many views on their Youtube covers, including more than 4,000,000 views on their cover of One Direction's "What Makes You Beautiful." They have released 2 EPs, have toured with huge bands such as All Time Low, and they have worked with renowned artists like Patrick Stump of Fall Out Boy and Alex Gaskarth of All Time Low on their upcoming album. They're far from a "small, un-notable band." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.19.74 (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — 173.67.19.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    A lot of small bands have had minor collaboration with notable artist; that doesn't mean that the band is notable by association. Someone could be a famous person's spouse, but if there is a deficiency of reliable sources to assert their notability, then they don't deserve an article devoted to their life. That doesn't preclude them from being included in the notable subject's article. If we could find reliable sources to support the assertion that Before You Exit has toured with All Time Low, then we could choose to include the aforementioned information on All Time Low's article.—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 13:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I combed through pages of Ghits and found nothing that qualified under criterion #1 of WP:BAND, although there were a couple of very brief interview bits including one in Seventeen magazine (doesn't qualify under #1 as it's the band talking about itself). I could see no other criterion that potentially applied except #5 and, to the best of my knowledge, under #5, they release their own music through iTunes. This group may become more notable in the future but there's not enough in the way of reliable sources yet. Ubelowme (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This appears to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. They appear to have self-released songs on iTunes, and do not have any significant reliable source coverage. They do have a lot of views of their videos on youtube, but unless that is reported in a reliable secondary source it isn't notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to second what User:ConcernedVancouverite said; I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. While Before You Exit appear to be gaining popularity, they're not popular enough (i.e. WP:NBAND) to warrant their own page just yet. It also bears noting that—at the time I posted my vote—the only two "keep" votes were made by accounts flagged as "single-purpose accounts". —Schaea (talk) 08:48, 18 June 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, WP:NSPORTS demonstrated. j⚛e deckertalk 21:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Mirza[edit]

Farhan Mirza (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 citations (PROD removed), as well as a lack of general notability. Mifter (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete There's no specific notability requirements for snooker, so the only notability principles are the general ones from WP:NSPORTS (1) "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" and (2) detailed non-routine coverage in multiple sources. He doesn't seem to have ever reached the final stages of the World Snooker Championship in Sheffield, UK Championship (snooker) or Masters (snooker), which are the biggest tournaments. Most of the sources I can find are rather brief[1][2][3][4][5][6] but it's possible there are non-English-language sources. Since I can't say he's notable, I have to say delete. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While it does sound notable, I can't find ANY references. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete I can see that this article was tagged for WP:BLPPROD, but I can't see any source, which is needed to be added before removing a BLPPROD tag. I can't say that he is not notable, but there is hardly any reliable source about him. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:30, 18 June 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of deletion requests outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Red Screen of Death[edit]

Red Screen of Death (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)

First and foremost, this article has no sources whatsoever. And never had much of them, and do not get me started on their quality. Originally describing a beta-build curiosity absent from the actual release of Windows Vista, it now lists random error screens of various devices, neither of which seems to be inspired by any of the others; the only shared attribute is the background colour. The only reliable coverage of these phenomena I can imagine would be an internal developer's manual, or just user's manual - but the former is not always available (or existent) and the latter will probably just say something along the lines of "contact technical support".

In short, WP:NN. Keφr (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- working on it.Greg Heffley 22:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic is meeting WP:GNG:

Comment: This was previously kept at a 2005 AfD see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red screen of death.--Milowent • hasspoken 10:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – The article now has two sources in that are comprised of significant coverage. Improvement and expansion of the article is superior to outright deletion. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It meets WP:NOTE, and in any case, for all we know it may well come back in Windows 8 ... kidding. History2007 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Instead of their famous Blue Screen of Death they changed the color to be red. [11] Was this fixed before Vista was released? I have Vista, and despite my problems with it early on, before they released patches to make it run properly, I never saw a red screen anywhere. Previous Windows did have the blue screen of death quite often though. Dream Focus 14:36, 16 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pm p2e[edit]

Pm p2e (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)

Appears to be a promotional page for a non-notable corporation or quasi-governmental agency. Excessive puffery and extreme jargon make this a useless article. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 June 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. No consensus to delete at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Carreon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Charles Carreon (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)

Pro forma nomination on behalf of 70.15.136.149. Expressing no viewpoint on the deletion Hasteur (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was having difficulty and just left after screwing it up several times, planning to come back later. I am saying delete because while his work may be notable, he himself is not notable nor important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.136.149 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since he is connected with something that just happened today a few hours ago in addition to the sex.com case I think we can wait a little before passing judgment on his notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What event? I just ran his name through Google News and got nothing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is representing the interests of FunnyJunk against TheOatmeal. Specifically FunnyJunk is suing for defamation and demanding 20,000 from TheOatmeal. Hasteur (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's still not notable, despite recent events. He doesn't fulfill WP:BIO, didn't in 2008, doesn't now. EdFortune (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just adding this so it's clear. Not notable. If he becomes notable in the next several days then vote keep. As of right now, he's not. 70.15.136.149 (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability requirements entirely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Only known for the one case. Doesn't look like he himself received significant external coverage during that case. I'm saying delete per WP:ONEVENT Dac04 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing how much coverage he has gotten as a result of his lawsuit against the oatmeal, I'm changing my stance to keep Dac04 (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (for now) - As per The Devil's Advocate. Wait if this current case will gather media attention. Bluefist talk 01:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm fairly new here, but wouldn't the fact that he sued sex.com, runs FunnyJunk and has now had a notable run-in with The Oatmeal make him notable? - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I got part of that wrong. He doesn't run FunnyJunk. - Letsbefiends (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • To answer your question "[W]ouldn't the fact that he sued sex.com ... and has now had a notable run-in with The Oatmeal make him notable?" -- No. He did these things as someone's lawyer, not as a principal involved, and the lawyer engaged is quite frequently non-notable, even when the case is notable. It's possible he could become notable, if there is media attention given to his strategy, tactics or behavior, but there's no indication of that -- indeed, no indication that the media is paying him the slightest bit of notice at this time. For instance, his sending a cease-and-desist letter isn't in the least notable -- that's what lawyer's do. It's like saying a mail carrier delivering a letter is notable, or a sanitation worker throwing a trash bag into a garbage truck is notable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your claim that "He did these things as someone's lawyer', not as a principal involved" is factually incorrect. See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/funnyjunks-lawyer-personally-sues-the-oatmeal-creator/
        • Delete Agreed. As an attorney, I represented a well-known defendant on appeal, but even if you searched the web looking for my name in connection with the case, it doesn't come up. If he became notable because of that case (or even because of this case), it would largely be a result of self-promotion. - UCCF (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • These are both reasonable answers - now I understand notability a bit better I see your point. As he's a lawyer of little note (doesn't seem to have created case law?), and I now see that he doesn't own Funny Junk but is merely being their lawyer, then I suggest deleting the article. - Letsbefiends (talk) 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would agree if this was an ordinary lawsuit, but in this particular case the lawyer's behavior itself has become quite notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only not notable but effectively unsourced. The Domain Name Journal "article" is little more than a self-promotion piece which largely conflicts with the information in the wikipedia page. For example, the cite says he is licensed to practice in Oregon (inactive) and does not say he practices in Arizona. If the article is kept, it can be improved with a cite which demonstrates he was licensed in Oregon and California, as documented in 2005 and 2006 when his license was suspended by both states due to unlicensed practice of law in Canada and using his client's money to pay his own debts. [[12]]Oblivy (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    changing to Weak Keep -- I still don't think he's going to prove notable long-term, but we don't know that now and his notoriety is on the upswing due to his recent public behavior including (reportedly) suing Inman and the charities. Better to divert the effort expended on this campaign towards cleaning up the article so it's an accurate reflection of who this guy is and is not. NB: I have serious doubts the photo is appropriate for use on WP since it was uploaded with a claim to ownership by a now-deleted user (who may be Carreon's sock puppet, but let him say that in public).Oblivy (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. Appears to have originated from a sock-puppet account: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_Carreon&oldid=253709955 Original article contains instructions for copy editor: "this is where the facts of the RL.com case need to be added.". Microbat (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per comments above, just being a lawyer for something that may be a high profile case does not make one notable in itself, unless there is something innovative or highly publicized about the lawyer himself. There also seems to be no further notability criteria that he meets. Sodaant (talk) 05:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable and not sourced. There are many other Wikipedia's pages about famous lawyers that need love Toffanin (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There's no inherent notability to be gained from working as a lawyer; arguing on somebody's behalf is just part of the job, as Beyond My Ken wisely suggests. I see little sign that independent sources have lavished coverage on Carreon (as opposed to coverage of/by clients &c) so I don't think this article passes the GNG right now. If Carreon gets substantial independent coverage in future, then he may be notable in future and we could write a decent article at that point. bobrayner (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a citation to a reliable source, in the form of an interview with him on bloomberg.com. I've also added a reference to the book he wrote. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 11:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete : No notability, all sources on the article seem to be Primary from TheOatmeal. Bloomberg might have a source, but then one source may not be enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete and merge some of the contents to Sex.com as all the sources primarily focus on TheOatmeal, hence lacks notability. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 15:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Moved to week Keep see below.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While the sex.com lawsuit was very famous, inspiring a whole book, none of the other cases he was in seem to be significant. If either the RL.com or Oatmeal cases got significant wider press coverage, I'd say keep as someone who goes beyond WP:ONEVENT. Is there anything to indicate they're notable? As for merging to Sex.com, there's nothing to merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. There is no material which warrants a merge. It is irrelevant who this person sued or who this person is suing. Our benchmarks for notability include WP:BIO and the general notability guidelines, both of which this subject fails to meet. It should also be reiterated that this article was deleted once before via consensus; little has changed to affect an outcome. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete Carreon is widely covered in "Sex.com: One Domain, Two Men, Twelve Years and the Brutal Battle for the Jewel in the Internet's Crown" (check "search inside this book" at the Amazon listing to confirm). Still, while I smell the possibly of the Oatmeal battle pushing this past ONEEVENT, I don't see sourcing that demonstrates it has, as yet. --joe deckertalk to me 23:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to Weak Keep. TDA has been keeping at trying to find a source that is both moderately reliable and contains in-depth coverage of Carreon outside of sex.com, and I think with this Tech Dirt article I think there's now a case. BLP1E does not require (in my view) two separate events each of which must be independently, fully notable, but something less than that that adds up to full notability for the individual spread well over multiple issues. Finally, if we're going to reference the WP:BLP2E essay, well, my own reading of that essay seems to directly contradict how it's used so far in this discussion. Maybe I'm missing something. --joe deckertalk to me 21:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The following two sources show where he got in-depth coverage in connection with the sex.com case, one being a news report about him suing his client for money he was promised: [13] [14]. Also, here is an interview that was done with him well after he stopped being a client where they asked him about the case and subsequent developments regarding sex.com: [15]. Regarding this business with the Oatmeal, in just the past day it has popped up in Salon, Boston Business Journal, and Seattle PI where Carreon is mentioned and specifically mentioned for the comments or reactions towards him, not his client. Given that this business with the Oatmeal broke yesterday we would be remiss not to consider that more is to come such as this article that just popped up: [16].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is basically a WP:BLP2E. He's not independently notable for the sex.com case (his article was previously deleted in 2007), and he's certainly not notable for the Oatmeal case either. Do appearances in those two stories, several years apart, add up to notability by our standards? I don't think so. Robofish (talk) 01:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't he have transcended the BLP notability requirements in the fact that he is involved in legal proceedings that of significantly unusual action raise them to the level of notability? Hasteur (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, notability doesn't transfer like that (assuming that the legal action is notable, which is debatable). Not everyone involved in a legal action is notable, it depends on what they do, how unique or interesting their strategies are, what kind of media attention they get etc. Sending a "cease-and-desist" letter isn't notable, and never will be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Robofish: What the essay that you have linked to (Wikipedia:BLP2E) actually says is that there is no BLP2E policy and "arguments invoking BLP2E as a reason someone is not notable are outside of policy and fallacious."
      • Yeah, I realised that as I used it - I meant 'BLP2E isn't a policy, but it should be'. But actually, having reconsidered this guy after the more recent coverage he's received, my position has changed and I think now it's a Keep. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it seems to me that while Carreon only comes up intermittently, he does come up every few years, and having information about previous events will be useful next time his name comes up, rather than deleting it (again). While the comparison to a mailcarrier is apt, it is not entirely relevant - a mailcarrier, for example, who did something unusual like delivering all mail wrapped in ribbons would be notable, and there's a good chance that Carreon is not a generic under-the-radar lawyer. Gbonehead (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are some of the recent links on the Oatmeal issue: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. Those sources all discuss the lawyer specifically regarding the nature of his involvement in the case, not merely his actions on behalf of his client. Given his prior involvement in the sex.com case got him some one-event notability this level of coverage clearly moves him beyond to general notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article gives him exposure for a trivial event. mleguen 09:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even more reports focusing increasingly on Carreon himself with regards to this Oatmeal situation: [22] [23]. Once more this points to Carreon having notability beyond the sex.com case and thus constitutes a strong argument for keeping this article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/06/15/funnyjunk-lawyer-charles-carreon-isnt-afraid-of-the-oatmeal/ CallawayRox (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable lunatic. The dispute between websites may be notable, but one unscrupulous attorney [26] in a sea of millions is not. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 01:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some additional detailed sources covering Carreon himself: [27] [28]. All these news sources clearly go well beyond the routine bits of news coverage and this on top of focused non-routine coverage Carreon himself got for his involvement in the sex.com case adds up to independent notability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; as pointed out, The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute exists (which is still somewhat dubious for being notable); the lawyer involved is not. --moof (talk) 09:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's making himself famous again, and is no longer anything like a BLP1E - David Gerard (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Both on the grounds that he is now in the news for two different kinds of activities (Sex.com case; Oatmeal and Streisand Effect) and because deletion arguments around unfolding events should be postponed, on the grounds that if, later, a subject becomes clearly notable, the original work on the article will be lost. (Call this a 'weak inclusionist' argument.) - cshirky (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep due to significant discussion of the subject in relation to different events (so merging to sex.com would not work, for example). I fear that Mr. Carreon is about to realise that having his PR create an article on him may not have been the smartest thing he ever did. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it's not a 1E, per Devil's Advocate et. al. Sceptre (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:BLP1E and WP:GNG. We already have The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute - Alison ❤ 18:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as required by WP:MAD. At a minimum, Charles Carreon should redirect to The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute and deletion is out of the question. CallawayRox (talk) 19:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this vanity piece per BLP1E. The last thing we need are articles on a ambulance chasers filing vexatious lawsuits. The legal garbage may be notable, but as Alison says, we already have articles on that. The Garbage Skow (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as CallawayRox has said. Yesterday, I would have said delete, but it's different now when Forbes is covering this story. Roodog2k (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong Delete This user does not meet WP: N. He is a non-notable lawyer and is only known for one case, which by itself fails WP: Notability (Events). Also, please see WP: NOTNEWS. We are not a newspaper, and we do not have articles that report on non-notable happenings, like this article. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Electriccatfish2, when you say he's known for only one case, do you refer to the sex.com one, or the Oatmeal one? --j⚛e deckertalk 23:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Was known for sex.com litigation before this latest dust-up and was in the news now and then for cases brought in Oregon. Added some sources. Jokestress (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've already heard of Carreon three times this week and haven't even been to Wikipedia, or The Oatmeal in that time. Surprised to find a deletion discussion going on about him. Seems to have earned his notability at this point. Bastique ☎ call me! 00:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I've struck out my delete comment. While I wouldn't want Publicity hungry freaks to always have an article on Wikipedia, this guy deserves an article to showcase himself. [I'm not serious]. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources already exist and the situation will likely improve over time. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable for more than one event, plenty of reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are ample sources for an article about the subject. His notability is questionable, but he's been on the "wrong side" of enough high-profile cases to have gained notoriety. (Why would an editor nominate for deletion just as the subject is beginning another high-profile case? Why not wait until after this case settles and see whether any notability persists?) Justin W Smith talk/stalk 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you asked me a couple of weeks ago, I would have said delete. Since then he's made himself quite notable (and notorious). Stev0 (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, someone known for filing a lawsuit against IndieGoGo (a fundraiser service website), the American Cancer Society and the National Wildlife Federation for his own interests deserves to be remembered. Sergiopll (Sergiopll) 16:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, It seems Beyond My Ken's comment on June 12 has come true: "It's possible he could become notable, if there is media attention given to his strategy, tactics or behavior..." All those who said Delete on June 12th had a defensible position, but since that time this attorney seems to have become the story through his strategy, tactics, and behavior. When evaluating concensus on this one, I'm not sure the earliest comments can be given as much weight as the more recent ones, which tilt towards Keep due to the significant media coverage recently. Brianwc (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given his recent actions. He's become the focus of media attention and subject of several articles. --Replysixty (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think many of the people voting delete are doing so because they don't like the guy. We must remain neutral, and as such look at the fact that his popularity is increasing -- even if it's through his douchebaggary.☠  Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea ☠ - (T)(C) 16:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article meets all the criteria necessary for an article. It's well sourced and the subject is notable in many ways, from the sex.com litigation to the recent mixup with Inman. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 17:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the point of Wikipedia is to answer the general public's questions "who is this person?" After all the recent media coverage, Wikipedia would be failing in that public service is this were to be deleted. --ktappe (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Perfectly said. TJIC (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the notability here is laughable. Wikipedia is not the Internet's echo chamber. Mr. Forrest (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE! There are no reliable sources of any kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.201.77.137 (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Ironically this article is only up for deletion because of the publicity he gained in the recent case (Oatmeal), which proves the article is worth keeping to have a history of events.--Johannesbauer (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This guy has leaped into the limelight and has started to approach Jack Thompson-level notability. I caution against deletion comments based on WP:IDL: just because it came from the web, doesn't mean it's non-notable. --Bobak (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This entry is well sourced, and I do not believe it qualifies for the non-notable deletion category. Since the original (re)creation of this entry, Mr. Carreon's notoriety has increased significantly. Given the recent press attention and actions by the subject it seems likely to only become more noteworthy in the future. Morgewan (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I believe he fulfills the criteria for being notable due to having been mentioned in several news websites recently, and is likely to become more notable as the case develops further. Wagken (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Unfortunately the guy is notable at this point, as opposed to two weeks ago, and it's likely that people will look to Wikipedia to answer the question "who is this guy?" In fact, I think people would expect an entry.TeaganK (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He's all over Ars Technica, and various other news sites. I certainly think he's notable now if he wasn't at the beginning of this AfD. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is another instance of having plenty of sources, but the person isn't notable outside a flash-in-the-pan incident. Putting up a page on him just because he did something to gain the ire of folks on the Internet is not reasonable. Basing a BLP on this sets a very bad precedent: anyone who ticks off Anonymous, Reddit, or any other chat board could wind up with a page on Wikipedia, based on nothing more than their name being splashed over blogs and news sites for 15 minutes of fame. His capacity in the sex.com case is not notable, since he was just acting as the attorney in that case. That leaves us with... nothing of substance. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article in question here looks like it was created in 2008 -and not created in response to ticking anybody off. R. Baley (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that it was. He was a non-notable BLP that slipped under the radar. That he got splashed across blogs for a few days doesn't make him notable either. Claiming that it does is the bad precedent I was referring to, as that would give any target of the 'net's ire BLP standing. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sadly, he's become notable. I do wish he hadn't. htom (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Many many people are coming to Wikipedia to get encyclopedic information on this extremely notable (indeed infamous) person without the unavoidable bias that exists on the many sites that he is suing. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - We were considering deletion before The Oatmeal incident, and I don't see why we should change our decision. Just because he's an element in something that's currently news doesn't mean he's consistently of interest. He fails to meet the notability guidelines on WP:BIO and his details should be merged in relevant articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdFortune (talk • contribs) 09:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The policy is just about as definitive as we can get in regards to this matter. He wasn't notable before this particular case, and "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." He may be notable after the case, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball either. VanIsaacWScontribs 10:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how WP:CRYSTALBALL works. You can't invoke the crystal ball clause against others for predicting that he will remain notable while gazing into your own crystal ball to determine that he will not remain notable. He is notable (not just newsworthy) now and there is no reason to believe that the notability will be fleeting instead or enduring.
As for the "He wasn't notable before this particular case" argument, I am not at this time notable. Does that mean that if I robbed fort knox and brought about peace in the middle east tomorrow I would remain non-notable? WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says that most newsworthy events do not qualify. Not all. This is one that does qualify. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely no prediction stated, implied, or intended in my !vote. He is not currently notable by Wikipedia standards. Several comments above state that we should wait and see if he becomes notable because of a current lawsuit. But it is completely irrelevant whether he may meet notability standards tomorrow or next year, only whether he is now. He's not. WP:CRYSTALBALL was simply that we can't speculate that he may meet notability in the future, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is that we can't use news coverage of a lawsuit for which he is counsel to establish notability, as there is zero indication that this particular lawsuit is going to impart any lasting notability on any of the lawyers involved. VanIsaacWScontribs 11:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be so kind as to quote the exact paragraph of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER that supports your claim that "we can't use news coverage of a lawsuit for which he is counsel to establish notability"? It looks like you are not seeing the word "most".
This is not to say that we only have news coverage. We have magazines (Wired, Forbes), a book by Kieren McCarthy, major tech blogs (Boing Boing, Ars Technica, Techcrunch Techdirt, Popehat), as well as salon.com, the Oregon State Bar bulletin, the California Bar Journal, and Domain Name Journal. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:10, 21 June 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. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 08:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baxt[edit]

Baxt (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)

Unreferenced place-stub, contains no useful factual information. Unverifiable in it's current state. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is possibly the city of Baht, which is a city. The Russian pronunciation of "x" is roughly the English "h" sound. Baht is a significant place that should have an article. I see that "Baht" is re-directed to Thai baht, the Thai currency. Perhaps "Baht" should go to a disambig page or a Baht (Uzbekistan) article should be created. --Oakshade (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, I have completely re-written the article which is now a start class.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Substantial improvements, but I cannot help feeling that Baxt seems like a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL kind of place. Like all towns it appears in atlases, but is this sufficient to show notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ymblanter and Phil Bridger. Even far less substantial settlements would be quickly kept as long as they were verified. There's just the problem of the name. The Russian/Uzbek spelling is "Бахт" (see Russian WP article here). It seems "Baht" is the more common name in English. There definitely needs to be at least a re-direct on the Thai baht page. --Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Uzbek currently uses the Latin script, and the Latin spelling of the town in Uzbek is Baxt. I agree though that either a DAB or a link from the Thai baht page should be made.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:16, 14 June 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of deletion requests outside of the nominator. A snowy non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlam Shibli[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ahlam Shibli (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)

Request at OTRS # 2012061110006832 - Ahlam Shibli does not want to be associated with Israel.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Huh? Propose this be closed as ill-proposed. Zerotalk 23:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Per Wikipedia:Speedy_keep, nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion (or not one I can make sense of, anyway). Tonywalton Talk 23:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep More WP:RS and info than a lot of bios. CarolMooreDC 05:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Born in Israel, studied in Israel, Artist in residance in Israel, still living in Israel... --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clear keep, no good reason to delete, largely nonsensical deletion rationale (although I understand this is often the case with OTRS requests). Hairhorn (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. By "nominator" I mean the OTRS submitter, not User:Ronhjones. I'm not shooting the messenger. Tonywalton Talk 01:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the artist does not wish to be associated with Israel, having her Wikipedia article deleted won't help a whole lot. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tonywalton and Zero000. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But please note that Shibli identifies as Palestinian according to RS. Some editors seem to be resisting this self-description as for example here. A BLP should show deference to sources and self-identification as reported by those sources. Help implementing our policies at this article is welcome. Tiamuttalk 17:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let it snow. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:28, 15 June 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Thomas (basketball)[edit]

Ben Thomas (basketball) (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 future NCAA Division II basketball player. He just finished with high school. No independent, reliable references except for his hometown newspaper. The newspaper article consists of two sentences. Also fails WP:ATHLETE. Creating editor and article's subject have same name. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in multiple independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 12 June 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David macarthur[edit]

also nominated: The Day the Water Tower Froze
David macarthur (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 Day the Water Tower Froze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Concerns over Wikipedia:Notability (people). Coverage does not appear to be significant. Two of the three references are to online sales of the subject's book. RA (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete fails WP:NOTABILITY due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, the individual doesn't meet the notability standard -- the single reference is local and the book is published by a publisher whose website indicates that it restricts its efforts to strictly local stories. I was unable to find anything significant other than the reference provided. Ubelowme (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've removed the unambiguous promotion speedy tag from The Day the Water Tower Froze and pointed it to this debate. Neither the work nor the author appear to meet notability criteria. Tonywalton Talk 23:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this appears to be self-promotion; the article was originally created by User:Macarthurdd – probably not a coincidental username. Tonywalton Talk
  • Delete One review in a local paper isn't enough to establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-promotional article about a non-notable book. Article about author has been moved to David MacArthur, where it was speedily deleted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see an assertion of notability in the article and the sources do not show notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:25, 12 June 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Adams[edit]

Eli Adams (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)

Did not play in a fully professional league (highest level was Birmingham League) EchetusXe 21:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 11 June 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dres Reid[edit]

Dres Reid (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)

Nominating based on general notability concerns. A subject appears to be a backing dancer. The sole references are to the IMDB listing (thereby noting their existence) and a MySpace page. RA (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No detailed coverage in reliable sources - the reliable sources that mention him do so only in passing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references/footnotes section at all. The external links provided, IMDB and MySpace, are not reliable sources. 89.252.128.80 (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a heavy heart. Bazuz (talk) 11:35, 12 June 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omninode[edit]

Omninode (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)

Nominating for deletion owing to concerns over general notability. No specific claim to notability or significance is made and the only references are to the businesses own website. RA (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests those sources simply don't exist. From browsing the company website and the vague gobbledygook found there, I'm not even convinced the company actually exists. The obvious issues of WP:COI and WP:Advertising don't help. Msnicki (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article 3rd party refs needed to establish notability; created by an SPA as likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:41, 13 June 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikesh Thapaliya[edit]

Nikesh Thapaliya (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)

Holder of multiple world records... such as memorizing countries and their capitals... Nothing of substance here. Does not meet any notability guideline. I did not propose this for A7 given that the "world records" could conceivably be seen as claims to notability. In the absence of any significant and independent coverage (other than "RecordSetter"): Delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In no way would reach Bio-notablity standards. Skier Dude (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikesh is not just a world record holder. If he was just a world record holder, he would not qualify for being in this biography of Wikipedia. World records are just a part of this biography. He has been a writer, freelancer, activist, UN Volunteer, etc. and achieved quite a lot at his young age. User:Ath.Sn —Preceding undated comment added 05:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This biography can be improved but not necessarily be deleted! There are still many pages in Wikipedia which exist here simply because a person has won one beauty pageant and also if someone has played role in one film. This biography is here not because the person is just simply a world record holder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.235.145 (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not come close to passing notability standards. The article only talks about him as a record holder; if he has other achievements tha actually are notable they should be added to the article but simply doing a lot of things at a young age does not confer notability per Wikipedia's definition of the term. --bonadea contributions talk 06:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Funny records, but no reason to assume any notability. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable young man who may become notable some day (or not). --Orange Mike | Talk 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable vanity article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit and Improve : What if this person is introduced as writer/journalist/activist and use his world records as only secondary stuff!?! (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.235.145 (talk)
  • Done IMPROVED!!! Lots of changes have been made. He has been introduced as writer/journalist/activist. World records have been mentioned as only secondary parts and other works. (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen many pages on Wikipedia which are simply there just because the person has won a beauty pageant or has played in just a film or two. They also have some kinds of Wikipedia messages above them but have existed since long. Is winning a beauty pageant or playing in one film a strong sign of notability? And, is it possible to report any such pages to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.235.145 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • The state of another article is irrelevant to whether this one should be kept. Whether these other articles are notable or not, this article has to be judged on its own merits, against the notability criteria. You can check for yourself whether there are claims to notability that meet Wikipedia's criteria (which have been linked to repeatedly in the discussion above) in those other articles, and if not, you are free to nominate them for deletion - but the nomination has to be based only on Wikipedia policy, and not on any argument on the lines of "that article was deleted so this one should be as well". --bonadea contributions talk 15:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have enough of it: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ath.Sn Night of the Big Wind talk 19:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this article, I think it is not good to have an issue over just 'world record' things. Even if we talk about his world records, these amazing abilities are notable, I think. Anyways, now what next? After how many days will an article go off Wikipedia after being nominated for deletion? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.235.145 (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That depends a bit on how active the discussion is and if there is a clear line in the !votes, but normally after 7 to 14 days. In this case, I see a lot of delete-votes from several people and a lot of comments/keep-votes from people named in de sockpuppet-case. It should not be difficult for an admin to close the AfD on the 18th as delete. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:WAX arguments from WP:SOCKing creator are unconvincing. WP:SNOW in the forecast. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We now strictly understand that any article on here must meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Our intention was not to spam this discussion and please don't accuse us of SockPoppetry as we are new to Wikipedia and don't even know much on its techniques. But we really appreciate the unique and 'remarkable' talents of him (not at all 'funny' as mentioned somewhere above but we'd say intellectual and geeky). We are glad for you guys constantly taking care of this article. Nothing was personal! We hope we can contribute a little to any existing articles in days to come. Thanks again! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.235.145 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Welling[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Shawn Welling (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 process for 89.252.128.80, nomination is as follows:

  1. Fails WP:FILMMAKER
  2. All of the sources come from publications based in Fort Bend County, TX which shows that Welling is not notable enough across the U.S. or even across his home state to warrant having an article.
  3. All the other reasons listed in the warning banners on the main article page.

I have no opinion. Hut 8.5 20:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. I note this was speedy renominated based upon lack of involvement by others in the AFD which closed on May 23, 2012. Why not relist again? However, I also note that Shawn Welling is a multi-award-winning [29] filmmaker, who has received recognition and coverage in multiple reliable sources,[30] much of which is not simply "local" Texas coverage.[31] We do not expect world-wide notability, and despite the current article needing work, it is improvable and WP:BIO is met. Less relevent, the IP 89.252.128.80 has been editing only since June 4, 2012,[32] making (so-far) 17 lifetime edits. If not simply a regular editor who forgot to sign in for a couple weeks, and if not aware when he began nominating articles for deletion, I'm sure he will quickly learn of WP:BEFORE, WP:UGLY, and WP:NRVE. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's start disectting things.
1) "Multi-award-winning" He has only won his local film festival and it is a very minor one. Almost every major city has one and if it is not one of the biggies (Sundance, Toronto, SXSW), so it means nothing.
2) Local sources. Everything is local sources except for one mention, Business Wire There are no other non-local sources in MQSs Google or IMDb links. The c-47 is a local entertainment magazine of which there is no way to see past articles online.
3) "Significant coverage". Per GNG, not only there has to be multiple reliable sources, but they have to offer significant coverage. Significant coverage is required, not just a brief sentence or two. Film reviews, listing of who won, dance concert announcements are deemed trivial. Of the coverage mentioned in the article, MQS' IMDb and Google links that are not reviews, listings who won and talk more than two sentences about Welling are Baylor University's student paper Lariat and Fort Bend County, Texas local magazine Focus on Women. Only one offers significant coverage and it is Focus on Women.
So what do we have. Only one local source offering any significant coverage, thus fails GNG. Hasn't won any major awards and only does independent films that hasn't been recognized outside of Texas, thus fails WP:FILMMAKER. Bgwhite (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He easily passes WP:BIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:FILMMAKER, and WP:GNG. You are in error to respond as if "substantial" or "in-depth" means the same thing as significant. "Significant" requires simply that reliable sources address a topic directly and in detail, rather than trivially, and THOSE we have. And it is nowhere mandated that the topic being sourced Must be the sole fous of such coverage... And even though you do not seem to think that WorldFest is "biggie" festival simply because it is held in Houston, Texas... rather tan just of local import, it is an international festival with entries from around the world... and is itself historical and quite notable. Winning at such a festival may not be as earth-shaking as an Oscar or an Emmy, but multiple wins over multiple years[33] at a notable film festival does indeed meet the instructions of WP:ANYBIO. And your dismissing the major newspapers of Texas such as Houston Chronicle or Houston Press as if they were local neighborhood gazettes is not per policy nor guideline. It is expected that a notable Texas topic would be covered in Texas media... and having more-than-trivial persistant coverage is what WP:GNGs all about. Shoot Magazine is not "Texas-only" news... nor is Biz journal... and his works have even received attention from CNN's film critic. Your contention here seems to be that things that happen in Texas could not possibly be notable unless covered in London or Paris. That opinion is not per policy nor guideline. Wikipedia is not elitist and is not about only world-reknown topics. We do not ignore or dismiss topics determinable as notable to Texas and beyond simply because they are covered IN Texas. To WAX just a teeny bit, we have plenty of wonderful articles herein about things and events and persons notable to Texas, sourced to Texas media. But in returning to the topic at hand, we have plenty of reliable sources to support and verify a decently encyclopedic article... even if this person does his notable work IN Texas: Fort Bend Star+[34]+[35] Houston Press+[36]+[37] Houston Chronicle+[38]+[39]+[40] Style Magazine Business Wire NPPA Focus on Women and others. And beyond his easily meeting WP:ANYBIO, his works House of Dreams, 360 Days of Bolivar, Project Aether, The Legend of DarkHorse County, and AXI: Avengers of Xtreme Illusions have him meet WP:CREATIVE even if these are film topics simply waiting for articles to be written. WP:NRVE... whether Texas or world-wide. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Festivals Worldfest is not a big festival because it is held in Houston. Sundance is held in small town Park City. SXSW is held in Austin, a much smaller city in Houston. Size does not matter. There are over 150 film festivals in the US.
Out of town refs: Shoot Magazine's article is about the film festival. The sum mention of Welling is "Houston's own Shawn Welling with his encore screening of "The Messenger - 360 Days of Bolivar." and "...and finale by Shawn Welling's dynamic Planet Funk Academy's premiere dancers" Not exactly significant. Biz journal never mentions Welling. Again, there is not exactly any out of town refs about Welling.
Local coverage: Starting from your list "notable work IN Texas: Fort Bend Star"... Fort Bend Star ref is a film review. #6 is a film review. #7 is a film review. Houston Chronicle is a film review. #8 is three sentences long. #9 is a film review. Houston Chronicle is a dance review about the dance company. #11 is the same article as Houston Chronicle. #11 is about the dance company. #12 is announcing a dance performance. Style Magazine statement about welling are "...an encore screening of Shawn Welling’s PROJECT AETHER a three time winner at the Awards Gala", "...one of which was the Shawn Welling’s third film PROJECT AETHER" and "...a grand finale by Shawn Welling’s Planet Funk Academy’s lead dancers". Business Wire quotes Welling and doesn't go into detail about him. NPP is a photo.
Significant coverage Film/dance reviews and film/dance announcements fall under trivial coverage. A photo is not significant coverage. A few statements about Welling is not significant coverage. A few quotes about Welling is not significant coverage. Bgwhite (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes... a film festival's notability is dependent upon its coverage, not its location. Sundance is notable despite its location. SXSW is notable despite its location, just as WorldFest is notable despite its location. And please... there are far more than 150 film festivals in various cities accross the US... and yes, not all are notable. You need not agree, but the 51-year-old WorldFest is indeed notable... through coverage.
The sources you "examined" in order to dismiss Welling as a topic, perform either the required verifiability of aspects of Welling's career, or source notability of his projects under WP:FILMMAKER. Please understand that verifiability does not itself need be sigcov, nor do all sources have to be solely about Welling. Offered above we have some shorter sources quite suitable for verifiability and some longer ones suitable under WP:SIGCOV. Taken altogether, the genral notability guide for Welling, as a topic, is met. And to repeat again, WP:V and WP:SIGCOV are NOT the same thing.
And please... films being determinable as notable through their awards or reviews IS exactly as expected by guideline. The related in-depth commentary and analysis of his works as offered by film reviews is NOT all trivial coverage.
Lastly, those sources offering in-depth commentary and analysis of his award-winning and widely hearalded dance company (NOT yet a claim of notability), perform the policy mandated verifibility of his owning the company, and do so in a more than trivial manner, even if his owning and being choreographer and instructor of the company is seen by you as a "trivial" job. Others reading the in-depth coverage of his dance company or dance reviews might argure that it is NOT simply trivial coverage.
I never heard of this fellow before this second and speedy renominated AFD. Sure, it would have been nice had more folks spoken up at the AFD two weeks ago, or that the article issues were subsequently allowed to be adressed over time and through regular editing rather than rushing it back to AFD when requesting a relisting would have served just fine. I have no animus against nor favoritism toward Texas-related topics. So being un-biased in either direction, I do see though that taken all together, the requisites set for this topic by WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG and WP:BLP have been met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Festivals You said "And even though you do not seem to think that WorldFest is "biggie" festival simply because it is held in Houston, Texas" Which implies location was important. Please don't argue one point and dismiss it later. There are over 150 film festivals in the US listed on Wikipedia. Not every film festival that has a page is notable enough to where your film wins a prize, you become notable. Because one is older does not make it notable. Where does it say this one is more notable than the 150+ other festivals?
Festival awards Every film entered at WorldFest won an Award. Winning an award is not special. In 2008, (2009 and above are in excel) there were 10 Remi Awards given, roughly 100 Special Jury , ~300 Platinum , ~300 Gold and ~300 silver awards. Hey winning a gold award means over 400 were ahead of you. Winning an award at a non-notable festival in which everybody wins an award doesn't make one pass nobility guidelines.
So you are arguing that winning at a festival which hands out an award for every film makes every film at the festival notable and also makes every filmmaker at the festival notable?
Dance company No where does it say it is an award-winning and widely heralded dance company Google News comes up with three hits. Regular google search comes up with alot of YouTube videos and other stuff. The "dance company" invites everybody 7-up to take classes. Sorry, they haven't performed any shows since atleast 2009. Their website (hosted at web.mac.com) on the shows hasn't been updated since 2010. The last entry on the "press site" was last updated in 2009.
So we have a filmmaker that has no significant coverage. No coverage outside Texas. Won awards at a film festival that hands out an award to everybody. A dance company that has no refs that it is award-winning or widely heralded that hasn't put on a show since atleast 2009. Bgwhite (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: User:MichaelQSchmidt makes a compelling case that the subject passes based on notability. Wish that it were in the article, but will settle for knowing they do exist. --LauraHale (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which part is compelling? Bgwhite (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsure, I don't often disagree with MQS, but this is an exception. I don't see the HP award for best local film maker as significant, and I the Fort Bend Star just has mentions his name as The Legend of Dark Horse County was being filmed in Fort Bend at the time (again, not significant in my eyes). --kelapstick(bainuu) 06:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is proper to write of an established filmmaker's projects in a BLP of that individual. The current article is not at all reflective of its potential for improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely Michael, and one of the things that I admire about you is your ability to turn a rubbish article into something that works here, and I am more than willing to have my mind changed at the majority of deletion debates that I take part in. I agree that the projects should be included in a BLP, I just don't know if the coverage of him to be enough for him to pass the GNG. Looking back into the article now this article is interesting (not the part about the filmmaker), world renowned dance instructor? And the "go-to guy for performers for the NFL, Cirque de Soleil and Broadway". And this as well, although I don't know where Focus On Women sits in the RS category, but it appears to me he is more noted as a dance instructor, rather than a film maker (something I must have missed originally). As such, I am striking my delete vote and changing it to unsure before I have a chance to look a little closer.--kelapstick(bainuu) 02:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Be sure as you are reading that fowmag link that you recognize it is the cover editor letter which is discussing the article written by Nick Nicholson on page 22 of that same source, which is linked here [41]. Note the discussion below about the COI between Nicholson and Welling please. So the Focus on Women sources are really selfpubs by the associate producer of one of his movies. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the discussion below, I acknowledge that coverage by Nicholson after 2010 is suspect even with his being an established industry expert. His coverage before he had verifiable COI is not. Reasoning expanded below. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On the links provided by MQS I am a bit confused as to the interpretation of them. For "multi-award winning" and "multiple reliable sources" MQS links to IMDB - a user generated content site (aka a non-reliable source). Considering that Shawn Welling and associated articles have been a target of a large promotional sock puppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Shawnwelling/Archive, I have every reason to believe that the same sock puppet has stuffed IMDB's database with similar "award winning" content from what appears to be a festival that gives hundreds of non-notable awards. MQS then provides a link to a google search to show non-local coverage at [42] which when I click on it turns up coverage in Houston of this Shawn Welling and some random non-related Shawn Wellings in obits out of Texas, etc. The only non-local coverage that seems to have been discussed is Business Wire, a PR release service which just published a press release - clearly not a reliable source to establish notability. The link to the NPAA is a photo of him with his pet parrot and the focus of it is the parrot. If we look at the other sources carefully a large percentage of them all rely on the same local author, Nick Nicholson - who it appears is affiliated with Welling. I recognize MQS and LauraHale both agree there is a "compelling case" to establish notability, and I am open to hearing it. Could either of you (or someone else) provide such a case with some specific citations - because they still don't seem to have been presented? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMDB is not "user-generated". While anyone may sumbit changes to IMDB, it is their paid staffers who evaluate them, vett them for accuracy, and either act on them or not. IMDB is not considered a reliable source, but does offer decent clues to what searches might discover elsewhere IN reliable sources which CAN be used if found. No more. No less. And differently than in an encyclopdia anyone can edit, puppets cannot "stuff" IMDB... only paid IMDB staffers can approve or disapprove contributions there. I offered a shotgun of results to indicate my belief that issuues were addressable by means other than flat-out deletion. I do understand that your efforts in reducing the promotional aspect of the original article resulted in a far smaller and far less suitibly sourced one being sent to AFD, and am currently involved in addressing those issues in a manner differently than did you. Patience please. My efforts will be apparent in a few hours, will not contain the promotonal aspects you properly removed, and will contain proper sourcing of assertions. And I trust that when made available here, you might reconsider your stance. As for journalist Nick Nicholson... he does seem willing to report on Welling, but I see no evidence of any personal affiliation between he and the subject beyond them both being Houston residents. Being a journalist in Houston would seem to qualify him as being able to write about Houston-related topics. And as for the "puppets"... seems to have been one clue-lacking newb who created additional accounts and these have been dealt with. No longer an issue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Actually Nick Nicholson is listed as an Associate producer of Welling's film: [43] shows, "Welling Films would like to thank the following...Director: Shawn Welling Associate Producer: Dominique Gonzales, Nick Nicholson..." So I would dismiss any publicity generated by an associate producer as it not being an independent reliable source. I note that according to this publicity photo on Welling's site [44] that Nick Nicholson is also the president of the Houston Film Critics association, so that anything associated with that association is also non-independent - such as awards from the Worldfest (even though it is unclear those awards are even notable). I do look forward to any proper independent reliable sourcing that truly establishes notability for Welling that you turn up and look forward to seeing the proper non-promotional independent sources you have promised. You will note I have not yet !voted on this AfD to give time and see what you come up with. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC) P.S. The association between the awards and the associate producer giving the awards is made even clearer here: [45] where it states, "Accepting the "Gold Remi" from WorldFest founder Hunter Todd. Shawn Welling and his cast (L-R) John Star, Niece Waidhofer, Scott Budge, Hanna Jones (Americas Next Top Model cycle 16), Marissa Lee, Katrina Hansen, Joy Willard and Shawn Welling. Less than a Half hour later Joy Willard receives best actress and Welling Receives best World Premeir awarded by the film critics choice award president Nick Nicholson for "Project Aether"." ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC) P.P.S. The non-RS IMDB also lists Nick Nicholson as the associate producer of Project Aether (Welling's film) here [46]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Thanks for those. And here I thought the name "Nick Nicholson" was not unique and could belong to more than one person. It does seem to be stretching credulity to think that there might be more than one Nick Nicholson reporting about activities in Houston. So shame shame shame on a film critic from Houston actually involving himself in any part of Houston's filmmaking industry, small as that industry is. Does he not know that he is unable to be unbiased about film if he becomes part of the process itself?? And if associate producer Nick Nicholson is indeed the same person as CNN journalist Nick Nicholson and Fort Bend Star journalist Nick Nicholson, as seems likley, I would wonder about those two organizations allowing one of their otherwise neutral employees to write about a topic to which he has a too-close connection. We might even consider re-evaluating their stances as "reliable sources", as it is well known that a journalist must maintain absolute neutrality and never write about things of which they have an opinion, affiliation, personal knowledge, or conflict of interest. Or is that just Wikipedia contributors? Sometimes it seems the real world does not run itself by the rules set up here. So thank goodness the puppet master has been blocked. Regardless... if anything written by that journalist is supported by sources apart from that journalist, we still have notability, and can take the writings of journalist Nicholson with a grain of salt. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do feel confident after digging further and seeing portraits of the man, that ator/film producer Nick W. Nicholson [47] is the same person as the Nick Nicholson who is president of the volunteer Houston Film Critics Society [48]. Does he not know that actors and producers cannot possibly offer knowledge about films with which they are associated? Or did he recuse himself from voting when his society made its award? Wait a second... He was writing about films long before his actually involving himself in acting and producing, and before his 2011 involvement with Welling (a man who had two award-winning films in 2006 and 2009 - before Nicholson lost impartiality by becoming became producer of later ones)... and though this can bite, if suported by non-Nicholson sources, per WP:SPS, his opinions might be considered reliable as "produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"... so he could be considered expert enough on earlier Welling projects to offer opinions. Still though... grain of salt. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. The Nicholsons found by ConcernedVancouverite are all the same fellow: A member of the Broadcast Film Critics Association, "Nick Nicholson is the Film and Television Entertainment Critic for ABC and CNN Radio, the Fort Bend Star, Focus Magazine, Pearland Focus as well as Focus on Women. He is the co-founder of the Houston Film Critics Society and is currently the President of the organization."[49] We now have the issue of an established expert in the field writing about certain projects with which he has become too personally involved. Expert, yes. Reputation for truth and accuracy when writing for media employers who exercize editorial oversite, likely. But grain of salt, none-the-less. I think if we have something simply factual in nature, we can accept it as neutral reporting. If we have instances of critical review from before he became associated with Welling, also acceptable. But if we have instances where he offered critical opinion of those later projects with which he is himself too-closely associated, nope. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going offer here that 51-year-old WorldFest awards (although there is a natural involvement by the 5-year-old Houston Film Critics Society), are not Nicholson awards. The Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival awards are not Nicholson awards. The Critics Choice Awards are not Nicholson awards. The Houston Press awards are not Nicholson awards. They were arrived at by means requiring the input of many. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you for all of the additional research, MQS. On Nicholson I think it would be fair to say that the relationship (and COI) likely started long before the movie came out. Movies generally require a long time to raise funding and make it to market. So there is a VERY high chance they have known each other and had an affiliation for many years before the movie came out. I would say it calls into question any opinions/awards coming out of him within at least 5 years prior, if not more, for conflict of interest reasons. That said, if there is significant reliable source coverage from independent sources it is still possible that Welling is notable. But the bulk of the current notability claim relies on a strong conflict of interest which makes it questionable. I view anything coming out of Nicholson as a WP:SELFPUB in terms of Welling and affiliated projects/companies/movies/etc. as Nicholson has a direct financial interest in Welling's success. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As any Houston native, Nicholson may well have been aware of Welling as a chroeographer, and 'Planet Funk' and its award winning dance teams, long before Welling got into films. As a film critic, Nicholsen would certainly have been aware of Wellings 2006 and 2009 award-winning films. As a film critic expected to have such early knowledege and reporting it does not mean such is COI. It is also to be understood that Nicholson did not act as producer on ANY film until 2011. A film critic being aware of Wellings earlier works (as might anyone from Houston) does not become a COI until we can actually document a COI connection. We do not judge until we know... and THAT does not happen until Project Aether (2011).[50] We might reasonably presuppse that talks to bring him aboard in the capacity of asssociate producer could have been done sometime in 2010, creating a COI from that point in time, but we cannot simply presume that a COI existed 5 years before it did... because as a film critic and journalist, he had valid journalistic reasons to be aware or ALL filmmakers in his area of reporting. Grain of salt and a watch eye, yes... but pre-COI reporting by an established industry expert is acceptable. It may well be that Nicholson's being impressed as a critic with Welling's early work could have been the impetus that caused him to become so involved. Again, the 51-year-old WorldFest awards (although there is a natural involvement by the 5-year-old Houston Film Critics Society), are not Nicholson awards. The Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival awards are not Nicholson awards. The Critics Choice Awards are not Nicholson awards. The Houston Press awards are not Nicholson awards. They were arrived at by means requiring the input of many and, even if made, Nicholson's hypothetical sole vote would have been but one of many. Take a gander over at my sandbox. Still needing much cleanup, re-wrting, and sourcing, and NOT YET READY, I have been trying to see what I can do to address spoken concerns while this AFD continues. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As said above, everyone who enters WorldFest gets an award. Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival, held in Kemah Texas, is not even near notable. Doesn't matter who handed them out as they are all worthless except WorldFest's Remi award. Remi award goes to the actual winners of that festival. Bgwhite (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... among his many WorldFest wins, Welling just recently won a 2012 Gold Remi. As for the rest of your statement, not true... as most films selected and shown at WorldFest do not win awards. You might perhaps be thinking of the Telly Awards or the far less reputable New York International Independent Film and Video Festival... festivals where nearly 95% of those shown receive some sort of prize. I did not make any claim that the Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival was majorly "notable"... though they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and we have fairly tough standards. My point is that winning in a festival notable enough for us is an indicator that such films could likely have the requisite coverage under WP:NF to allow the filmmaker consideration under WP:FILMMAKER. But another facet I am considering is Welling's stronger sourcability as a world-class choreographer, and his dance teams receiving recognition world-wide. That would meet another facet of WP:CREATIVE, with Welling's filmwork... though related... being subsidary to his choreography. Something more upon which to mull. What we need do here, is look at the forest as a whole and not argue over an ocasional stunted tree within that forest, to then determine if a person's overall career and accomplishements are just enough "worthy of note" to be included herein. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I said previously, "Every film entered at WorldFest won an Award. Winning an award is not special. In 2008, (2009 and above are in excel) there were 10 Remi Awards given, roughly 100 Special Jury , ~300 Platinum , ~300 Gold and ~300 silver awards. Hey winning a gold award means over 400 were ahead of you." Also Gulf Coast Film & Video Festival has an article because it has been in the press a few times. This is not tough standards. Over 150 film festivals in the US have article and very few are notable. You claimed winning an award at the festival was notable. Bgwhite (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I read is your statements "every film won an award" and "they are all worthless except WorldFest's Remi award". How many were entered? Being one of 300 among 30,000 means something. Being one of 300 out of 300 does not.
Does not winning an award (even if not an Academy Award presented by Academy mebers to self-congratulate other fellow Academy members) allow us to even consider that a film or person might have enough related coverage due to resulting media commentary and analysis DUE to receiving that award to meet the criteria set at WP:GNG?
And how did you determine that if 10 or 100 or 1000 notable Remis were given, that he must have 9 or 99 or 999 ahead of him and somehow must be last in line?
Any festival's inclusion within Wikipedia is dependent upon more than just being "in the press a few times." Having requisite coverage for over 51 years makes WorldFest unique in both its background and history.
150 festivals have articles? I daresay there are probably thousands that do not... per our community standards. Or are you questioning the basic premise or meaning or intent behind WP:N?
WP:ANYBIO states: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Sure, they are not the Academy Awards, but you seem to be asserting that the various awards given at WorldFest are not well-known, and that they are not to be considered a significant enough award or honor. Signifcant to whom? You? Me? Some guy in Mozambique? "Significance" is determined by coverage, not by personal opinion. WorldFest and its awards ARE "known" and "significant enough" per our standards... even if one choses only to sneer at them.
I am not saying he is the most notable person receiving awards at the most notable film festival ever. I AM saying he won known awards at a known festival. What seems forgotten here is that Wikipedia is not about only the MOST notable people ever (it'd be a far smaller encyclopedia), but that it is about those people who can be determined through their overall career and accomplishements and coverage (even if coverage for some things stopped in 2009) as just enough "worthy of note" to be included herein. The means we DO have articles on 150 festivals when only 10 or so might be the "most" notable ever... and this means we can include articles on choreographers or filmmakers who are not the most notable ever, so long as they are just notable enough. Interesting situation here though. Places everything about editors trying to build a comprehensive encyclopdia at risk. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to take a rest as you are starting to get too emotional. Bringing up Academy Awards... we know that any film festival is in a different league as the Oscars. I've already stated how many Remis are given. The refs I gave state it too. Instead of biting back, please look at what I've said and the refs I pointed out. We all know we can't use Wikipedia as a ref. We know there are events that have Wikipedia pages that don't bring about nobility... winning certain tennis tournaments, tack & field tournaments, book awards, etc. In a day or two, please do what ConcernedVancouverite asked, please bring independent, reliable refs. I'm not going to say anymore either until the 17th. Bgwhite (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biting? No biting here... nor baiting. Simply an apparently failed attempt to explain that "notable" is decided here per policy and guideline, and not by a personal opinion of what is notable. When you repeatedly stated that the WorldFest, found notable per Wikipedia standards, was not notable enough per other WIkipedia standard WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE, I brought up a comparison toward the fact that not everything is "super" notable, but can be notable enough. We are not about including only the most notable. Simple. Any response to the other questions I posed above toward your processes can wait until you return.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There is a long thread upstream, so I thought it may be useful to summarize the key points to see where we stand and hopefully reach some consensus. It appears that the primary claims for notability for Welling are his "award winning" movies and his "world-class" choreography. To evaluate the awards there is a debate as to if the awards are actually notable awards. People seem to take two views of the notability of the awards. One line is arguing that it is a notable festival, so the award is notable. The other argues that regardless of the notability of the festival, there are too many awards for a single award to be notable from that festival. This is a fairly easy point to resolve. If the fact that Welling got the award is actually notable, then there should be reliable independent coverage of such award. If we can turn that up the point will be resolved. To this point several of us have been looking (and it appears quite hard), yet have not found independent reliable source coverage of him receiving any awards. Let's find those instead of debating it in theory. Regarding his "world-class" choreography, let's use the same test. Let's find independent reliable source coverage discussing him (not discussing the troupe he started, as that would be excellent material for an article about the troupe, but not about him as notability is not inherited). The material that has turned up so far about his choreography has been mostly non-independent selfpubs - be it links to his own website, or links to businesswire that display a press release he issued. Let's focus on finding a few sources instead of just theorizing. If we can find good independent reliable source coverage of him, then he will pass the notability test. If not, then it really appears it is a case of WP:TOOSOON. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After several editors (including me) searching hard to try to find the independent reliable source coverage to address the two potential sources of notability mentioned in the comment above, it appears there are simply not enough significant reliable source coverage sources to establish notability of either the awards (which appear to be among several hundred given at that festival), or the "world-class" nature of his choreography. As such, this appears to be WP:TOOSOON, and hence my !vote for delete. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has received some local recognition, but I do not see the coverage needed to put this pver the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This looks like it an article that should be included in Wikipedia about an interesting person. The information is accurate. So why delete it? OracleB (talk) 12:00, 21 June 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 presented of notability under WP:GNG. j⚛e deckertalk 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson W. Smith[edit]

Wilson W. Smith (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 designer of Nike shoes. Reference in the article was supplied by Mr. Smith. Towards the bottom of the ref it says, "This news message is supported by The Creative Finder, an online platform for photographers, illustrators, designers, and art directors to promote their portfolios towards new clients and collaborators. Creatives who wish to sign up for an account can save 10% off annual fees with promo code 'designtaxi'. " I'm unable to find any reliable, independent references, however he does have a common name. I can find a few primary refs where he is mentioned, mostly from Univ. of Oregon. Prod was contested on unknown grounds. Bgwhite (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried Google searches for both "wilson smith" and "wilson w smith", singly and in combination with keywords "nike" and "foursquare". I found no evidence of independent in-depth coverage by reliable media. There was some nominal coverage on sneaker-fan websites, but it tended to focus on the shoes rather than the designer. Ammodramus (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: I also investigated the article's assertion that Smith had received an award or special notice from Black Enterprise magazine. Searching the Black Enterprise website for (wilson smith designer), and for (wilson top designer), yielded no results that appeared to support this. Ammodramus (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find some mentions, but no significant coverage. As an example of mentions, there is this. I was able to find a Black Enterprise article on High Beam, howeevr it too is a mention with his name being part of a list and his mention being "athletic footwear designer Wilson W. Smith III, the Nike Tennis & Court Division creative director who dreamed up the Nike Shox Glamour SW for Serena Williams". -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 18 June 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 Nominator withdrew proposal per WP:SNOW

U-8047 Submarine Museum[edit]

U-8047 Submarine Museum (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 a sort-of CSD G7 nomination. The now-indef-blocked creator of this article attempted to delete it by blanking the page in this and this edit, and also successfully deleted a copy of the article that was resident on his user page. He said that he was going to do so in this vulgar edit on his user talk page. While quite a few other editors have edited the article, virtually all of them (except for a number of recent edits by an editor who has identified himself as the original editor's brother-in-law) have been devoted to trying to turn this piece of vanity spam into an acceptable article. While the boat has, indeed, had a good bit of press coverage, it's only been because of its "wierdness" factor. In terms of real significance, it has virtually none, especially lasting significance, and we ought to accede to the author's request to remove it. TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Yes, weirdness contributed to the mass of press coverage, but let's face it, as far as we know, the stupid boat is still there, in quite a prestige location (next to a genuinely significant war museum!), no-one has yet sunk it and it seems the owner plans to keep it there for quite some time - and indeed the owner may end up bringing yet more newsworthiness to his boat by whatever other shenanighins he gets up to. Notability is clearly established, and only likely to increase. Now, if there were major BLP concerns over the retention of the article (which there were, before!) then I would have a very different view, but with the extensive recent trimmings, those concerns no longer exist. Finally, your G7 proposal does not make sense; you say that the non-COI editors have been trying to turn it into an acceptable article; well, that doesn't change the fact their contributions are significant ones. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing - the editor in question has had a few very strong outbursts over the last twelve hours or so. I'm not convinced that we can assume that just because he said (and did) something in anger at some point this afternoon, it's necessarily his really serious wish regarding the article. Lots of people reply with the "well just delete it anyway then!" line when things don't go their way - the vast majority of them change their minds very quickly. Not that it's relevant, per my other points above, but worth mentioning I think. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think the pseudo-G7 really works even if the original author genuinely wants it deleted, because even if the contributions of others have "only" been copy-editing, rewriting, etc, they're still significant. Is it sufficiently notable? It might only be because it's a little eccentric, but I think there are enough third-party sources to satisfy GNG. And I think the current version looks good without violating BLP or anything - I removed one source that referred to a possible BLP issue, but it was sourcing something that had been removed from the article anyway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A good faith nomination, but I think the article has been sufficiently edited by others to make a G7 untenable, even if we have reason to think the rather unpredictable main editor genuinely wants it deleted. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 20:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficiently referenced by good quality sources RadioFan (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as well-known locally, and featuring on numerous local TV reports. Perhaps the attempts to delete are to do with the allegations of fraud, which themselves should perhaps be documented. Tonywalton Talk 23:57, 11 June 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Heath[edit]

Felicity Heath (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)

No actual assertions of notability here. An actress of no significant accomplishment goes on to be a blogger of no significant accomplishment (except perhaps to be mentioned in someone else's blog post), and gets a picture of herself taken by a famous photographer. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Agreed, G-News search turns up nothing, no reliable sources found in other searches which cover this person. Fails GNG. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of significant reliable and independent sources. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 18:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:29, 13 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Nice[edit]

Alexandra Nice (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:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliably sourced biographical content, and the assertions of notability now fall below WP:PORNBIO standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails WP:NPOV since it does not state the real name of the person it describes. A neutral and unbiased article would be based on the real identity of the person and nor on the stage name. OrenBochman (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Faills below PORNBIO, no information other than a list of awards. Hipocrite (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here, and nothing I found in a brief search, that meets WP:PORNBIO. Ubelowme (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails PORNBIO and WP:GNG. →TSU tp* 08:31, 18 June 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 deleted per author's request. Peridon (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Breytenbach[edit]

Bernhard Breytenbach (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)

No evidence of notability. He's a high-achieving student, and that's all for now. It was prodded, seconded, then de-prodded by an IP with comment "‎ (High possibility of Great Achievements)". When the Great Achievements materialise, the article can be re-created. Possibilities don't merit an article. PamD 15:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message from the Editor

Heya.
This was my second Wikipedia article, so me and my friends are still really new to it all. I apologise for any inconvenience I might have caused in creating this article.
It all started when me and my friends, fellow students in House Luminous, decided it was time to get our house on Wikipedia. I already had the account, so we sat together one afternoon and decided to get started with it. Wasn't much planning before hand, I now know it should have been a sandbox article.
We also decided to give a little more background on the founder, and thus we created this page. However, we couldn't find references, and as the exams came up, we kinda left it to whither away. If I can delete the page, please let me know how and I will move it to my Sandbox until we can plan this out like we should have done it from the start...
Once again, my apologies for any inconvenience... Xethron (talk) 16:11, 11 June 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 Rename to a more neutral title, and cleanup. Moving to Health Services Union expenses affair. Rename to a more neutral title (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Thomson affair[edit]

Craig Thomson affair (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)

Australian silly season WP:COATRACK split of Australian politician Craig Thomson. While subject matter is probably notable enough to merit its own section in Thomson's bio article, this is an attack page, although some editors are attempting to redeem it. I hold out little hope of their success. This should be deleted, although any WP:NPOV content could be merged into the main article on Thomson. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Craig Thomson (politician). The in-merging piece will need to be trimmed substantially to maintain balance at the biography. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Agree with Carrite. Seems excessive coverage of one allegation of sleazy use of funds. COATRACK might be a bit of a push, but I just don't see the article as being necessary: it's not exactly like the main article is too long at the moment. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge (if there is anything worth merging, rather than simply finding a good news review article and noting a summary at Craig Thompson.) Regarding COATRACKing, no item cited describes the narrative present in the article, and the selection of material for inclusion has been conducted with considerable original research and excessive insights derived from interpretation of primary sources. This is what happens when original research and synthesis are the basis of article development. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge only the important material from this "article" which had become a POV exemple of the first water. Collect (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is already adequate coverage at Craig_Thomson_(politician)#Use_of_credit_cards JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unless that's already been done to sufficient degree, as suggested by the editor above. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 18:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for all the reasons above and I don't see that title in the source provided. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ...rather than Merge. The latter would suggest that this once had a valid existence. It didn't. It was being used to attempt to remove a government. As someone who tried to redeem the article, I have no qualms about my efforts disappearing forever. HiLo48 (talk) 22:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I respect your deep knowledge of Australian politics and years of service as an editor here, HiLo, but if you truly think that this is an article that could be "used to remove a government", then doesn't that make it notable enough to keep? --Pete (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that's precisely not what Wikipedia is for. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can't have it both ways. If you think that the article could be used to remove a government, as you say above, then clearly you think it is important, powerful and notable. It would certainly be more notable than any other Wikipedia article ever if it had the power to topple a government! --Pete (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. You don't get it. It COULD be used that way. That's precisely why it SHOULD'NT exist. It's not Wikipedia's job. We are observers and editors, not activists. (Well, not here, anyway.) You really have a strange idea of what Wikipedia is about. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the article could be used to bring down a government, then surely the subject is notable and important. I'm not sure as to the mechanics of how one could actually do that, unless it's some superuser coding feature not available to regular editors like me. All I intend doing - in any article I edit - is to use WP:RS and WP:NPOV and all the rest of the wikipolicies. Nothing secret about that. --Pete (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but with all due respect, I think you need to work a little more on WP:NPOV, and perhaps begin to also think about WP:UNDUE and WP:CONSENSUS. HiLo48 (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably getting off the topic of power-editing a democracy-killing article here, but perhaps we could take this to the article talk page? --Pete (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. This is an Australian political scandal that has been ongoing in the public eye for the past year, generating immense media coverage. Not a "silly season" story or a storm in a teapot, the Thomson affair is something that threatens the existence of the minority Gillard government and outrages the public. The political conflict between Julia Gillard, with 71 seats in Parliament and Opposition leader Tony Abbott with 72, is tense, and Thomson is in the unfortunate position of being a political football. He is the most currently visible of several senior figures of the dysfunctional Health Services Union, so this is something wider than the troubles of one junior politician. With ongoing police investigations, pending court actions and a parliamentary inquiry under way, this is a story that will continue on for months or years to come, and Wikipedia should provide an article and reliable sources for readers seeking information. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JoeSperrazza. Not seeing anything worth merging. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this appears to be an incoherent article about a minor political scandal. Anything important from it can just as easily be covered in the Craig Thomson article. --Carnildo (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG by a million miles so the only question is does it violate anything in WP:NOT? It's not "just news" - it's been going on for several years now and may have serious implications. I can't quite see how anyone could suggest this is not a notable topic. The only qualm I have with it is that while the investigation is ongoing, there is an element of WP:CRYSTAL about a lot of it, and of course WP:BLP must be carefully followed. But non-notable? Seriously?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - Um, I didn't ever claim it wasn't notable, although I think it's better covered in the original Thomson article. I claimed it was a WP:COATRACK, and implied that it was a POV-fork, too. I think that the subject matter is impossible to present in a WP:NPOV way in its own article, because doing so gives it WP:UNDUE weight. Yeah, it's notable. It's an extremely notable attack against a living person. WP:NOTSCANDAL. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTSCANDAL seeks to prohibit the use of Wikipedia to disseminate rumours and hearsay, under the broader prohibitions in WP:NOR. It does not apply here - the allegations ( and more importantly, the findings of FWA) have been reported in reliable secondary sources. We must certainly ensure that this does not turn into an attack page, hence I support moving the page to a more neutral title as suggested below (and for another thing, it may not be Thompson alone who ends up being the villain in this whole affair).--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: 1. The so-called "reliable secondary sources" consist of (a) one media empire (ie Fairfax), whom the subject of the article sued as a defamation defendant; and (b) the Murdoch media, which has made no secret regarding its bias towards the subject and its push for a change of government. If you accept the foregoing, how really reliable and NPOV are those secondary sources for Wikipedia's use as citations in this particular matter? 2. The "findings" of the FWA Report do not meet the rules of evidence which meet the standard of the Evidence Act 1995 - which the FWA Report itself concedes, and forms part of the reason why it was tabled in the Senate and not released outside of parliamentary privilege; note the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph of the General Manager's statement for one of the main reasons why it was done that way. Please also note that Lindy Chamberlain was completely cleared of murdering Azaria today - while that's totally irrelevant to this article, it's of prime relevance here insofar as the principle of presumption of innocence - which the continued presence of this article in Wikipedia violates. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP, it's been raised on the article talk page that you may be Craig Thomson himself. Investigation of the IP address you are using (among other factors) makes this plausible. Would you like to rule this out? Although there is always the probability that a subject of a BLP will read his article - and I've seen how much stress that can cause - it does raise problems when a subject attempts to influence what is written about him. --Pete (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I might be Bob Brown, Clark Kent or Bruce Wayne, and I refuse to rule out any of those possibilities. WTF are you on? HiLo48 (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know Bob Brown and you aren't him. The other two are fictional. All three are ruled out by the many tags you display on your user page, and I believe you on them. But please think through this. Craig Thomson has had death threats made against him, we have people actively saying he's a suicide risk on morning television and he's under a lot of pressure. Maybe you've never been there, but it's a bad place, and regardless of how we regard his behaviour, he needs consideration for that. This IP editor may not be Craig Thomson, but we can't rule it out. As you say. He trusts you. Go hold his hand and tell him Wikipedia ain't such a bad place. --Pete (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so morning television is the source of your wisdom. All is starting to become clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand your concerns, Pete, I have to advise you against requesting self-outing by another editor, IP or pseudonymous. There are a number of perfectly good reasons for the IP's choice of subject, and so I ask you to WP:AGF. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. However, we cannot rule out the possibility - we must not rule it out, if as many concerned have noted Thomson is in a difficult and awkward situation. Two points to note here. If it is not Thomson himself, then it is someone who is trying to promote the same line - there are many such folk about in the blogosphere, and they have no evidence to support their line. It is like the Kennedy assassination, where there are any number of people claiming all sorts of things on the line that it could have happened that way. Second point is that the IP has not stated definitively that he is not Thomson. I am not Craig Thomson - I can say that without beating about the bush or identifying myself. I could be any one of the remaining seven billion people on the planet. As indeed I am. --Pete (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speculation as to any editor's "real life identity" is forbidden on Wikipedia - and your speculation seems to fall into that category. This discussion is neiter the time nor place to do as you are doing. Collect (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may be forbidden, but it is commonplace when a subject, or one closely aligned with the subject's point of view edits a BLP. It is a difficult situation, and one that needs to be handled sensitively. The Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) incident a couple of months back illustrates what can go wrong. I am grateful for your experienced eyes and assistance on this. --Pete (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Second point is that the IP has not stated definitively that he is not Thomson" - I draw your attention to the words immediately below, posted about 20 hours before your comment: "false and ridiculous accusation regarding my identity". That seems pretty definitive to me. Even supposing for the sake of argument that only 5% of Australians accept Thomson's version of events, that makes over a million people; the fact that 121.216.230.139 is among that number seems like extremely slender evidence upon which to base a repeated allegation of bad-faith editing. Please AGF and give it a rest. --GenericBob (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: (first asked on Collect's talk page and asked again here) if an editor has admitted on a blog or similar that he or she is editing this article, and by doing so, that editor can easily be traced back to the membership of a political party with a vested interest in editing this article, is it appropriate to mention this on Wikipedia in AIN or in AfD to point to a clear conflict of interest? Would you agree or disagree that the editor has outed him or her self? Before I possibly running afoul of a policy, I thought I'd better ask someone before saying anything more about this issue. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like stalking to me. If you are talking about me, I haven't been a member of any political organisation this century. --Pete (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 121, that would be a violation of policy. See WP:OUTING, which specifies that even if a person has declared their identity off-wiki, we cannot bring that information on wiki. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, however: If .... personally identifying material is important to the COI discussion, then it should be emailed privately to an administrator or arbitrator [....] Then I'll do that. Can someone please point me where to email the details with regards to this AfD matter - and the matter over at AIN - for admins to examine off Wikipedia? AFAIC, this involves a serious COI issue involving editing by a member of extreme right wing racist hate party known for dirty tricks. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw the comment, GB. As I said, oddly-worded denials. My point about the small number accepting Thomson's story is that it makes it a fringe view, for NPOV purposes, and makes defending the view an awkward and frustrating matter for anybody holding it. I note that elsewhere the IP editor has ruled out accepting any media outlets owned by Fairfax or Murdoch as reliable sources, which would wipe out a lot of Wikipedia's Australian coverage if we accepted his advice - I don't think there would be a metropolitan daily remaining we would be able to use as a source! While we can and should respect every editor, we are not required to accept every opinion. I'll give this a rest now, unless something new comes up. I was keen that editors be aware of the possibility, given Thomson's unhappy presence at the focus of wide media and community attention. --Pete (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you really should give it a rest now. All this insane speculation about editors' real identities, especially Pete/Skyring's obsession over our IP editor actually being Craig Thomson, is completely out of place. The IP editor and I have very similar views. At least one of us is not Craig Thomson. There is no point to this line of discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pete, you seem to be implying that the IP has been leaving loopholes in his/her denial, but I don't see it. The words "false accusation regarding my identity" don't seem to leave any wiggle room. If you believe they're lying and you have evidence to support it, send it to an admin or an arbitrator. Otherwise, you should never have made these insinuations in the first place, and you might consider striking them. --GenericBob (talk) 04:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the original comment from another editor, it looks very broadly worded. I'm not pushing this, beyond asking that he be extended latitude and consideration. Besides, he's a new editor, and we don't bite the newbies. --Pete (talk) 04:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IP doesn't seem like a newbie to me - he/she has a great knowledge of wiki-terminology, admin hierarchy, policy, diffs, edit history, contribs, block logs... Strikes me as a seasoned Wikipedian, actually. No problem with that of course, but I don't think any newbies are in danger of getting bitten here.Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks (?I think?) Yeti Hunter, but I have read a lot lately and I'm learning the jargon quickly out of necessity. Still I am nowhere seasoned enough to know where to email the information that I discussed above. Could you please provide a pointer on where to send it? 121.216.230.139 (talk) 05:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably WP:WQA, but I wouldn't advise doing so in this case - I suggest cooler heads on both sides. Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can and do have articles describing poor behaviour by living people who have not been found guilty by a court of law. Athlete Ben Johnson of Canada sprints into my mind. Reliable sources are what we use to support allegations untested in court. Media outlets regularly publish allegations against named individuals, as do we. I did see your response mentioned above, and found it oddly worded - no actual denial, but a claim of "no political affiliation", which describes Craig Thomson's status exactly now that he has left the ALP. Under our NPOV policy, we do not support fringe viewpoints such as a flat earth or moon landing hoaxes with the same weight as more mainstream views. As noted, public support for the Thomson's view of events lies at 5-10%. --Pete (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per John Profumo and Profumo Affair, both the man and the affair need an article. The political ramifications of the affair are complex and important, but many are undue for a BLP. Reducing our coverage of the affair to a section of Craig Thompson would result in either the loss of important detail or the overwhelming of the man's biography with elements of the scandal that are undue for a BLP. If there is a neutrality problem with the article, fix the article; if you can't be bothered with that, trim it to a stub and protect it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Profumo and Profumo Affair were created long after the latter happened, and thus with the wisdom and perspective of history. Because of its currency it has been impossible to keep editors with obvious POV intentions (such as members of the major opposition party) away from the article under discussion here. It has been used primarily as a political tool, and those of use working hard to prevent that really do have better things to do. HiLo48 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then cut it to a neutral stub and fully protect it. For those of you outside Australia, this thing is called the "Craig Thomson affair" in Australia. That's it's common name here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bill Heffernan's allegations against Michael Kirby were explosive, and if confirmed would've undoubtedly led to the toppling & probable jailing of a High Court judge. Malcolm Turnbull's "Utegate" allegations, if confirmed, would probably have led to the resignation of a Prime Minister. But in both cases what actually happened was quite different; we should be cautious about any arguments that rely on speculation about how this might turn out. The affair definitely merits coverage, but while the fur's still flying we should be cautious; it will probably be easier to put this one in perspective when we have more distance. --GenericBob (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This belongs together with the subject. I'd suggest a bit of paring down as well. I don't think delete is the answer. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to something along the lines of "Health Services Union expenses affair". This is obviously something that will need to be watched closely, but as Yeti Hunter said this passes GNG with flying colours and is clearly a notable event. It is, however, wider than merely Thomson, and restructuring the article to express this would counteract some of the (justified) concern about WP:BLP violations and attack tendencies. GenericBob above, however, is very much on the mark; this needs close monitoring for crystal-balling (although we do, in fact, have an article on Utegate, for what it's worth). Frickeg (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Attack page. The page was started only to push a POV supported by the subject's political opponents. From the time the article was created, it used unreliable, biased sources to disparage and defame the article's subject. When the POV was challenged and balanced, and the defamation removed, WP:GAMEs began. As the article's subject engaged in defamation proceedings against one media empire, and the other media empire present in the country admits it has bias against the living person (and is owned by Murdoch), finding reliable NPOV secondary sources will be a problem. The Craig Thomson article also needs serious clean-up work by NPOV editors with BLP experience. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This topic is quite distinct enough to merit a content "fork" from his bio article given the length and detail of the material. The opposition to the article and the wide array of attacks brought to bear against it seem to be from supporters or sympathizers of his. Obotlig ☣ interrogate 02:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply I don't give a rat's ass about him. I found this article through a message on User talk:Jimbo Wales, evaluated it as a previously uninvolved and completely neutral editor, and found it to be a blatant WP:COATRACK and in violation of WP:NOTSCANDAL. And this AFTER several editors had done major cleanup on it. I will thank you to assume good faith, which means not making blanket assertions about other editors' motivations to create a strawman argument. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 05:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as its already covered in his bio and at least one more location (merge a bit back but not unduly) , if keeping then rename and completely rewrite to the suggested Health Services Union expenses affair - Youreallycan 05:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm undecided on whether the article should be deleted per WP:TNT: while the article is no longer the total disgrace it was and is on a clearly notable topic it still sucks. However, it obviously needs a new title - this scandal is about the Health Services Union, and not just Thompson (though he's obviously a key figure in what's been alleged to date). It's worth noting that this matter a) concerns living people so WP:BLP applies b) is currently under investigation by the police and c) is certain to result in civil court cases and possibly criminal cases, so it needs to be very carefully written. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have my doubts about the court cases. If, for some inexplicable reason, the balance of power suddenly changed in Australian federal politics such that Thomson's vote was no longer of any importance or, heaven forbid, he died, or something like that, the heat would completely disappear from this. Most if not all legal threats would disappear. If all we had was allegations of unacceptable behaviour by a union official who wasn't also a major political figure, there wouldn't be an article. Nobody outside that union and the police would care. The ONLY reason this article exists is because Her Majesty's Opposition smells blood, and that's a very dangerous reason. HiLo48 (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And quite wrong. The political impact of the affair is significant, but what is driving public discussion, as opposed to the Parliamentary Press Gallary hanging over the railings every Question Time, is the misuse of union fees. My son, as a kitchen hand in Calvary Hospital, exemplifies the membership of the HSU. He and thousands of others in similar jobs depend on their union to maintain or improve their dismal conditions and low pay. When they learn that the money they earn from stacking dirty plates in a dishwasher or hosing out bedpans or whatever is being spent on prostitutes, they question the purpose of their union membership. Forget what may or may not happen in the Reps, what is happening is that these workers are leaving the Health Services Union in their thousands. Get out and about and listen to people. The reason the article is here is because it describes an important social matter, and that has its own existence, regardless of what is said here or in Parliament. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely put, Skyring. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To both of you, that's rubbish. Without the hung parliament problem, we would not have an article. To claim otherwise is just silly HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And without the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand... Don't call people's contributions rubbish and silly. It's rude. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat it if you like. Those contributions are silly rubbish, Anthonyhcole's in particular. It's just barracking. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator: if consensus does turn to "keep", I advocate that it should still be given a WP:TNT deletion because of the indisputable attack-page status that this had at one point. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point actually. It's important that the edit history not contain defamatory material. Recreate current article at new title, delete old one entirely. Possibly immediately re-create a redirect at this title as a plausible search term?--Yeti Hunter (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable controversy; not a BLP violation, at least in its current form. Merging is a possibility, but I don't think it's obligatory here; there seems to be enough to say to justify a separate article, at least for the time being. However, I would advise renaming to get Craig Thomson's name out of the title, to something less contentious like Health Services Union expenses affair. Robofish (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I just came across Category:Political controversies in Australia. Yikes. Is anyone else concerned about having biographies of living people categorised as 'controversies'? Robofish (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, that should be rectified immediately. A person is not a scandal. Tarc (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Except the SMH and ABC refer to this as the "Thompson affair" regularly. Preponderance of sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not actually reading what we're talking about, which is that other people's biographical articles are themselves tagged as "controversies". This wasn't about "The so-and-so affair" type of articles. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too much detail for a relatively straightforward political spat. How much mention, if any, on the main BLP can be discussed at that talk page. There's just not enough here to justify forking the coverage to its own article. Tarc (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at what links the Craig Thomson page, there's over a hundred links, though many are routine. The Gillard Government article has a section, complete with photograph. As for naming controversies after living people, it seems commonplace enough around the world. Petrov Affair, Profumo Scandal, Category:Political sex scandals, Political sex scandals in the United States and so on. --Pete (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that incoming links really has much to do with anything here, but you need to fine-tune your search a bit. Links from other articles that aren't transcluded shows only 5. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. I note that the actual section detailing the affair is linked from Craig Thomson (politician) rather than Craig Thomson affair. We could probably grab a few more mentions by looking at links to the various HSU pages. My point is that mentions are all over Wikipedia. He even got a guernsey in The Signpost for his Wikipedia plagiarisation. --Pete (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Petrov and Profumo affairs are far enough in the past that the historical perspective is pretty stable and highly unlikely to change. This is NOT something we can rely on with the HSU scandal. Utegate started out as a story about Kevin Rudd but ended up as a story about Godwin Grech (and to a lesser extent, Malcolm Turnbull). Rentboygate started out as a story about Michael Kirby and ended up as a story about Bill Heffernan. Until we know whether the HSU scandal is going to stay as a story about Craig Thomson, or evolve into a story about Kathy Jackson or some other person, we should not pre-emptively assign it to Thomson. "Health Services Union affair" or some such seems like a reasonably NPOV name. (Even if one takes all the allegations against CT at face value, and dismisses his denials as fiction, it's pretty clear that the problems in the HSU extended much further than Thomson.) --GenericBob (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course. The thing can evolve, and I am pretty sure in my crystal ball that we're going to see more from the direction of the HSU. But at the moment the good sources we have are all about Craig Thomson, and HiLo even claims above it's really only about him and his critical vote in Parliament anyway. I'm not averse to changing the title to reflect the HSU basis, but I kind of despair at navigating the byzantine characters and branch structures of the union over the years to be able to tell a coherent tale. We'd need a local guide for that sort of work. --Pete (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've never said that it's only about Thomson. A more accurate description of my view is that it's all about the Liberal Party's lust for power. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A political party lusting for power - what will we have next! Gillard shares the same genes on this. In fact she became Prime Minister by toppling the existing head of government without the bother of having an election. Nevertheless, the affair involves more than just Thomson and the parliamentary situation is important. Perhaps if we're going to merge the article, it should be merged with Gillard Government, where there is already a longer and more comprehensive mention than at Craig Thomson. --Pete (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you get all your lines from the Sydney shock jocks? The process of change of party leader and hence PM is a perfectly normal and legal one under the Westminster system, despite what the rabid media and the Libs have told you. It's a bit like innocent until proven guilty in court, another concept you seem to find difficult to comprehend. But anyway, this is not about Gillard, but I guess your true colours are showing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:HiLo48, please check out ANI - it's like a SMPTE test card. Heh. 121.216.230.139 (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge NPOV content into a section in the main article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or greatlly abridge & merge - Article comfortably fits here → WP:SENSATION
and neatly here: WP:Recentism → writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:
  • Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
  • Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
  • The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognised by Wikipedia consensus.
- Cablehorn (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge this is a particularly oputrageous instance of overcoverage. Even for politicians, part of the undue coverage aspects of WP:BLP apply to WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Craig Thomson (politician)#Political career. Per common sense, I'd say. Cavarrone (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment on merge proposals. The material might be more appropriate at Gillard Government, where the affair is already covered in more detail than Craig Thomson. While Thomson is the focus, at least until more material from the HSU becomes available, the significance lies in the political impact on a closely balanced parliament where the Opposition holds more seats than the Government. --Pete (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge either to Gillard Government or Craig Thomson (politician) (whichever is more appropriate) per topics such as Cheriegate, which are notable enough for a section, but not sufficiently enough to stand on their own. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have a sense of schadenfreude when plastering this space with notable scandals that shame powerful people, but it does not seem to be either notable nor the will of the Wikpedians. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Craig Thomson (politician). I've very carefully read all the Keep arguments presented here, and in my opinion a good case for keeping the article separate has not been made. The affair is certainly notable, but that's better dealt with on the bio page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Except that it's not all about CT. It involves several individuals, a union, a government department, and the government itself, with support acts from the media and the opposition. To merge to any one of those entities alone would be inappropriate, yet I reckon we have consensus that it is indeed notable. Its own article is the only NPOV place for it. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your proposal for a new name for the article? HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I and several others above suggested Health Services Union expenses affair, although of course this could be subject to discussion. As a corollary, I worry about merging this article for one main reason: I foresee endless problems in relation to WP:UNDUE if all this is included in Craig Thomson (politician) (or worse, Gillard Government). A neutral, probably protected article about the entire HSU problem (of which Thomson is only a part) seems to me preferable. Frickeg (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I agree with all of that. I guess the emphasis so far on Craig Thomson has been one of the things worrying me about all of this. HiLo48 (talk) 06:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned about attempts to whitewash Thomson by partisan editors. Given the wide media coverage, the few lines at Craig Thomson are quite inadequate. The Gillard Government article has a better coverage! --Pete (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't believe that anyone here is trying to whitewash Thomson. I for one am primarily concerned that he should be tried in a proper legal setting, rather than by the media, opposition parties, and you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We report on poor behaviour that has not seen the inside of a courtroom, such as drug cheating by athletes. The Fair Work Australia report is a valid source. Every major media outlet in Australia is using it, what makes Wikipedia any different - we're just a website, after all. On the matter of whitewashing, I note that the Craig Thomson article lost more than a third of its content over the past month, and all of that was coverage of the HSU business. The diff above commences from before I made any edits and finishes with the most recent edit, so that's all material sourced from the regular editors now vanished. How come? --Pete (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the point again. One of the three bodies I alleged was playing the out-of-courtroom judge and jury role IS the media. Then you used the fact that the media is covering it as a reason why Wikipedia and you should. Oh dear. I truly believe that you quite often just don't get it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not accept that other people have different opinions? Such as the Prime Minister, who forced Thomson out of the ALP and told journalists that "a line had been crossed." She's not judge and jury, and the ALP party room is no court, but still she acted publicly and Thomson is out in the cold, shunned by his caucus comrades. --Pete (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue she did that BECAUSE of the trial by media. You must admit that our two major print sources are both actually part of this story, not just objectively reporting on it. Any cursory read of The Australian over a few weeks will tell you that Murdoch hates Labor right now, and Thomson sued Fairfax. They are not great independent sources on this story, and that's yet another reason to take our time and find more impartial sources, probably from further afield. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's every Australian daily newspaper you've just pitched into the harbour as a reliable source. How much further afield do you want to go, and just where do you think overseas news outlets source their material anyway? Is the left-leaning ABC an acceptable source in your eyes? They are all telling the same story because they are carefully reporting the facts. --Pete (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do reject both the major daily newspaper outlets as reliable, independent sources on THIS matter, and I gave reasons. That you label the ABC as left-leaning actually labels you. My solution, as ever on this matter, is to slow down. Wait. Wikipedia is NOT a breaking news outlet, nor a scandal-mongering tabloid. We can afford to wait for a more objective coverage after some time. Probably at least months, maybe best left until after the next election, for obvious reasons. We must take care care that we don't become part of the story too. HiLo48 (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I prefer the ABC to any commercial channel, especially for news and current affairs. I find myself in agreement with their corporate line on most issues. But why are you aiming your firepower on this article, exactly? The Gillard Government article has a good coverage of the affair, why not go look at that. They use 'gasp!' both The Australian and The Sydney Morning Herald as reliable sources! We use the media as reliable sources for other issues, for example the Rudd and Gillard leadership tussles. Why not just accept that the WP:RS policy is a good one? It works. --Pete (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You ask, why not? I ask, can't you read?!!!!!!!!!! First, I gave reasons, second, I pointed out that I had given reasons. Third, you ask why? Stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Into Craig Thomson (politician). I see no reason why this needs it own article, plus there are some IP editors that have strong opinions on this. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note regarding any merge of content - The content in this article is completely disputed by multiple editors in regards to wp:npov , wp:blp AND wp:undue so it is highly likely any attempt to automatically merge any content citing this discussion as a reason will be disputed and reverted - and discussion requested on the talkpage of that article - Youreallycan 05:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename as suggested above and refocus to the wider HSU issues, Craig Thomson is not the only part of that and the actions happened before the Gillard Government's time in office - therefore neither a direct merge/folding in to Craig Thomson's article nor it becoming a section in the pages on the Government in general would be appropriate. It's notable enough to need its own page, and the scope too broad to be just kept under other articles, though would suggest Health Services Union would otherwise be the most appropriate place for the subject matter. --GoForMoe (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question This is actually a major and ongoing Australian political scandal, running since 2009, as a quick look at the sources will reveal, so I ask those !voting for deletion, when did Wikipedia begin to censor political controversies? I think a better question is not whether we cover it or cover it up, but under what article name we report a notable event. For your consideration, thanks. --Pete (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is your twenty-fourth contribution to this discussion. Stop badgering other editors. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC) More over, you made exactly the same suggestion as in the post above in your opinion that the article should be kept. By repeating yourself to such an extent, after the posts of contributors that disagree with you, you are damaging this discussion by badgering. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is actually the first time I've asked these questions, and I think that all participants will be interested in any answers supplied. Feel free to contribute. --Pete (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While this is not a vote, just for simplicity, please note that there are 12 comments supporting a merge, 9 comments for deletion, 2 for delete/merge, and 7 for keep. That's an overwhelimng 76% in favor of making this specific article go away. While I have not commented here either way, I did make two edits to the article (though they were simply to enforce policy), so I'm sure if I closed this for deletion (leaving a discussion of what should or shouldn't be added to Craig Thompson up to editors on that talk page) I'd just give ammunition to those admanant about keeping this to get it overturned by calling me technically WP:INVOLVED. Furthermore, a number of the keep commenters focus on how this article is important because of their own personal political perspectives (about how this scandal is going to bring down a government). Those recommending deletion have presented solid arguments about how this article violates WP:NPOV (often via the WP:COATRACK analysis), and how this cannot be rectified by normal editing (since it is the existence of the article itself that gives excessive prominence to this subject), and the easiest way to fix that is to delete it and include only a smaller number of details on the pages of the principles. So, the closing admin is welcome to either read this as yet another delete !move, or as an attempt to summarize the consensus of those above. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just address your misrepresentation, there? This isn't going to bring down the government. It might. That's because the Gillard Government is in a minority and if Thomson is forced to resign, a by-election would change the balance by two votes, and Gillard only has a margin of one.[51]. That's what makes it notable, not because of Thomson per se, but because of the impact, and of the wider HSU scandal. Those aren't my opinions in the quotes there. That's Prime Minister Gillard talking, and journalist/historian Paul Kelly who has four decades service in the Canberra press gallery. Have you actually read any of the sources? --Pete (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing would make this article a textbook case of WP:COATRACK: if Craig Thomson isn't notable per se, then the scandal and its impact should be covered in HSU scandal or somewhere in Gillard Government. --Carnildo (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are far too many Brits and Yanks asserting stuff about the notability of the Craig Thomson affair who clearly haven't a clue how this tawdry episode has dominated the parliament and media here. You may as well argue that the Lewinsky scandal should be relegated to a paragraph of Bill Clinton. If the article is biased, fix it, or if the project proves itself incapable of that, trim it to a neutral stub and protect it until the election is behind us. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question What's your opinion on a WP:TNT deletion, followed by a neutrally renamed version? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 13:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would not oppose that. Do you have something prepared? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then recreate with neutral name (as Jorgath suggests), since I don't think I explicitly stated my preference before. Something like "Health Services Union scandal"/"affair" would be broad enough to cover both CT and also any of the other interesting parties embroiled in this affair, without the POV problems associated with naming after one participant. --GenericBob (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This matter can be adequately contained within the articles covering Craig Thompson and the Health Services Union. As it stands it could be argued this article has been created to focus on this matter in an attempt to subvert the neutrality principle. --Lw (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:EVENT, WP:NOTCENSORED. A merge to Craig Thomson (politician) would give the subject undue weight there. The main article has a readable prose size of just 3174 bytes, and the article under discussion here 5710, so extensive paring down would be needed for a viable merge to take place. -- Trevj (talk) 08:58, 21 June 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:PROF. The subject's work, legacy, and citations are good enough. Several users discussed that at least two reliable sources discuss the subject's biography at length. A high h-index is a heuristic but not required metric; it is a factor but not an element of the 'professor test'. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. O'Neill[edit]

Mark A. O'Neill (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)

DePRODed by creator witout adressing the issues. Concern was: WP:BLP without Reliable independent sources relevant to the subject and which confer notability. All the references are either to the subject's own works or do not substantiate any biographical content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. According to WP:ACADEMIC (#3), which I believe to be the relevant standard, O'Neill's membership in the Royal Entomological Society and the Royal Astronomical Society are sufficient to demonstrate notability. Reading the notes at WP:ACADEMIC, I can't think these are "minor and non-notable societies". I didn't take this analysis further; possibly someone will want to get into citation metrics, etc. Ubelowme (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. O'Neill is also a Fellow of the British Computer Society, The Institute of Engineering and a Chartered Engineer. Furthermore, his papers in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society and Science have a significant number of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhemarius (talk • contribs) 17:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — Adhemarius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note. According to Wikipedia: If anyone, including the article creator, removes a proposed deletion tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. I removed the tag because I object to the deletion as per Wikipedia instructions for the reasons given above -- Adhemarius.— Adhemarius (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too early. GS cites are 122, 114, 29, 17, 11, 8, 8...with an h-index of 7 in a high cited field. This is not enough to satisfy WP:Prof#C1. Fellowships are not sufficient. The article RanaVision, which looks promotional, needs to be looked at too. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Query about the H Index being reported: I think there may possibly be some mistake with the figure being quoted. For example I think our Dr O'Neill wrote these:
Anatomical connectivity defines the organization of clusters of cortical areas in the macaque monkey and the cat - Author(s): Hilgetag, CC (Hilgetag, CC); Burns, GAPC (Burns, GAPC); O'Neill, MA (O'Neill, MA); Scannell, JW (Scannell, JW); Young, MP (Young, MP) Source: PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES Volume: 355 Issue: 1393Pages: 91-110 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2000.0551 Published: JAN 29 2000
and this has been cited according the Google Scholar 295 cites.
and this one - "Hierarchical organisation of the macaque and cat cortical sensory systems explored with a novel network processor" has 80 cites
And this one - "Computational Analysis of Functional Connectivity between Areas of Primate Cerebral Cortex" - has GS 185 cites
And this one - "The Connectional Organization of the Cortico-thalamic System of the Cat" - has 240 cites
I have not checked for more but if these are by him, and this should be checked, I think these might change the picture a bit. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Another few quite well cited ones Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling in the Analysis of Neuroanatomical Connection Data and the Organization of the Primate Cortical Visual System GS 74 cites and Automating the identification of insects: a new solution to an old problem, ID Gauld, KJ Gaston… - Bulletin of …, 1997 - Cambridge Univ Press GS cites 34, Automating insect identification: exploring the limitations of a prototype system with GS cites 43. Species-identification of wasps using principal component associative memories with GS cites 23
These cites would now take our list to the following: GS cites = 295, 240, 185, 122, 114, 80, 74, 43, 34, 29, 23, 17 which maps onto a h-index=12 which I think is in an acceptable level, given his fields, to establish O'Neill's notability via WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • DeleteWeak delete Per Xxanthippe's analysis. The memberships mentioned by Ubelowme do not contribute anything to notability: it's sufficient to work in an appropriate field and pay the membership fees. This fails WP:PROF, but the sources provided (Science and BBC) go some way to satisfying WP:GNG. Something more substantial would clinch it. The article needs a serious overhaul (weird bolding, inappropriate in-text external links, etc). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The deletion proposal was on the basis of a lack of reliable independent references. I added a few reliable third-party references when this article was flagged unreferenced under the unreferenced blp project. These and more recent activity are, IMHO, sufficient to establish notability. However, I concur with Xxanthippe that related material appears promotional. That discussion would probably be better handled on COIN. --KenBailey (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On which notability policy do you base your keep vote? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Based on general notability from coverage in reliable national UK media secondary sources. --KenBailey (talk) 22:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Keep -- as Guillaume2303 mentioned, the Royal Entomological Society and the Royal Astronomical Society are not competitive Fellowships. The latter is just a membership; the former is a professional membership. The BBC article is a real, independent citation of his work that suggests a notable professor, but I think we need one more good citation of his work to keep. (Adding: the Science Pushing DAISY article is enough for me + the BBC article). It's a case where the lack of institutional affiliation--which gives some independent affirmation of research notability--hurts the subject. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question: Is the article - Reed, Sarah (2010) Pushing DAISY, Science, 25 June 2010 - a useful indication of the possible notability of our Dr O'Neill? I think, but can't see behind the paywall just yet, that this is a biographical article about him and his interesting Digital Automated Identification SYstem (DAISY) system. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)) PS: The source is here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5986/1628.summary[reply]
  • Keep - I have read the Pushing DAISY article now - thanks to a link to a pdf from Google Scholar. An article with this amount of biographical detail in Science, together with the other evidence seem sufficient to me for notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
One article is not enough. There is a requirement for multiple independent reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Xxanthippe -- I changed my vote because I consider the BBC + Science to be two independent RSes. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On which notability policy do you base your keep vote? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
WP:PROF category 1. I think that being interviewed in Science shows significant impact on his field; having his research profiled by BBC does also. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification but I don't think this is nearly enough for WP:Prof#1. Bioscience and computer science are both highly cited fields and the citations here are far below the h-index of around 20 that might be expected. The two media reports seems to be reports of aspiration rather than achievement, and although "two" technically counts as "multi" I think that sources more substantial than this are needed to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Xxanthippe -- I've considered your assessment of the h-index which was one of the main reasons I originally chose Delete. My feeling is that I tend to use citation indexes (even in fields where they're pretty reliable and commonly used) when there's little external evidence of notability and I need to answer the question, "Did I miss something? Or did we do a thorough enough search?" If a computer scientist has an h-index of 7 and we find no external indications of notability then I'll be satisfied in voting delete. If the person has an h-index of 40 I'll tend to think we've just missed something that is probably out there and vote keep even if the external sources are weak (there needs to be some RS out there though). In this case though I've felt like what is out there attests to an importance that goes beyond the low number of citations; maybe computer science applied to entomology gets fewer citations than other CS fields? Here's a quote from the Science article: "O'Neill “is one of the most interdisciplinary scientists that I have ever worked with,” MacLeod [paleontologist of the Natural History Museum, London] says. “Mark lives and breathes entomology—growing caterpillars at home—but he is also an advanced IT specialist. He is decidedly unique.”" there is other praise for him and his work there and several explanations for lack of funding and citations due to his crossing boundaries. I feel like the bar has been met. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to comments above. It's a shame that there is ambiguity is assessing which journals are authored. But even if a few more are added they will not lift the h-index to the value of 20 or so expected for this field. In view of the non-linear nature of the index many more citations will be needed. May be too early. I am less impressed than some are by the two articles in the popular media. It is the nature of modern public relations for people who want publicity (and I do not allege that happened in this case) to approach journalists with a story and journalists, who are always on the look out for copy, will write an article if they can. I am also concerned, as mentioned above in regard to RanaVision, that there may be a issue at work here with the promotion of commercial software. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep significant coverage in multiple reliable sources demonstrated. --Kvng (talk) 19:06, 18 June 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. Note that there are no keep votes except from SPA accounts.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bambi Magazine[edit]

Bambi Magazine (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 magazine. Only independent sources are trivial in-passing mentions (several on non-notable blogs). Does not meet WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Allow me to quote and also point out the misuse of reference material by Guillaume2303 and the IP. "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist." The keyword here being "solely." Editors have referenced other magazines, as they are free to do, but have not based their fair and appropriate arguments "solely" on those references. Further, given the tenacious behaviour by Guillaume2303 and the IP (please reference their respective history), I would ask for an Administrator at this point to intervene. Sir Chadly (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — Sir Chadly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Goodness, do I welcome an administrative overview! The implication that I'm somehow connected to Guillaume2303 strikes me as a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the substance of the discussion, as well as the possible connection of the single purpose accounts above. Let's do solicit sysop input. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not see a problem with notability. The third party database models.com verifies multiple contributors which are also linked to in the article text. In regards to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the use of other similar articles was to simply to draw attention to the fact that Wikipedia is lacking in certain areas of information, and that this can be an opportunity to expand Wikipedia to better cover the arts and humanities. ChesterBarn (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC) — ChesterBarn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Typically, administrators will know what to do with such single-purpose accounts, and when the article is deleted usually the SPAs go away. A sockpuppet investigation is always an option anyway. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This Google News search and this Google News archive search show several references, primarily brief stories that say a particular model appeared in the magazine with an accompanying photograph. I didn't find anything at Advertising Age, Masthead Online or http://www.foliomag.com/ , each of which might be expected to have some coverage of a magazine title. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Nothing special to see here, just another "magazine" with provocative pictures of women. No strong third-party coverage, nothing to fulfill our notability requirements, just pretty pictures. Closing admin should take notice of the SPA activity here, attempting to skew the results. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Please do not discount this comment, given the nature of some of the arguments surrounding this issue, I'm choosing to comment anonymously, away from my user account. Unlike some here, I'm a professional in this field, once worked at Conde Nast as an editor, and do know my fashion. I've actually ordered copies of the magazine. I would argue the magazine itself is important. Its heavy focus on fashion photography alone makes it important. The magazine is of great quality, high-grade glossy paper, and from what I can tell, roughly 300 pages, with only a couple ads. This is more like a book. I think anyone holding it and actually going through it would be greatly impressed. Found this just now. [[52]]. Being in the industry I see a lot of magazines, this one actually is different. 173.243.33.130 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC) — 173.243.33.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Since you have a registered account and are presumably familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, you understand that our subjective interpretations of the publication are all but immaterial--this might be the most lavishly produced magazine in its field. What's needed to establish notability are published reliable sources, per WP:RELIABLE. Thanks, 99.156.68.118 (talk) 01:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails to offer any credible evidence of notability, and searches are not productive at all. The involvement of COI editors, possible socks, and a series of s.p.a.s are all irrelevant, however symptomatic. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, personally, am getting a little insulted by some of the accusations and innuendo. I normally wouldn't mention this, as it's personal, but I've studied art history for 4 years, and have begun my Masters in Fashion history. I'm well versed on the topic. Given what I've seen, I'm not sure I want to carry on here much longer. The way that Wikipedia treats arts based publications, especially newer or smaller ones, is joke. That said, this magazine in particular has a strong following. A Google Image search will reveal approximately 14 solid pages of images, directly linking to various third party magazines, articles, blogs etc. I would say this has some notability. It should also be noted that this is a fashion magazine and more so, an international one. If some individuals are having a hard time locating "credible evidence", then maybe they are not searching in the right places. If you factor in that the President of RED Digital Camera [[53]] has partnered with Bambi Magazine, I would say that would constitute some notability, too. ChesterBarn (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, and the 'direct linking' of images is not significant coverage. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And I wouldn't normally mention it, but I've taught art for nearly twenty years and write about the subject for national publication. The issue has never been about the quality of the magazine, or whether it has followers. It's this, which has been stated over and over: nobody has yet found multiple reliable sources to establish its notability. The numerous accounts arguing 'keep'--and we can leave it to an admin to check their relationship to one another--have tried to play the cyberbullying card, which is embarrassing to the mag and its associated editors. I've created and edited numerous articles in the arts here, with none of the problems evidenced in this discussion, because I've always started with reliable sources. Doing otherwise and then getting pissed off when challenged suggests nothing but conflict of interest and a promotional agenda. It's painfully transparent when single purpose accounts don't get their way and threaten to leave Wikipedia as a result. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the publication. QU TalkQu 22:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would be perfectly happy to accept this article if any of these experts could find a single reliable source. Instead of wailing about how how unfamiliar the editors are with the fashion community, perhaps they (however many there might be) should become a little more familiar with Wikipedia's community.Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Choosing to post anonymously. The article did have some credible references but they've since been edited out. There is no incentive in this climate to improve the article as references keep being deleted. I would also like to reference this [[54]]. Administrators offering to accommodate active editors on this page do not come off as impartial. We have rules about Canvassing here [[55]]. 174.91.94.229 (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)— 174.91.94.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Glad you're referencing my conversation at Drmies' page. As Sir Chadly requested above, I was seeking administrative intervention. But if you want to go with the canvassing accusation, I won't get in the way. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 00:12, 18 June 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 Hepatitis#Diagnosis. The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hepatitis biochemical markers[edit]

Hepatitis biochemical markers (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)

Misnamed article on the serological/immunological diagnosis of hepatitis. These are not what would conventionally regarded as biochemical tests. There is also no reason why the content cannot be integrated with hepatitis. JFW | T@lk 13:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above makes an interesting case. While I do not see what the above can not be termed as a "Biochemical marker" (any hormone, enzyme, antibody, or other substance that is detected in the urine, blood, or other body fluids or tissues that may serve as a sign of a disease or other abnormality.) in fact it seems like that is the most correct definition, I do believe it COULD be added to the hepatitis site although hepatitis is just defined as inflamation of the liver whereas these are specific diseases which contribute to a specific form of hepatitis. The markers are of such importance that I think they should be included as a "clip" or "snip-it" in the hepatitis page as well as having the original source on another page. Either way, if the page is scheduled for deletion, the information should be preserved in some location. --70.166.194.10 (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Hepatitis. Being misnamed is not grounds for deletion (and whether it's misnamed is debatable). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - this content is worth keeping, as Colapeninsula says, being misnamed is not a grounds for deletion. A merge to Hepatitis#Diagnosis makes most sense. The content does need to be fleshed out a little, but deletion is not for things which can be fixed by editing. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 15:20, 11 June 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Šarūnas Stančaitis[edit]

Šarūnas Stančaitis (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 footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league. The article claims he played for Lithuania, but there's no mention of this from any reliable sources such as UEFA's website or this list here. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:07, 11 June 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. The article is sorely in need of cleanup and would be helped by stubification, but it's clear that the subject belongs in Wikipedia. — The Earwig (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subjunctive by attraction[edit]

Advanced search for: 
"Subjunctive by attraction"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Advanced search for: 
"attraction of mood"
In books/documents 
Google Books  · Questia
Internet Archive  · WorldCat
In the news 
Google News: recent  · archives

Questia  · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals 
and reference works 
Google Scholar: academic  · legal

Microsoft Academic: new  · original
Oxford Reference  · JSTOR
PUBMED Central  · Questia
HighBeam  · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages 
Google Web Search  · Advanced Search
Searx 1  · 2  · 3  · 4
Bing  · DuckDuckGo  · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast
Images (free) 
Google  · Flickr
More 
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library
Subjunctive by attraction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

This article is written like a research paper and is decidedly unencyclopedic. Most of the article consists of (unsourced - possibly OR) lists of instances of "subjunctive by attraction" in Latin literature. The rest of the article (other than the lead, the only decent part of the article) doesn't really say much by itself, relying on lengthy quotes and other assertions by the sources.

Moreover, I don't think Wikipedia needs an article on this topic at all. However if it does, this is definitely not it. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So fix it! Get your editing tool out and write. When you figure out from the very poor and incomplete citations that the "one authority" and "another authority" being cited here are Charles Edwin Bennett, William Gardner Hale, and Tenney Frank, things will be a lot clearer. As will reading one of the tens of books about Latin spanning almost two centuries (earliest that Google Books turned up for me in a two-minute search was dated 1838) that cover this subject (sometimes by its alternative name of attraction of mood). Or as indeed will trading the four very dense pages on the subject in Handford 1947, §160–§162.
    • Handford, Stanley Alexander (1947). "Subjunctive resulting from attraction". The Latin Subjunctive. Taylor & Francis.
  • Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surely any relevant content could be merged into the subjunctive mood article? Or, even better, merged into a Romance-specific article split out from the subjunctive mood article (which is now too long)? — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, perhaps this is an OTHERSTUFF argument, but I notice that we lack articles on other uses of the subjunctive in Latin. See this page, which contains a table of different uses of the subjunctive. We don't seem to have articles on many of these, and rightly so, for they are not individually worthy of articles. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • hello, I'm the author of the article. I agree with the critiques except I don't think deletion is the remedy. While I no longer edit wikipedia, I would propose deleting everything except the lede, and preserving all the citations. Sorry this is sloppy, I'm using my phone to edit. User agradman. 166.250.44.119 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep assuming that someone will edit this down to a reasonable size. There's a germ of an article here. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but stub more or less per agradman - lede and Further Reading section, with any other identifiable references that would otherwise be deleted added to the Further Reading section. Though I wouldn't object to seeing parts of the rest of the article summarised into two or three cited paragraphs, if anyone wants to try this. Ultimately, this would probably work better as a section of a few paragraphs in an article on the Subjunctive in Latin - but this currently doesn't exist, so keeping a short article is more feasible. Finally though, I'd note that large chunks of the current article have probably been copied from elsewhere. However, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the source is the cited book by Charles Edwin Bennett, who died in 1921 - so copyvio won't apply. PWilkinson (talk) 21:41, 17 June 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. WP:SNOW. There are no references? WP:SOFIXIT. Also, please mind that moving an article during an AfD causes admin headaches. The Bushranger One ping only 04:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas High School Douglas Wyoming[edit]

Douglas High School Douglas Wyoming (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:V as it fails to show sources to prove its notability or existence. Dead end that not even can be redirected to its schooldistrict, due to that one not existing. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which was done within seconds of my post. Scary. Thanks, Carrite. Dru of Id (talk) 15:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per standard practice for high schools of confirmed existence. I've taken the liberty of renaming the piece and added some basic information and a source confirming a couple previously unsubstantiated assertions. Stub articles grow over time, there is nothing wrong with them that a little work won't fix. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: have added link to its official webpage on School District website, while stub-sorting it. Why did this come to AfD, when it was so easy to expand the substub? PamD 15:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This Pavlovian reflex is an absolute joke. Nobody does a thing about bad articles, but when you AfD it everybody wakes up and starts yelling. Sorry, lads and lasses, for a reliable encyclopedia, you need reliable and useful articles. And I am bold enough to reach that by any means. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why... Carrite (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold is one thing. Going against long-established consensus because you don't happen to agree with it is entirely another. Stating you are bold enough "to reach that [i.e. what you want, not what the community wants] by any means" is starting to look worryingly like disruptive behaviour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you see the wish for good articles as disruptive behaviour and you think that the community does not want reliable and useful articles? Come on... Night of the Big Wind talk 16:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:N: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, (...)
Again from WP:N: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.
From WP:V: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. The citation should fully identify the source, and the location within the source (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate) where the material is to be found.
Which statements in this article have been challenged or are likely to be challenged? There's nothing controversial there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again from WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
Ergo, an article needs sources or can be challenged. If an articles has no reliable sources to prove its notability, I have the right to challenge the whole article. You don't like my method? No problem! Just add sources and I have no reason to challenge it. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has sources. Enough to verify the school exists and verify the non-controversial statements of which the article consists. Ergo, this debate comes down only to notability, not verifiability. Ergo, much of what you have just quoted is irrelevant. Have you noticed the number of "keep" votes in this debate? In other similar debates? That's consensus. You are usually a lone or almost lone dissenting voice. Continually claiming that you are right and everyone else is wrong, which is effectively what you are doing, is unproductive. Continually nominating secondary school articles for deletion when you know full well that consensus is to keep them and that's almost certainly the way the AfD debate will go is disruptive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and other content on that page are not notability guidelines. I'm aware that articles on high schools are rarely deleted, but shouldn't they still be held to WP:ORG? That being said, deletion is rarely the best option. §everal⇒|Times 17:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Practice is ahead of policy on schools. Over the course of years a rough and widely held consensus has emerged that high schools are to be presumed notable in the same way that villages, rivers, highways, and professional athletes are presumed notable, based upon verified existence. Elementary schools, on the other hand, are being presumed non-notable and redirected unless massive and overwhelming evidence of their source-based "specialness" is presented. There has been no RFC to confirm or reverse this long-running actual practice, it is what it is. The theory behind it is sound and there is no reason to believe that a reversal would occur if there were an RFC — biographies often include reference to the high school of their subject by name; it makes no sense for massive numbers of these links to be red. Moreover, high schools are presumed to be featured in extensive coverage of their construction, their sports teams, their musical concerts, their extracurricular clubs, and so forth. They are landmarks of their communities. On the other hand, there is no such pressing need to "preserve" blue links of elementary schools as they are seldom mentioned by name. Rather than wasting everyone's time fighting over the sourcing of pieces for hundreds of thousands of schools around the globe, the grand compromise has emerged between those favoring a narrow and focused encyclopedia and those favoring a broad and inclusive encyclopedia to auto-keep high schools and auto-redirect elementary schools to their school district or city. It is a compromise that works. It is a compromise that has been upheld many hundreds of times over the years by closing administrators. It is not a compromise that is universally accepted, per this particular nomination. Carrite (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed? I just want proof, in line with WP:V. Night of the Big Wind talk 16:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Consensus is that articles on verified secondary schools are kept, whether the nominator likes it or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources exist to meet WP:ORG. Nomination confuses the state of the article with what can be added. TerriersFan (talk) 16:10, 12 June 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 deleted by MuZemike (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as Blatant disruption. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 11:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mario: After The Fall[edit]

Mario: After The Fall (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)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. There are no WP:RS to the claims. No official announcement of the date of release is made. This is little notable but the article is created too-soon →TSU tp* 10:37, 11 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seventeen (Simon Webbe song)[edit]

Seventeen (Simon Webbe song) (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:SONG. I can't seem to find much coverage for this single, and it did not appear to chart or win any awards. Till 10:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable song. No references. No attempt at any kind of article. Why do people create such things?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent sources for this song? Not notable enough for an article here. --Artene50 (talk) 09:39, 16 June 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 deleted by RHaworth as (G3: Blatant hoax). Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Lugano FC[edit]

Villa Lugano FC (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)

Hoax or bad mock up of Club Atlético Lugano Matthew_hk tc 10:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 10:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – agree that this is a hoax - well spotted. League Octopus (League Octopus 13:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most definitely a hoax, I have tagged it for CSD. GiantSnowman 18:14, 12 June 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International politics of the United States[edit]

International politics of 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)

Article is obviously not NPOV. Any information that it has should be added to Politics of the United States, Foreign Relations of the United States or the apporopriate treaty articles. Creator states in his creation that this information was removed from the US Politics page, the appropriate place would be to discuss it in that page, not create a new page that does not exist for any other country. ScienciaVox (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appropriate article(s) for this type of information already exist. Graymornings(talk) 14:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; inappropriate content fork. postdlf (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & others. Runs afoul of WP:CFORK.--JayJasper (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Little more than an attack page against an entire country (seeing as there are no sources). This kind of information should be presented alongside positive commentary at an article such as the Foreign Relations article as suggested by the nom. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 23:33, 14 June 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Rose[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Harmony Rose (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 PORNBIO and GNG. All nominations are scene awards and citations are from vendor or self-published sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with above. Should be swiftly deleted.Finnegas (talk) 18:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first and last three of the sources are AVN covering awards. The other two are primary as well based on interview with the person. Thus this is:
    • a WP:BLP without a single relaible source
    • a WP:COI violation since the subject has been the source of all the info.
    • fails WP:V
  • Delete Fails PORNBIO - award nominations are few, and are all scene nominations. Only information in article that isn't the nominations is kayfabe about virginity loss. Hipocrite (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Multiple AVN Award nominations suggests some form of notability, which arguably would be strengthened if the nominations were actual award wins. It does not strike me as a WP:BLP violation, or anything close for that matter as the material is all sourced to what appear to be reliable sources. It would be nice to see more substantial coverage but after reviewing the article and the analysis provided by fellow colleagues I am sure that deletion is not the correct answer. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Epbr123 (talk) 21:37, 14 June 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parth (horse)[edit]

Parth (horse) (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)

Misinformation RecordClean (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC) — RecordClean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • What is the misinformation? Are you alleging the article is a hoax (that is, the content is entirely fictitious)? Or are there just some factual inaccuracies in it? If the latter, the proper course of action is to fix the problems, not delete the whole article. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arc de Triomphe winners should be notable. I can sort the article out later today, no worries.  Tigerboy1966  10:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Tigerboy1966, who is a respected member of WikiProject horse racing. If he checks it out as a legit winner of the Arc de Triomphe and not a hoax or fictitious animal, then it stands as notable and relevant. Could use a few sources, though. Montanabw(talk) 16:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that the problem may have arisen by the fact that all reference to Parth and all his descendants appear to have deleted from the Pedigree Query website. Not a problem. It can all be sourced elsewhere. On reflection, I think that this should actually be a speedy keep as the nominator has not adequately explained hisher reasons for deletion. Tigerboy1966  17:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article seems very well sourced now thanks to Tigerboy. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the improvements made by Tigerboy1966 especially given the lack of specific concern by RecordClean. -- KTC (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Modify title There is no picture of the horse Parth crossing the winning line for the Arc de Triomphe. These references are all based on Australian and New Zealand Newspapers and there are no accurate listings in English or French papers. Also, the original owner (Mathradas Golcudas) has very little accurate content in his wiki. The article listing should also be titled as Arc de Triomphe (horses), then have the horse names listed in the article for proper reference as there are more significant definitions for Parth, Polymelus, etc... in the known world other than that of race horses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RecordClean (talk • contribs) 21:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the references do not include American newspaper listings and also there is very little content for Parth in the current references and article.
  • Contemporary British papers aren't freely available on line but I've added a modern reference from The Independent. American newspapers didn't pay much attention to racing in France. Australasian newspapers provide reliable contemporary sources: in fact they often reprinted reports from original British sources.  Tigerboy1966  22:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement that sources be American, or even in English for that matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: Here is a source from the DRF for Parth's win in the Arc [62] In case it does not display for everyone, it says "PARIS, France, Oct 8. A. K. Macomber's Parth, ridden by the American jockey Frank O'Neill, beat H. Ternynck's Massine by a neck in the $60,000 Prix de Triomphe at Longchamps yesterday. Only a neck farther back came C. Ranucci's Filibert de Savoie, winner of the Grand Prix de Paris." The London Times also mentions the horse won. Addressing the OP's other points, 1) if a photograph was needed for documentation of every race win (especially from a 1923 race :) most articles (animal and human) would need to be deleted; 2) a poor article for the original owner has no bearing on the horse article (which is now well referenced); 3) The Arc and Parth articles are already disambiguated, note ending (horse) after name and designation Prix, so suggestions not making much sense. I'm having difficulty seeing what the objections to the article are. Does RecordClean have info that another horse won the 1923 Arc? Sorry if I'm being snippy, but this request seems silly to me. Froggerlaura ribbit 23:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
La revue de France Volume 6 from 1923 also mentions Parth winning over Massine [63]. "Tout le monde sait que Parth enfin, si anglais, avec sa forte membrure et sa puissante masse bien découpée, est venu arracher le prix de l'Arc de Triomphe à nos Massine et à nos Filibert" (roughly, Everyone knows that the English Parth, with his strong frame and powerful body, snatched the le prix de l'Arc de Triomphe from our Massine and Filibert). Froggerlaura ribbit 23:41, 13 June 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. with some major cleanup. Chris Bennett is put on notice that articles are not owned, and a lack of collaboration with other editors in improving the article and further combative tendencies may be blocked as disruptive behaviour.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Descent from antiquity[edit]

Descent from antiquity (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)

An established article in Wikipedia that is almost completely devoid of in-line citations, such as this article, is almost unheard of. A particular user has intermittently laid claim to, as well as effectively assumed, also intermittently, the full ownership to the article since the year 2006, "rather aggressively", to [put] it rather mildly, and has appeared to be arbitrarily frustrated, at whim, any change to the article that is not to his fancy or liking. The article cannot possibly be saved or salvaged in its current and present form. A (non-serious) amateurish essay masquerading to be a serious one, on amateurish (non-serious) genealogy, or "home-genealogy", masquerading as serious, academic or scholarly genealogy (in contrast to those that might had been undertaken by e.g. the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in England, or by such authorities as the Earl Marshal and the College of Arms again in England, or by the Court of the Lord Lyon, King of Arms of Scotland). An history of parallel/circular citations from within Wikipedia as the primary source, judging from the deletions. Possible C.o.I.-editing, self-citation and self-promotion, with his own Internet-only self-published material listed under the (non-citations) "References" ([64];[65]). This is a classic, text-book example of "essay-like" (template:Essay-like). Parts of the text itself are also otherwise poorly written in general, in terms of language, grammar and syntax. — KC9TV 07:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sorry, but it's not at all unheard of for older articles to lack inline citations. (Many of them were created before Wikipedia's policies on sourcing were established, and before the plugins for inline references were developed.) This particular article has about 20 listed sources; the proper course of action would be to add inline citations to them. As to the ownership and COI issues, those should be dealt with through the normal dispute resolution/COI channels, not via AfD. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not without some sort of a temporary topic-ban, no. The claimant and effective owner had been warned many, many times, upon the talk-page, amongst other places. Enough "rope" (wikipedia:ROPE) had already been given. This is still an "essay". — KC9TV 18:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for a topic ban, you are in the wrong place. Bans are the outcome of dispute resolution, not AfD. I see no evidence that you've pursued the matter through DR, and you can't use AfD to circumvent that process. —Psychonaut (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not. The article is simply unfit for Wikipedia, that is it. Full stop. There is NO other dispute. This onus is NOT upon me to create a dispute. There is NO rule in Wikipedia, as far as I know, that says that an article has to go through the DR before AfDs are discussed. (Or are you also laying yet another claim of ownership to that article, the same thing that I had been alleging?) — KC9TV 18:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. We might delete 99% of Wikipedia under these terms. A certain lack of inline citations is not a valid reason for deleting an article. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, it is a valid reason (and we probably should do so, too). The obvious "weasel word" notwithstanding, this is not a quote "a certain lack" unquote, for most parts of the article are lacking in it; and you are in fact one of the users who might had written rather poorly in that particular article, and had them introduced thereto. (Perhaps both a TOEFL and an IELTS are in order, strictly for your own evaluation and assessment, of course. You do after all claim to be living in Russia, and I don't think that Russia is a natural native-English-speaking Country.) — KC9TV 18:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Minor problem as lack of in-line citations is not valid reason for deletion. Article is sourced, notable and verifiable. This nomination looks for me as example of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Yopie (talk) 13:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding of the other "weasel word", this is not a quote "minor" unquote problem (unless this were part of the Czech humour), not even according to the talk-page. — KC9TV 18:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A strange article - it reads like an essay, appears to have had ownership issues, and probably has far too much OR in it. But it is not doing anything controversial or obviously harmful. Meowy 15:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe I am the "particular user" mentioned in 99801155KC9TV's request for deletion, so I am not going to vote on this. While I dispute the accuracy of most of the statements made in the request, this is not the place to do so in detail, though I will happily do so here or elsewhere if it is necessary. However, I do note that the request does not cite any of the reasons listed in WP:DEL#REASON as appropriate justifications for deleting an article. While that list is stated not to be exhaustive, the fact that none of them are cited means that 99801155KC9TV needs to explain why, even if his complaints were all valid, they would justify deletion of the article. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the AfD, not the CSD. — KC9TV 19:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL#REASON lists 13 standard reasons for deletion in addition to CSD, and they do apply to AfD. None of them apply to your deletion request. Clearly you don't like the article. Fine, you're entitled. But to get it deleted you need to be able to give a valid justification. What is it? --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following .... ." — KC9TV 19:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your reason is... what? Here is the list of your complaints about the article:
  • Lack of inline citations. Feel free to add them. Fixable without deleting the article.
  • An editor claims to be owner of the article. I assume you mean me, though I have never made any such claim. However, let's suppose I had. That might be a reason to get me blocked from editing it, or even banned from WP. It is no reason to delete the article.
  • The article was not written by someone from Oxbridge or the College of Arms. Why does that justify deletion? Do you honestly believe that WP articles are written by tenured academics??? In any case the sources used include articles and books by Christian Settipani of the Unit for Prosopographical Research at Linacre College Oxford; Nathaniel Taylor of the History Department at Harvard and a Fellow of the American Society of Genealogy; Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk, Albany Herald of Arms at the Court of the Lord Lyon; and Anthony Wagner, Garter Principal King of Arms at the College of Arms.
  • "Possible" CoI editing and OR. Debate that on the talk page. Even if the charge was proven, it's no reason to delete the article.
  • Includes Internet-only material [i.e. two supplementary references, one to an article by Doria heavily based on something I wrote and the other to a web page of mine that includes further references; neither of which, just FYI, were added to the reference list by me.] So does half of WP. Remove them if they aren't relevant. Again not a justification for deleting the page.
  • Written in an essay-like style and poorly written in places. So rewrite it to your satisfaction (while keeping the content of course). Poor style doesn't justify deleting an article.
That leaves.... what exactly is the reason you think this article should be deleted??? --Chris Bennett (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason suggested is Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) -Wikishagnik (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a hoax, a neologism, an original theory or conclusion. It is quite possible to attribute an article on Descents from Antiquity to reliable sources. While there are parts of the article that I don't think can be so attributed, Descent from Antiquity as a concept and pursuit, as well as some specific descents, have received scholarly address from both enthusiasts and critics, so this reason simply does not apply. Agricolae (talk) 03:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We would not be having this discussion if you did allow any such thing. You had, and have, been rather belligerent. I know that I most certainly should not had done this, by I did set up a trap of some sort, in order to serve as a test, and you allowed yourself to step right upon into it.
That is as clear an admission of trolling as I have ever seen. And, I'm sorry, but there is nothing belligerent about reverting an edit and asking an editor to justify it when it seems to be clearly wrong and no justification, or no valid justification, has been given. Nor is it belligerent to pursue the matter when all you get in reply is obfuscation, bombast and insults -- or instantaneous acceleration to AfD. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It works the other way round here in Wikipedia. I know of even of an, and at least one, administrator, best remain unnamed and nameless of course, who was doing just that.
  • Sir Iain Moncrieffe "of that Ilk", Baronet, Q.C., was NOT a reliable source. (His posts within the Court of the Lord Lyon, King of Arms of Scotland, were likely to be Honorary, if not (also) borough and paid for, as in simony and barratry, other than serving as the Lord Lyon and His Lordship's Court's contact, point of liaison and representative in London; as one of the Queen's Counsels, he was after all busy as an English barrister doing cases in London, not as a Scottish advocate in Edinburgh, and unlikely to had undertaken much actual genealogical work back in Edinburgh and in Scotland himself. What did he actually do, in terms of genealogy, if he was not back in Edinburgh?)
  • The "Unit for Prosopographical Research" is only one woman's, Mrs. K. S. B. or Katharine Keats-Rohan's, research project within a department (Modern History Research Unit) of a "(post-graduate) research institute" (Linacre College) within the University of Oxford. Christian Settipani's connections to the College, and to the University, appear to be rather tenuous indeed, other than the fact that he had co-edited a book, or several books, together with Mrs. Keats-Rohan.
According even to his entry upon Wikipedia, at least in the English language, he is in fact a part-time Ph.D. student (when he is not being busy with his computer in Paris, that is). I think that his works and writings can be safely written off and ignored as unsound and unreliable, if not unsafe; don't you think? Does any-one disagree? When did we start to allow ourselves to rely upon the works of non-lecturing and non-teaching Ph.D. students (or below)? — KC9TV 07:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. A scholar who heads a research program at a major British university, what does she know? And the fact that Christian Settipani has had a book and several articles published by a university press through a group to which he has no direct linkage, that it is not self-publishing in any sense, that is a bad thing because . . . ? The wrong criteria are being used to evaluate expertise in medieval genealogy, but more importantly these are issues for the Reliable Source Noticeboard, not for an AfD. Agricolae (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And finally, do you still stand by the claim made by yourself, and endorsed by others, either explicitly or by implication, at the article that quote "The term ‘Descents from Antiquity’ was coined by T. Stanford ["Ford"] M. S. Mommaerts-Browne in [1984 or 1985] " unquote? Who on earth and in the World is he anyhow? It looks like that he is at the bottom of your House of Cards, I think. — KC9TV 06:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make the claim, as a check through the logs would have shown you if you had made the least effort to look at them. IIRC the claim was made by Mommaerts-Browne himself. I thought it was an unnecessary statement to make, but, after all, I don't own the article, and I figured he would know (he was involved in one DfA project) and saw no harm in it. I see Doug Weller has come up with an earlier use of the term (though I suspect Mommaerts-Browne might argue that he was still the first to apply it to this project). I'm glad to see that this debate has at least stimulated some actual editorial attention to the article. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A lot of confusion in the above comments but broadly this article falls in the category of WP:ORIGINAL. A lot of conclusions and broad announcements made without any reference to a reliable source. The oroginal premise and all conclusions of this article seems to be that of the contributors. Wikishagnik (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not without reservations. For all that I am not a fan of the current format of the article, a lack of in-line citations is a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. I have long had concerns about aspects of the article, and think it would be better to focus on a description of the concept with only a few examples for illustration, rather than to attempt a broader survey of the various opportunities for such descents, which individually are problematic for several reasons. Still, the concept represents a genealogical term of art that merits an article in Wikipedia, so deleting it is not the productive way forward. Agricolae (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The dispute is not about the lack of citations or the style of the article. The dispute is about the verifiability of the article. Under AfD guideleines the following reason is proposed - Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)-Wikishagnik (talk) 03:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (Well said! I couldn't possibly put it any better myself!) "Essay-like" (template:essay-like) of course, necessarily by implication, ≈, or = Wikipedia:Original research, although I, for modesty's sake, and admittedly and probably not being exactly the most eloquent person, would not possibly wish to be the first person to lay and tender such an accusation, literally and in so many words. — KC9TV 03:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dispute is not about citations, and yet the proposal led with the lack of citations. It is not about style, but then it is being called "Essay-like", which is all about style. And as I said above, an article on Descent from Antiquity CAN possibly be attributed to reliable sources - the quoted reason is to eliminate things that someone just made up, not articles about real topics that currently contain OR, SYNTH, etc., but which could be cleaned up. Christian Settipani certainly specifically addressed the topic of Descent from Antiquity in his book about them. While citing this book for the individual cases is problematic, citing an established scholar for his description of the pursuit is perfectly valid. Likewise, I recall an article in Foundations (the publication of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy) in which the author took a critical view of the pursuit of Descents from Antiquity. There have also been published reviews of such descents by several established scholars in the field, in some of the premier peer-reviewed journals, such as The Genealogists' Magazine and The American Genealogist. An article on the topic can absolutely be written based on reliable sources. No matter how badly written you think it is, and how much unverifiable material you think it contains, it is unsupportable to conclude that an article on the topic of Descents from Antiquity cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. Agricolae (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear hear, and by all means add such articles to the reference list. As to Wikishagnik's assertion that the article's content "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", this amounts to an accusation that the existing reference list is unverifiable, unreliable or irrelevant. I think there is confusion about sources relating to DfA as a research project and sources claiming actual DfAs. The article is about the research project -- it describes various proposed routes to a DfA (agreed, not all properly sourced) but it does not claim that any of these are proven; quite the opposite in fact. As a research project, and since there are none yet proven (cf. SETI), a reliable source about DfA is inherently concerned with conjectural discussions(again cf. SETI). Where the sources make actual conjectures, as in Settipani's book, verifiability and reliability is therefore not about evaluating their correctness -- that is premature -- but about evaluating their plausibility -- are they based on reliable sources and are they supported by reasonable arguments? In Settipani's case, anyone who looks at any of his books will be overwhelmed by his bibliography, and he has clearly read it all; the man is a research machine. You may or may not agree with his arguments; I have disputed some of them with him myself, and many people feel he makes overly optimistic assumptions about onomastic patterns (a point that should probably be covered in the article). But it is hard to argue that his arguments are unreasonable, and he is always careful to distinguish between what is known and what is conjectured. And so it goes: I quite agree that the article needs additional sourcing, but to those like Wikishagnik who think that the current sourcing is not reliable or verifiable, the onus is on you to show that it is so. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are there actually any supporters who have NOT in fact co-written the article in some other way, contributing to the current mess that I am proposing to put an end to? — KC9TV 03:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if you call what I am doing support. Not that it matters - someone who contributed to an article has every right to present policy-based arguments for its retention, just as anyone else has, and the same goes for deletion. In fact, it is explicitly recommended that when putting forward an AfD one should inform those who have played a significant role in the article's editing so that they can do just that. To suggest, by implication, that everyone who opposes your proposal is doing so only out of COI represents a failure to AGF. Agricolae (talk) 04:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could have easily answered this largely irrelevant question yourself if you had taken the time to examine the article's edit history. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how is that an "irrelevant question"? — KC9TV 07:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It shows a lack of good faith and is insulting. I've contributed to this article, one of my edit summaries says "Added {{original research}} and {{refimprove}} tags to article". Does this mean that the !vote I'm about to add is COI and shouldn't be taken into consideration? Or that I've contributed to some mess? Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We should never delete an article which is on a topic that passes our criteria for notability. This article can be reliable sourced, it can be rewritten, it can be fixed. I wish it were true that it is almost unheard of to have established articles with few or no citations, but I run into them on at least a weekly basis, sometimes more often. An AfD is absolutely not the way to fix the problem here, especially when started by someone who doesn't seem to have done much more than change the article's title with no discussion and has made no attempt to source it or rewrite it. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, Very Weak Keep While there may be something to be salvaged from this mess, right now I'd say it's a poster child for what Wikipedia's detractors say the encyclopedia is. In its current form it's a poorly-sourced essay. It fails most inline citation requirements (one per paragraph is a good start), leaving it wide open to claims of OR. Wikilinks are not reliable sources, either. I'd modify Dougweller's comments above from "can be reliably sourced" to "MUST be reliably sourced." Looking at the talk page also makes me think that Chris Bennett should step back from this article, but that's not an AfD concern. Barring major work, though, this article should most likely be converted to an essay or go away. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did some significant work on this article in 2006 and since then I have stepped back from it. I keep it on my watchlist, but I don't bother to tamper with changes made to the article, even when I think the change is poorly done, unless I think it is positively harmful, as in 99801155KC9TV's recent article name change (which I assume is the "trap" he set to bait me for his trolling pleasure). I agree the article could do with a strong editorial hand, and I encourage someone to pick up that baton; I'm not going to do it. As to the talk page, look more closely: this is all about a long-running and acrimious dispute with some IP who insisted in 2008 on adding "citation required" tags to every statement in the article and persistently refused to make any attempt to justify them -- for which actions he eventually caused the page to be semiprotected and got himself blocked, with no intervention by me. To understand that dispute and to understand the current state of the article, it is important to note that in 2008 WP did not require inline citations to articles -- it explicitly allowed the reference list style that the article largely still has, and it encouraged editors to follow the established style of the article, which is one reason I objected to the IP's demand. IMHO the main result of the change to require inline citation is the proliferation of (almost universally ignored) "citation required" tags at the head of articles, which have spread across the face of WP like a plague of acne, but that's by the bye -- WP's policy changed, the article now does violate WP policy on citations, and I encourage anyone who wishes to go to the trouble of adding inline citations to bring this article into conformance (I don't) to do so. As to whether the existing sources are reliable, see my comments to Wikishagnik above. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at your comments. I also looked at the talk page. But I would also think that if this article is of interest to you, you'd be willing to go after it with that "strong editorial hand." Just a comment, really. And though I'm not a big fan of heavy inline citations for a number of reasons, they are useful both to fend off accusations of OR and to help people with a genuine interest in the subject track back through and locate further sources that may be of interest to them. Requirements and standards from four years ago may no longer be relevant. Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And there are times that I think seriously about getting back to this article. But in truth WP can be an enormous time-sink, I only have occasional and limited amounts of time (like now), and whenever I do involve myself in WP in any non-trivial way I get whacked over the head for trying to apply what seems to me to be ordinary editorial discipline. Obviously I am not alone -- the fact that your first justification for inline citations is that they "fend off accusations of OR" speaks volumes. Hardly seems worth it, yet still I watch. I agree with your second point, in the abstract, but I still can't justify the time and effort against other demands. As for 2008, the point is that I am being attacked here, even now, for a dispute that happened four years ago (and which was resolved then in my favour), and the article is being proposed for deletion because it has a style that was perfectly legitimate at the time it was created. This seems relevant background to the AfD to me. --Chris Bennett (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep - predicated on the assumption that this could be whipped into shape, and that Chris Bennett in particular will keep from reverting edits and caution tags without addressing the serious concerns of other editors. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the reason I should not ask editors to explain what their "serious concerns" are and why they are actually serious, when it is not immediately obvious to me and when they fail to do so at the time they raise the concern? Why am I at fault if they can't or won't do it? And how is it even possible that retention or deletion of the article can be made conditional on my behaviour or that of any individual editor? --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I realise it's unlikely that this AfD is going to swing towards "Delete", but in reality there have long been big incentives for people to claim noble ancestry; the article content just takes a huge pile of speculation and optimistic interpolation at face value. Reading between the lines, this article even admits that the best-attested "DFA" involves a bunch of documentary records written a mere century or so after the supposed ancestors claimed their crowns and spouses. It's impossible to cover a subject like this neutrally. We even have a huge section which tries to haggle over the definition of "descent from antiquity" without inline cites - what, isn't there a single decent source which defines what this article is talking about? Just now I added a reliable source which discusses the historic incentives for falsely claiming descent from Muhammad, and multiple mechanisms by which people would forge it; for six years we've had blurb about Great People Descended From Muhammad, but nobody bothered adding a source which says that many of these claims are fake. bobrayner (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not take the claims at face value. It explicitly says that no DfA has been proven, and all proposals are described as just that: proposals. You don't need to read between the lines on this, it is explicit. Also, you are wrong about the paragraph on Muslim descents. This clearly expressed scepticism even before you added your useful comment about Ottoman tax records, and has done for the last 6 years: "it is difficult to verify them, since the ancestries of even the most exalted of these families include several generations lacking contemporary documentation, or for which the traditions are contradictory". I disagree that neutrality is impossible: you get neutrality by stating the claim and stating what the reasons to doubt it are, without drawing a conclusion, unless there is agreed proof one way or the other; I would agree though that not all proposals are stated neutrally. As to your comments on the section of definitions -- apart from the word "haggle" I agree with you, I am not aware of a single source that clearly defines the term in relation to the issues discussed in that section, which is why I wrote it. --Chris Bennett (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In which case the definition section is original research; so I have removed it. Hope you don't mind a strong editorial hand. If anybody would like to add a new "definition" section which is based on sources, feel free. bobrayner (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little too strong perhaps, an offer to discuss would have been appropriate, preferably before deletion since the section has been there for years, but after would still have been polite. See Talk:Descent from antiquity#Definitions section for a response. --Chris Bennett (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The content was blatant original research, so I removed it. Discussion is great; if you want to discuss, feel free, but this is not going to help. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is really a discussion for another place, but I stand by the sense of those comments. WP's OR policy eliminates any role for informed expert opinion, just as its Notability policy eliminates any role for assessment of actual content. WP is now driven by demands for "verifiability" of "reliable sources" to such an extent that it is becoming (has become?) an anti-intellectual exercise, dominated by apparatchiks who insist on conformance to "policy" above all else. I'm still not quite there (I find it hard to let go), but I fully understand why many people have abandoned the project in disgust.
Back to the AfD: It's clear lots of people think the article needs work (I agree) but also that the majority recommendation is to Keep it, however unenthusiastically. Isn't it time to close this thing out? --Chris Bennett (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Policy is not anti-intellectual. If intellectuals and researchers can get their ideas through peer review &c then their ideas are more than welcome here. In reality, policy is anti-unpublished-intellectual, in order to keep out the cranks and the ranters who are not taken seriously by the mainstream. En.wikipedia is not a place to publicise ideas that you couldn't get taken seriously elsewhere. If this disgusts you, then your departure might benefit all parties. bobrayner (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close. Unless there is no controversy whatsoever (e.g. a completely ridiculous nomination, such as saying that Brazil is not notable), these things run for a week, minimum, and then depends on the availability of a closing admin, and if they think it would benefit the community to have it discussed longer, that can be extended. It somehow seems like this has been discussed forever already, but it has only been 2 days and change. Agricolae (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the AfD procedure, fine, let the clock run out. It does seem to me, however, that there is nothing more to be said, at least nothing relevant to an AfD discussion, unless someone can produce some actual evidence to justify the claim that the article meets the deletion criterion evoked by Wikishagnik: Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. --Chris Bennett (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that there are some people who only do Wikipedia one day a week, or only on weekends, so we have to leave the window open long enough for them to have a chance to weigh in. Certainly those who have already contributed to the discussion are unlikely to come up with anything new, but maybe one of the new arrivals will bring a fresh perspective to the discussion. Agricolae (talk) 19:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noting Agricolae's comments above that "someone who contributed to an article has every right to present policy-based arguments for its retention", I am adding a vote. I vote for keeping the article on the policy-based grounds that no valid reason for deletion was included in the proposal and, despite several requests, the proposer has failed to produce one since. As Doug Weller has noted, the proposer's only contribution to the article was to change its title with no discussion, and he has made no attempt to source it, rewrite it, or make any other contribution to it. The proposer has confessed here to being a troll ("I did set up a trap of some sort, in order to serve as a test, and you allowed yourself to step right upon into it"), and I have little doubt that springing the trap for myself and the rest of us here was the whole point of the exercise. On a positive note, at least it has encouraged some positive contributions to the article. --Chris Bennett (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: COuple of arguments why this article shoud be deleted

Thanks for at least asserting a relevant reason for deleting the article -- the AfD proposer still hasn't given one. It might help this discussion if the current AfD was abandoned, and you submitted a new one on this basis. Not that I agree with you of course. --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:DEL 7 REASON - Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed - Obviously all attempts to find reliable sources have failed
  • WP:NOTFORUM - Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. - All information and inferrences must be published and verifiable.

Please note that any of the above two reasons is sufficient grounds for deletion of the article and this article meets both.

"Obviously" is asserted opinion, not evidence. No-one involved in this discussion, including you, has even claimed to have tried to find reliable sources, let alone to have demonstrated that they have made a "thorough" attempt, so there is no reason whatsoever to believe that any such attempts have been made, nor that they have failed.
A good place to start would be with the references listed in the article. Except for two internet references, all of them are published and verifiable. Speaking for the ones that I have personally read, in whole or in part (about a dozen of them), I found that they are all reliable sources according to WP criteria, and they all support at least part of the article as currently written. The ones that I included myself I included on that basis. If you disagree with that justification, please show why, using facts not opinion. For example, I characterised Settipani's work to you earlier -- on what basis do you claim that his work is not a reliable source? Or that it is not relevant? Have you looked at it -- or any of the cited references? Thought not. --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, please 'avoid' these arguments in this discussion, I have included the reasonings given in the policy page

  • WP:JUSTAVOTE - "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments" and the same applies to all deletion debates
  • WP:PERNOM - It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy and practice to support their positions.
  • WP:ASSERTN - when an article is at Articles for Deletion, claims it makes about its topic's significance do not support keeping it; what matters is what independent reliable sources have said about the topic.
  • WP:ARTICLEAGE - Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot.
  • WP:SUPPORT - AfDs are not about voting. The outcome of a deletion discussion is determined on the basis of reference to policies and guidelines, not a simple headcount. If you comment on the basis of the numbers already seen as in the above examples, you are just adding a vote to those numbers and not contributing usefully to the discussion. And drawing others to cast such votes may be canvassing.
  • WP:INVOLVE - The number of editors involved may point out the level of interest in the subject. But it does not measure the notability, the number of reliable sources, or its compliance with other inclusion guidelines
And if and when I start beating my wife, I'm sure you'll be there to point it out to me. --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, please don't give vague justifications about the article, its editors or the AfD. If you can meet the requirements of WP:NOTE (notability) of the article then please provide them. Else, the article deserves to be deleted.

WP:GNG is all about sources. See discussion above. To justify article deletion the onus is on you to show that the references listed are not reliable or relevant sources. --Chris Bennett (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


-Wikishagnik (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it satisfies both of those criteria for deletion, the two aren't really independent of each other. If there are no reliable sources, then it must be something of the editor's own creation. Thus the strident declaration that it fails both (bolded, just to make sure nobody misses it) is not a huge shock. Of course the converse is also true - if there are reliable sources (that just aren't well cited), then it is not the editor's own creation, and both are groundless. Given the body of material that is available, it is laughable to suggest that "thorough attempts" have been made and failed. Yes, there is material in the article that I don't think can be reliably sourced, maybe a lot of it, but this is about the topic and not the article as it currently reads. As long as we are making requests, though, I have one to make in return. Please don't lecture people on the appropriate way to behave. Publicly reminding everyone who disagrees with you of the various things not to do just looks like an attempt to diminishing the opposition by implication, something akin to the old political gamesmanship of "I would like to remind my opponent not to beat his wife". In fact, don't characterize the contributions of others at all, whether you think them unworthy, vague, or whatever - that is something for the administrator who closes the discussion to decide, and they know the rules without your help. Agricolae (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A gentle reminder to Agricolae about No personal attacks on Wikipedia. I am only commenting on the content of the article W.r.t. Wikipedia policy. The Notability guidelines and other policies listed above are drawn from consensus. If you wish to change the policies, please make the suggestion at Village pump (policy). Till such times, all articles have to meet these, irrespective of hypothetical possibilities -Wikishagnik (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, it's not like I expected my request to bring an end to such patronizing 'reminders' about offences that haven't been committed. Who knows? Such a smear-by-implication may even trick someone into thinking I actually made a personal attack. After all, there is no telling how someone may misinterpret what one writes - like somehow thinking that I want to change policy when I have spent so much time here explaining why the existing policy does not support deletion. But enough about me. Agricolae (talk) 07:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orange Mike. Yes, it needs a lot more sourcing, but the topic has been notable for over 100 years. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing?[edit]

Is anyone else getting email from the nominator? Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Conclusion - ON the basis of my own research I conclude the following for this article

  • Fails WP:NOTE and WP:NRVE - Could not find any book on google about this topic. Most search results return blogs and indipendant research. The term has no deffinition and has been generally used to describe the geanology of a family or person.
You haven't looked very hard then. Again I refer you to the reference list provided at the end of the article. Three items that I have personally read directly address the topic as a topic, as should be clear from their titles:
  • C. Settipani, Nos ancêtres de l'Antiquité: Etudes des possibilités de liens généalogiques entre les familles de l'Antiquité et celles du haut Moyen-Age européen (Editions Christian, Paris, 1991) [English translation: Our ancestors in Antiquity: Studies of the possibilities for genealogical links between families of antiquity and those of the European high middle ages]
  • N. L. Taylor, Roman Genealogical Continuity and the "Descents from Antiquity" Question: A Review Article, The American Genealogist, 76 (2001) 129-136.
  • A. R. Wagner, Bridges to Antiquity in Pedigree and Progress: Essays in the Genealogical Interpretation of History (Phillimore, London, 1975)
University libraries holding both books and the journal are listed in WorldCat, and a link to an Internet copy of the Taylor article is conveniently located in the reference list. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meets WP:DEL # REASON - the term is in use in such a generic manner that one can quote a lot of references for the same but all such sources would talk about Genealogy while using the term descent from antiquity as a property of the same. Could not find any seperate deffinition for the same. This phrase has also been used in such diverse fields as theater, baking, dog-breeding etc., but only in generic terms and not as a diffinition of anything unique.
The article is about genealogy. It is not about theater, baking, dog-breeding or anything else. Whether and how the same phrase is used in any other field is entirely irrelevant
I agree that a formal and precise technical definition would be a good thing. But a statement and explanation of that view has recently been excised from the article as "blatant OR", and it does meet a blindly literal reading of WP:OR, however nonsensical it may be to apply it in this case. Given this taboo status, it is inappropriate for either of us to reintroduce that view into any formal WP context, such as this discussion. One is therefore left with the ordinary imprecise meanings of the words "descent" and "antiquity", which can be found in any English dictionary, and which are perfectly serviceable for most DFA proposals.. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meets WP:NOTFORUM - The reference quoted of settipani is a review of a paper titled Gaenolical Tables of the Sovereigns of the World by Rev. William Bethamm. it uses the phrase descent from Antiquity as a description of Gaenology and not some unique idea or proposal.
Huh? Doug Weller added that as evidence of use of the term, and he did it since this AfD began. He replaced a statement that Mommaerts-Browne coined the term, and (again, as is clear from the reference list) Mommaerts-Browne certainly did use it in connection with this unique idea and proposal. The quote has nothing to do with Settipani and no-one said that it did. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further, a review falls under WP:ORIGINAL. Similarly the first reference titled A 4000–Year Old Descent from Antiquity: From the 12th Egyptian Dynasty to the Capetians and Beyond. is also an original paper submitted more on Gaenology of Egyptians , and which also does not focus on Descent from Antiquity as a unique topic or subject. Most of the rest of the article anyway reads like the original thoughts of the contributors

The article you cited is not listed as a reference. It is a supplement to the second (not the first) listed reference and is clearly described as a "discussion file". I believe it was added because it incorporates much material from the reference that actually is provided and makes that material more easily available. Agreed that neither the file not the reference it quotes from focus on DFA as a subject. That doesn't make them irrelevant, because they focus on a specific DFA proposal, which is relevant to the article because the article discusses specific DFA proposals, as anyone ought to expect it to do. A large part of this one involved a proposed pharaonic descent, but it also included much later material, also noted in the discussion file. (Incidentally, if you have read the discussion file you will note that it argues that that the proposed pharaonic descent is invalid.)
As listed above, the reference list contains at least three items that address the topic "as a unique topic or subject"; you shouldn't stop at the first one you see. Oh, BTW, third party material is allowed to consist of original thoughts. WP has encouraged editors to hunt down and liquidate the slightest taint of originality in its own articles, but it necessarily requires originality in referenced material or the material that those references are derived from. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Argument for deletion - In most such circumstances the argument is to keep the article but let future contributors modify it. This does not apply here as the contributors have misrepresented the facts and substance of gaeonology related references to present their own POV, which also shows in the emotionally heavy arguments in this AfD which are light in substance. A new reader of this article would wrongly conclude that the opinions presented here are scientific facts, which they aren't -Wikishagnik (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, statements like:
The following years have seen a number of studies of the possibilities. These are highly variable in the quality of their research. Many, if not most, of the DFA-related publications widely used by amateur genealogists are essentially worthless./No Western DFA is accepted as established at this time, and widely-accepted non-Western DFAs have not been validated. However, research has established the outlines of several possible or likely ancestries that could become DFAs.  ??
And here is where the article runs afoul of the critics. Can any of these characterizations of the pursuit be cited as coming from a specific reliable source? Yes, it is all common knowledge among those familiar with the scholarly work, but has anyone said these things in print? Something as simple as the statement that 'there have been a number of studies' needs cited. That the studies are of variable quality needs cited (and it can't just be individual criticisms of individual studies, but someone has to have compared multiple studies and found their quality to be different). That most western ones used by amateurs are pretty worthless needs cited, that non-western ones haven't been validated needs cited (it cannot just depend on the absence of anyone validating them - someone needs to have made the statement in print that they haven't been). Finally, the last statement is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as it predicts the future, in addition to being uncited. I also suspect that if you pick any one of these 'possible or likely' descents, you will not find a clear consensus that it could be proven out. (In fact, there is virtually zero chance that either Iberian route mentioned will ever be proven, and the Armenian one that ends the Caucasian section is the result of nothing but a glorified game of pin the tail on the donkey.) That doesn't mean that the term isn't valid and that Wikipedia shouldn't have a page that deals with the term, or that the namespace should be deleted, but the critics aren't completely wrong when they level the criticism that the article has serious problems with adherence to Wikipedia policies such as NOR, NPOV, CITE, etc, perhaps severe enough to merit blanking and starting from scratch. Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear illustration of the surreal absurdities that result from the overly strict and literal application of WP policies, which is apparent here and which dominates far too many WP discussions I see. Take just your first point: Something as simple as the statement that 'there have been a number of studies' needs cited. The statement is obviously true from a glance at the reference list to this very article. But of course that reference list was compiled for the article, so to cite it to support the statement is a letter-of-the-law violation of WP:OR. One would have to ignore the article's own reference list and find a third party article which has compiled its own reference list, which would include much of the same material, and then cite that article as providing a reference list, first proving that that article is a "reliable source", to meet the letter of the WP Law. Maybe it can be done, I don't know. But life doesn't get much more Kafkaesque.
You are also creating a Catch-22 for the article. Very few DFA proposals have been formally critiqued as DFA proposals in peer-reviewed publications. One can certainly point to sources which support or dispute individual claims made as part of any given proposal, but in almost all cases those sources only consider the specific issue at hand. There is rarely a statement to the effect "this supports/refutes DFA proposal X", which is what you say needs to exist and which must be cited to meet WP policy. If one holds rigidly to the position that the article must be able to cite such statements in third-party reliable sources, the result is to reduce the article to one which defines the term and just lists the proposals, with no comment on their viability, with a few rare exceptions (which Bobrayner would immediately remove if the proposal had actually been disproved). But then the article would create the impression, exactly as Wikishagnik charges, that these proposals are established facts, which they aren't; they are just proposals, and should not, must not, be taken as established facts.
In short, WP policies should be applied with a little common sense, taking note of the context and purpose of the material and the intent of the policy, instead of being applied rigidly and mechanically to each item that comes up in a discussion, according to the strictest possible interpretation of the letter of the law. --Chris Bennett (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing from the point of view that assumes an article of the style that currently exists should be in Wikipedia, and since we have to bend rules to so that such an article can be written, then we should. That is playing right into the hands of the critics who take the same view of the article as you seem to do - that it can't be written if one must follow the rules, only they are not willing to be creative with the policies, and rather suggest that the article shouldn't be written if the rules don't allow it. As to what the article would be like if it had to follow the rules, I don't think it would be a list of routes without their drawbacks, because the routes themselves haven't received third-party review. We would be left with the definition, and just the few examples that have received the kind of coverage that the rules require, and that probably limits it to the Carolingian/Gallo-Roman connection, the Priory of Sion/Bloodline of the Holy Grail nonsense, and maybe the William of Gellone/Jews of Narbonne connection. I would be OK with that - in fact, I would prefer that over an article that in the interest of completeness gives a mishmash of primary sources, original research and personal opinion. Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How big a hammer do you need? For a reader who somehow misses this statement, the article is littered with words and phrases like "proposal", "difficulty of establishing", "one possibility", "still very obscure" "Possibilities ... have been suggested but none are plausible", "most improbable", "repudiated", "highly speculative", "While such a link possibly existed, extant sources do not permit reconstructing it with any degree of certainty", "all reconstructions of the DFA through Western European monarchs must remain precarious at best and speculative at worst", "controversial", "unverifiable", "difficult to verify", "lacking contemporary documentation", "traditions are contradictory", "proved remarkably difficult to establish". Until very recently, the article contained a very specific example of a DFA proposal (from the Jewish Exilarchs via the Carolingian counts of Septimania) which has been positively disproved -- an example which was removed (unjustifiably IMO) for precisely that reason.
Any reader who pays any attention at all to what he or she is reading is thus constantly reminded to be critical of any and all DFA proposals by wording like this. The reader can only conclude that DFA research is still in a very conjectural phase, and that is an entirely accurate assessment of the state of the art. It is certainly within WP's scope to include articles on subjects that are currently only researchable to that level. The analogy I keep coming back to is SETI, which is far more speculative than DFA, since at least we know that every living human had ancestors living in antiquity (however defined). --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of light on substance, perhaps there is a reason the term Descent from Antiquity was not found in association with the field of gaenology. It is simply untrue that the term is "generally used to describe the gaeology [sic] of a family or person." As to the claim that a thorough search has failed to turn up any reference to its non-generic use, that is hard to fathom as well, given that it took me all of three minutes to find such a reference: Nathaniel L. Taylor, “Roman Genealogical Continuity and the "Descents from Antiquity" Question: A Review Article”, The American Genealogist, 76:129-136 (2001). The author is a well-published genealogist writing in one of the premier American scholarly genealogical journals, using the term quite specifically to refer to exactly what this article is discussing. If I found this in a 3-minute search, then the readers can reach their own conclusion about the quality of the 'thorough search' that failed to turn it up anything. Agricolae (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why so long??  ;-) That very article is listed in the reference list of the article under discussion, complete with a link to an online copy! --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And here is another one - Rafal Prinke publishing in Foundations (3:489-502), the peer-reviewed journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, who states "Genealogical links between the dynastic and aristocratic families of Byzantium and those of the Christian states in the Caucasus are of special interest to the “subculture” of genealogists pursuing what has become known as “Descents From Antiquity” or DFA." Again, a scholarly peer-reviewed journal, and using the term in a specific sense (note the capitalization), which is the exact sense used in the article under discussion. So, that's two scholarly instances of a specific usage that we are led to believe is just figment of the editors' collective imaginations. Thorough search, my @$$. Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal DfA is what? a project? Does it have verifiable secondary sources as a project (as against your conjecture, conclusions etc.)? If it does not, then it fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and that alone is sufficient grounds to delete an article. Agricolae and other contributors, are you quoting original research papers? If yes, then please refer WP: OR as these papers are not reliable secondary sources, but are primary sources and cannot be used as a reference, no matter what they have to say, or who says it. The policy also clearly states why they cannot be used. Does this article run afoul with critics? Do you feel any knowledgeable reader who reads this article would conclude so and so? Then please understand that this is due to the fact that no reliable secondary sources have been quoted, as such sources atleast try to resolve the difference between vairious schools of thought.

DfA is not a project (the article shouldn't say that it is, but that is yet something else that needs fixed), it is a term of art. A DfA is exactly what the name suggests - it is a descent from antiquity (basically, pre-medieval times). There are genealogists who make this their special interest, the quest for such DfAs, but there is no project, per se. As to primary vs secondary sources, it is not as simple as you suggest. The same paper can be a primary source for the research it is presenting, and a secondary source for what is says about the state of the field. The Prinke text was a description of the field and hence is a secondary source for that information. (The Taylor reference was just being mentioned to refute your mischaracterization of the term as a generic term without specific meaning.) Does the current article adequately express the various schools of thought? Well, that's tricky, but irrelevant. Again, the current state of the article is not at issue. It is the worthiness of the topic that is what determines whether and article namespace should be deleted.

This article and the arguments presented here are still about what a project like DfA should and should not focus on based on the opinions of the contributors which in turn is based on their reading of some papers written by authors who they feel are experts, rather than being an article about a topic. Wikipedia is not a forom for discussing such ideas WP:NOTFORUM which should be left to scholarly debate outside of Wikipedia.

It's not a project, it is a clearly understood term. I agree that the article should be about the topic and not a listing of possible routes for a DfA. Unlike you, I do not think that since the article currently does not have the focus I think it should have, the namespace must be eliminated from Wikipedia rather than simply fixing the article.

Please don't confuse article policies like WP: CRYSTAL with discussion policies. Else, the simple act of voting would become soothsaying.

Why do you insist on giving such condescending and completely irrelevant advice? Nothing in this discussion suggests that anyone is confusing policies in this way. To suggest people not commit an error they show no indication of doing is condescending and incivil.

And, please be civil in your conduct. Please allow others to finish their thoughts before butting yours in. I may be wrong, and so may be others, but that does not mean we can't discuss our opinions with dignity. Thank you. -Wikishagnik (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what are you talking about? It is impossible to butt in before someone finishes their thoughts, because nothing posts live. When someone finishes their thoughts, they hit the "Save page" button, and only then, when you are done does anyone else get to see what they have been thinking. It just makes no sense. Agricolae (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that Descent from antiquity is a project, then Agricolae suggests its an art. Lets revisit the central idea behind WP:NOTFORUM that Wikipedia is not a forum to discuss new ideas, nor is it a place for generic opinions. As I have said, descent from antiquity is a generic term that applies to theater[1], baking[2] and dog breeding[3]. I dont find any mention of DfA in scholls of geneology like Burke's Peerage or de Henage[4]. Google search on dfa as a branch of genealogy or dfa as a field of genealog does not give any hits and neither does a google books search on the same. Just to be sure even a search descent from an antiquity as a field of genealogy does not give any results. Isn't this is a sufficient breach of WP:VERIFY? And Agricolae, by butting in your arguments I meant your penchant of pasting your comments in between those of other's. This not only leads to unsigned paragraph, it also break the flow of a paragraph -Wikishagnik (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A DfA is not a project (although some genealogists make a project out of the pursuit of them) and it is not an art (and I never said it was - please do not misquote in a way that distorts things), but a 'term of art', which is a specific word or phrase used by practitioners of a field to refer to a specific act, object or concept. The words 'Southern' and 'blot' will be found in other contexts, but when a molecular biologist uses the term 'Southern blot', they mean something absolutely specific - that is a term of art. It is not a new idea, in the sense that the cited mandate intends: as in something somebody just thought up. It is not a generic opinion, as it is neither an opinion, nor is it generic, which has been adequately demonstrated with citations here - two papers that use the term in capitals, and in one case in quotes, indicate the term is being used quite specifically. Finding instances of a particular string of characters is completely irrelevant - it doesn't matter if a book about golf or nautical warfare happens to use three words in the same order, in genealogy it is being used specifically. The Burkes do not use the term because the Burke publications do not concern themselves with the issue of whether Charlemagne descends from Ansbertus the Senator - what you are doing is like saying that ancient Assyrians didn't exist because a single book on the history of Islam in the Middle East doesn't mention them. At to de Henage, who it that? Your reference is to a book written by Round, and he wrote a century ago. The term DNA does not appear in Gregor Mendel's work, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a specific meaning in modern science. Given that a DfA is neither a field nor a branch, you might as well search for "cricket bat is a sport" and then conclude that the existence of cricket bats is a breach of VERIFY - nonsense searches for nonsense strings of words are only ever going to lead to flawed conclusions. Agricolae (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae, for the same of any new reader who might be trying to follow this argument, and for the sake of not emotionaly repeating ourselves again and again, can we pause for a second? If we may (and thanks for that) can you please do me a favor? Can you please click on the scroll bar and drag it to the top of the page and then to the bottom? If you do that you might be able to conclude like me, that this debate has been a bit more informative and far more volumnous than the article itself, and yet we are far from agreeing with each other. Can we ask ourself why this is so? Let me start with your argument. You say that DfA is a term of art. OK, so let me compare this with terms that are generally accepted as terms of art - say Blue sky law, TINA and Black Box. Now, just do me another favor, turn around and ask any friend of yours Hey! What's a black box? Chances are your friend will tell you exactly what a black box does (although technically its a Flight Data Recorder). I have marked the example of TINA for a reason, the link points to the website of Northrop Grumman, who are not a legal firm but an aviation firm, but who still seem to have a good idea of what TINA is. You see! Just because a term is a term or art does not mean it has to fail WP:Verify. Coming back to the discussion, you say that DfA is not a project and then later state that some researchers might make it a project. It is an actual project and there is a page giving some details of this project. The article shows the various genealogical studies for different cultures (lets ignore the citation confusion for now). There are some who believe that no descent can actually be proven. So what do you believe, and what not? At this point you might be tempted to pull out the sword of scholarly articles and stick to their point. But you know what? Scholarly articles by a lot of important researchers including Johann Joachim Becher, Aristotle and Giovanni Schiaparelli have been proven wrong over time. And that my friend is the crux of my argument. A lot of material for this article would come from Primary sources such as research papers and blogs. But you and I don't know whose POV will stand as correct years down the line. Do I need to elaborate what that might do to the credibility of this page? It is for this reason that I and some other critics have insisted on multiple secondary sources which discuss such research papers in detail and give a scholarly impression about the articles. Yes, even these books might br wrong in the long run, but that is the best that we can and should do for any content on Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong. Not all content on Wikipedia is right all the time. Even aricles about List of hoaxes, List of fictitious people and Pseudoscience are all genuine Wikipedia articles and the last one is actually a Class B article. However, all of these articles clearly state what they present from a neutral POV and yes, they do rely on reliable secondary sources. So, lets not start a war over what must, could should and would be understood and accepted as a scholarly presentation and wait for a historian or an anthropologist to do his or her own research on these articles, come out with a book that other researchers feel is safe enough to qoute not just by them, but by you and me. Then will we be able to publish an article that not only meets WP:Verify but also WP:NPOV. Till then lets shelf this article because if we don't then a lot of people will read what you and I agree is at-least to some extent incorrect information and assume it to be encyclopedic. - Wikishagnik (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are right about one thing - there has been a whole lot of text in this discussion and not much agreement. Tell you what, though. As soon as the standards for verifiability on Wikipedia indicate that no article can be retained by the project unless/until a historian or anthropologist writes a book on the subject, then we can follow your advice. And please, PLEASE stop arguing that DFA is a project - IT IS NOT A PROJECT!! Just because the Wikipedia article currently incorrectly calls it a project doesn't make it a project. Just because Facebook's mirror of Wikipedia (you did realize you were just citing another version of the same article, didn't you?) unsurprisingly repeats this doesn't make it a project. Just because some genealogist decided to trademark the name Project DFA doesn't make Descent from Antiquity a project, any more than the trademark of Project UFO makes UFOs a project. A Descent from Antiquity is a genealogical descent that can trace (from the medieval period, in a European context) to antiquity - some people make a project out of studying such descents (or rather, out of studying the potential for them), but that doesn't mean a DFA itself is a project. At least one organization (The Augustan Society) has a committee dedicated to the elaboration of them, their Descent from Antiquity Committee, but that doesn't mean a Descent from Antiquity is a committee either. Given that yesterday you didn't even know how to spell genealogy, have you considered the possibility that perhaps you aren't the best person to be lecturing me on what a genealogical term means? Fundamentally I am still of the opinion that a bad article on a noteworthy topic should be fixed, rather than a knee-jerk 'kill them all and let God sort it out' approach, and the fact that some of what Aristotle said is now thought to be incorrect does nothing to make me question that opinion. Agricolae (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agricolae, in other words you want a special treatment for this article because you feel this article is noteworthy. You have not been able to provide any reference or source that can show that the article meets WP:NOTE or WP:VERIFY. The only evidence you provide falls under WP:OR, and hence, while there is no reliable secondary source available we shelf this article. I have tried for a really long time that Wikipedia is not a forum (WP:NOTFORUM) to discuss new ideas, nor is it a place to write essays (WP:NOTESSAY). Please don't give emotional reasons like your feelings etc. in an AfD because nobody owns articles on Wikipedia WP:OWN and we all have to maintain a neutral POV (WP:NPOV). If you are feeling angry about me sticking to a point and you having to repeat yourself then its because you have not been able to give any convincing arguments that can stand scrutiny of common sense, let alone Wikipedia Policy, and if I have to say this a thousand times in this AfD than I will say it. -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please. You couldn't pack more straw-man arguments, misapplication of policies and insulting mis-characterizations into such a short paragraph again if you tried. Now I am trying to OWN an article and am guilty of POV, just for saying, in perfect agreement with policy, that a bad article should be fixed rather than deleted? And don't you think it is more than a little bit hypocritical to explicitly ask me how I feel and then berate me because feelings have no place in an AfD discussion? You are right that I have not shown the topic to be verifiable, because I haven't tried, but then neither have you demonstrated that a thorough search is unlikely to show it to be verifiable, the burden for deletion on this basis. Not surprising given that you didn't look in the right places and didn't even spell one of your search terms correctly, and you thought a Facebook mirror was independent evidence. IDONTLIKEIT dressed up with misapplicatied policies, a half-arsed Google Books search, and ludicrous accusations of misconduct against any and all who disagree with you are insufficient reasons to delete an article. Agricolae (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming all trangressions suggested by you to be true and more thorough search done by you, we both are in the same boat, arent we? Neither of us can show that the content of the article can be verified WP:Verify or is notable WP:NOT. We are shovelling each other but the boat isn't going anywhere. You feel the article is notable because one or two papers written by experts quote the phrase while I believe that in itself is not sufficient for the purpose. You feel that all criteria might be met on a future date while I believe that is not good enough for an article today. Let's wait and see how other editors feel about this. -Wikishagnik (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I not surprised that you would again portray my position as such a ridiculously self-serving and grotesque caricature, and then suggest that I should not respond. I never said that two articles make it notable - I cited those two references to highlight the erroneous nature of your uninformed claim that the term 'Descent from Antiquity' is only used generically. Likewise, I have no expectations about the future with the exception of death and taxes, and I base no conclusions on such 'feelings', nor have I ever hinted that future events drive my decision making process. Given that you seem utterly incapable or unwilling to summarize my arguments without twisting them about in the most dishonest fashion I recommend that you cease to do so, and instead leave the readers to figure out what I am saying without your 'help'. And one more time, the standard for deletion due to lack of verifiability is not whether the article is currently verified, but that the article "cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources". Agricolae (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So to conclude, while I accept responsibility for my behavior, we both have nothing to add to verifiability or notability of this article. -Wikishagnik (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that you have nothing to add because you have looked in the wrong place (Google Books, at least based on what you have stated here), and I have nothing to add because I know the right place to look, but haven't bothered to do so since I know for a fact that the page meets the burden of 'can possibly be documented'. It is simply not worth the effort (and a week is not nearly enough time) to get hold of the correct publications (that are not on Google Books and not in local libraries, but may be packed away in poorly-organized moving-boxes in my garage), not because the material doesn't exist. Agricolae (talk) 01:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ N. J. Lowe (11 September 2008). Comedy. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-521-70609-4. Retrieved 16 June 2012.
  2. ^ The Chefs of Le Cordon Bleu (6 December 2011). Le Cordon Bleu Patisserie and Baking Foundations. Cengage Learning. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4390-5713-1. Retrieved 16 June 2012.
  3. ^ Robert Leighton (June 2004). Dogs And All About Them. Kessinger Publishing. p. 213. ISBN 978-1-4191-1636-0. Retrieved 16 June 2012.
  4. ^ John Horace Round; William Page (19 November 1971). Family Origins And Other Studies: Edited With A Memoir And Bibliography By William Price. Taylor and Francis. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-7130-0025-2. Retrieved 16 June 2012.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Full Service. This is kind of a strange one, since the consensus at this AfD affects the fate of a different article. The consensus is to merge Full service with Full Service (capital S) and turn it into a more complete dab page, but per WP:MOS the correct title for the dab page is with a lowercase s. So, please merge these two pages, put the result at Full service, and turn Full Service into a redirect to Full service. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full service[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Full service (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 dictionary-like article on an adjective phrase. At the previous AfD it was a different article; no consensus; but this one is really no better, with not a hint of sourcing or notability as a topic. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral on article; keep talk page. If the main page were "delete", at least don't delete the talk page. Instead, if deleted, re-create it as disambiguation page. It has valuable talk about the article itself, yet it may be also about usage of "full service". --George Ho (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not realize the existence of Full Service. Now delete this article, rename the existing dab page to "full service" (or create a redirect). Seriously, I begin to agree with the nominator's rationale; full of unsourced data and definitions. Nevertheless, this AFD must not prevent the article about the term itself from being re-created, right? --George Ho (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't usually have articles about terms. Articles are about topics. The merge is move is obviously the right idea; I was also initially unaware of the disambig page with correct case. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • George Ho, I don't understand why you would like to keep the talk page. It contains discussion from 2006 on whether to delete the content (which I gather was, at that time, about the sexual code word), plus a WikiProject Sexuality banner. Could you explain why you think this needs to be preserved? Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed my mind. I don't see anything worth keeping in the talk page other than the AFD banner. --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and merge with Full Service; retain Full service as a proper DAB page, with appropriate/relevant definitions/links, as well as the DAB terms for the band and radio format. (note that Full service would be thus cut down significantly, and made a DAB page and not an article) --KarlB (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim down considerably and merge material from Full Service. There's useful material on both pages; full service should be the disambiguation page as it has the proper capitalization; Full Service should redirect to it. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the page is kept, it should be split. At present it is a poster child for WP:NAD – a list of different concepts (a type of engineering firm, retail services, a radio format, and a sexual code word) that share the same name rather than a single concept. That might be an argument for deletion. On the other hand, though, some of the content may be notable and worth keeping, especially the 'sexual code word' sense. Cnilep (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum – My comments above assume that the page would be kept as an article. Editors above seem to be arguing that the page be turned into a DAB. If that were the case, obviously splitting would be inappropriate. Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or split off the topics. I don't see anything wrong with an article about this topic; it's clearly notable as anything else we have in popular culture. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existence does not equate notability. And dictionaries do not prove sufficient notability. Usage of a term must be explained in an encyclopedic manner. Look at Bloke (word); it inspired "First Bloke" because news says so. Origin must be proven by reliable sources, as well. --George Ho (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a list of definitions is not an article. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has received significant discussion in multiple different independent and reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using a term is not the same as discussion of a term (and that discussion would have to be out of context of any of the particular meanings of the term in order to justify this page, i.e., discussion of the "full service" radio format would justify the existence of the Full service (radio format) article which is not what this page is.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Full Service per WP:NOTDIC, which could then be moved to Full service as a proper title for the dab page. (Maybe the article titles could be swapped to retain the history for attribution.) -- Trevj (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is a significant lexical subject and would be a shame to remove it. OracleB (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against recreation if notability is achieved. The Bushranger One ping only 22:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Watson[edit]

Sara Watson (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)

Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Consider the three bullet points there:

  1. Do reliable sources cover her only in the context of a single event? Yes—her car.
  2. Does the person remain a low-profile individual? Well... three years later, do we have anything else to say about her?
  3. Is the event significant? I doubt an article on the car could stand on its own.

So why keep the article—to compare her to Julian Beever or Disappearing Model? That's the question, now, isn't it? --BDD (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. BDD (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not such a clear case, because she isn't a low-profile individual, but I can't find any evidence of lasting notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been asked to participate as part of my final adoption test. Please let me know if I am out of order or too verbose.
    • Sara Watson is still at the begining of her career - few artist get this kind of mass media coverage twice. I do not see a sufficcent WP:BEFORE presented in the AFD nomination - pray expand on the scope of research done prior to launching this discussion?
    • About WP:BLP1E. Looking over the actual policy your argument has some holes. The media interest in the invisible car has not disappeared as would be expected of a one shot event like an exhibition. This article is not new - over 12 editors have worked on this article in a time frame of three years. There is also 8 edits to this article this year - this is supporting evidence of continued significance of the subject within our community contradicting clause 3 of WP:BLP1E as it is interpreted here.
    • This also looks like a case where the artwork produced is culturaly and concpetualy significant. There are other artists with one influential work of art. This for me put the nail in the coffin of the WP:BLP1E arguement - which appears to be invoked out of context and does not apply here.
    • As a follower of the gender gap mailing list - I feel that removing articles about young women who have gained popular acclaim may work to excerbate the Gender Gap and be disruptive to the goals of Wikipedia. While I am not aware of a policy per say on this subject having more articles of this nature is of strategic importance in this area. OrenBochman (talk) 08:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your contribution, Oren. I've got two comments and a question for you. First, WP:BEFORE doesn't say anything about presentation in an AFD nomination. It just means I have to have done some research before nominating, which I did. For example, the first two pages of Google results for sara watson artist are from 2009 (or about someone else). I'm also not finding anything in JSTOR or Google Scholar. Second, while I appreciate your final point, it sounds like a WP:ILIKEIT argument, which you'll see is listing as a type of argument to avoid. My question for you, then: could you cite some examples of artists with articles with only one influential work of art? Those would be useful for comparisons. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that three comments. Recent edits to the article are probably not a good gauge of the subject's notability (indeed, plenty of articles with much more work on them have been deleted). They may be a result of its use as an example in the essay Wikipedia:Citation overkill. That's actually how I found it. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about WP:ILIKEIT, I plan to start a major Glam Project and this little discussion is an eye opener on current attitudes on art. Since this is my homework perhaps I should work harder for more credit.
I asked about your prior invesitgation not because I thought you had not searched - you mentioned that you did I wanted to get a better understanding of what you claim. All you are realy claim so far is that you found nothing new in the top 20 Google results. For this particular search term it means next to nothing. There are some other people called Sarah Watson on the net getting much more coverage, and the story on the car is an internet meme so it would be surprising to find anything in google which is new and does not mention the car. However not finding a needle in a haystack don't prove it's not there... P.S. Jstor is almost exclusively reprints of old scholarly articles - so no surprise there either. Google Scholar I know less about but clearly it is not the place to find info on contemporary art. Still Google filetered for time has a great many items on the car.
These post sources indicate that this penomena has since been covered in a book and that this meme is still circulating on the web and that the original claim made in this. Clearly not an isolated even but an a significant ongoing phenomenam.

Regarding some other unique works of art:

  • Hm. All of those sources are blogs, which aren't necessarily invalid, but there are problems with using them as WP:RS. And WP:ARTIST says the piece should be "the subject of an independent book," which a mention in Ripley's Believe It Or Not isn't going to satisfy. I'm not too familiar with Duchamp myself, but a quick look at his article suggests he was known for much more than one piece. As for one-hit wonders, popular music is more notable than art, like it or not. Just as some sports are more notable, and thus have lower bars for inclusion. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of these are blogs etc. There are some WP:RS from the coverage in the BBC from the original release. The Blogs are not being used to source anything in the article only to establish that the "Car" is not a single event - but has ongoing significance so not being RS is not relevant. The level of proof you are requiring - academic is non-normative and could be used to delete practicaly any BLP. Also since one hit wonders are not sourced with academic sources from google scholar so requiring them here is WP:Pointy
  • Regarding different level of notability where did that come from - it sounds like more like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT off policy argument.
  • To sum up:
    • I have rebutled the original deletion argument by showing that it was based on inadequate WP:Before and cannot hold water.
    • Specificaly - I have provided evidence that the notability of this individual is derived from a culturaly significant art work which has ongoing interest years after it has been released.
  • I have demonstrated that by normative standards this is as good as any article on an artists being included for a single one art work -- more notable since most have risen to fame by selling lots of copies and this was not a commercial endavour whose media coverage was finaced by a music label nor fueled by sales.
OrenBochman (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OrenBochman's plea above doesn't compensate the fact that 1. the artwork Sara Watson created didn't have a huge international press coverage, maybe some local coverage (nothing found in Google News' archives though), and 2. Sara Watson hasn't created any other major work, and she is still in school. Patience makes perfect. Delete! Rubyface (talk) 08:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment She could be notable by WP:ARTIST if she's created an artwork that's received substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to people who're famous due to creating a single art work/novel/play/etc. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed WP:ARTIST, and I don't think there's much of a case there. #1 is out of the question. #2 doesn't work either; she didn't invent or pioneer trompe-l'œil in any sense. As for #3, has the car been the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"? I may be misreading that, but that sounds like scholarly sources to me. If I'm right, that won't do either. And as for #4, "significant critical attention" is pretty subjective. The car made a splash in 2009, but it doesn't look like it made a lasting impact. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actualy she has innovated trompe-l'œil by using it on a found object in a disruptive format. Not in a classical sense of a wall painting or an image. Do you know other examples of trompe-l'œil statues ? OrenBochman (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear case of WP:BLP1E. Yes, an artwork she created received a considerable amount of passing media attention, but she has not demonstrated long-term notability (and neither has the artwork). I sympathise with OrenBochman's concerns about the Wikipedia 'gender gap', but that's an argument for creating and maintaining more articles on notable women, not keeping articles on non-notable women like this one. Robofish (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The more consideration I give to WP:BLP1E, I find it to be a loophole that should be removed from Wikipedia. Either the subject is notable or it is not, person or otherwise. So the question then becomes is the event itself notable? There are no sources available which show that this individual is notable, and the same applies to the art project she is associated with at this time. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - Lacks the lasting coverage needed to establish notability. Her invisible car work attracted attention, but as a work of art, has not sustained the coverage needed to establish as work so notable that as a single work, establishes teh notability of the artist. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 18 June 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. No assertion of notability Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brownstone Facility for Girls[edit]

Brownstone Facility for Girls (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 only lists the girls in the "facility" (non of which are notable), and is written like an advertisement. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 03:03, 11 June 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. No strong agreement on whether this reality show contestant passes the notability bar, or whether WP:BLP1E applies. -Scottywong| gab _ 16:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aanchal Kumar[edit]

Aanchal Kumar (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 model. Claim to fame is that she was onBigg Boss (season 4) and did some film cameos. I can find plenty of blogs discussing who she is dating. I can find refs about her Bigg Boss adventure, but not much else. Prod was contested for "give it some time to grow". Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 28 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It seems that every single person who has ever been on Bigg Boss has an article of his/her own and it would certainly be peculiar to make one particular individual's article into a redirect. I have to agree with the nominator, though, that the existing English-language evidence of notability is very scanty (but then so is the evidence for a few other contestants). BTW, one peculiar thing is that she seems to be missing from the Bigg Boss directory at the bottom of the page. This sent me on a wild goose chase looking for evidence that she had actually been on the programme. Ubelowme (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep As opposed to this being a WP:BLP1E, we do have an additional assertion toward notability is her work as a fashion model. Apun Ka Choice calls her a "celebrated model".[66] Times of India seems to think that her shopping for lace is newsworthy,[67] and also reports her involvement in "fashion week",[68] as does Daily Mirror.[69] So it can be seen that she does recieve attention for more than just Bigg Boss. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two of your "refs" have her shown in a photo and the other briefly mentions her. That hardly meets significant coverage. Bgwhite (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you somehow misread what I wrote above? They were offered per policy to show this is not a BLP1E, and not as examples of SIGCOV. Different issues. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:59, 14 June 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, →Bmusician 02:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has no press coverage (only blogs about stars and celebrities), and as mentioned above, only her shopping seems newsworthy to a very few. Shoudn't give her the attention she doesn't have in the first place. Rubyface (talk) 8:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - I think her Bigg Boss appearance and relationships were famous personalities like Yuvraj Singh, Rahul Bhatt should suffice for a keep. -Abhishikt (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last time I checked, nobility is not inherited. Bgwhite (talk) 05:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just want to say that she won the Gladrags Mega Model contest in 1999 which was one of the biggest modelling contests in it's time. Plus she regularly walks the ramp for renowned fashion designers at popular fashion shows. If you do remove this page then I think you also should surely consider removing the page of Carol Gracias for that matter.All she has is a Bigg Boss appearance and a wardrobe malfunction, Aanchal is definitely more renowned then her. And also check her fellow Bigg Boss housemate Mandeep Bevli's page for that matter. Forget being famous there is hardly any sense in that page.We can all safely say that there is no set definition of being famous enough to be awarded a page in wiki but I am sure if one of the top indian newspaper The Times of India finds her buying a lacy wardrobe newsworthy she does have some amount of reputation. Boseritwik (talk) 07:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an apparent WP:BLP1E (if you could even call it that) which lacks non-trivial coverage in reliable third party sources. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 01:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If that is the case check the following as well for that matter.

Carol Gracias
Munmun Dutta
Tanuj Mahashabde
Tanmay Vekaria
Sheena Shahabadi
Falguni Pathak
Hemant Chauhan
Rehane Yavar Dhala
Mandeep Bevli
Kavita Bhartiya
Govind Kumar Singh
This is just 11 names out of a list of 1000s which I can present to you,but lets just talk about these eleven for now.Why don't these come under WP:BLP1E?Boseritwik (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is irrelevant; the "What about X?" argument is one to avoid. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, M.Q.Schmidt analysis sounds quite convincing. Cavarrone (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see this meets the threshold we expect for a BLP. Bigg Boss aside the claims to notability are fairly trivial and don't appear to have generated much press comment. There is a long standing consensus that reality show participants are not accorded individual articles unless there is a lot of ongoing coverage and this clearly isn't the case so we are essentially left with a subject lacking sources and only minor claims to notability that don't aggregate to meeting N. Spartaz Humbug! 18:16, 21 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Jayne Defoe[edit]

Alexis Jayne Defoe (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. No coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Ridernyc (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Major role in one notable film. Appeared in a notable theatre production, but was not mentioned by name in reviews of it. Article may be worth creating in a few years, when she's likely to have acquired a more noteworthy portfolio, but at this point in time she does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. JulesH (talk) 18:12, 28 May 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,  —HueSatLum 22:03, 4 June 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, →Bmusician 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The references are pretty obscure, no press coverage, interview, whatsoever... This video of her [70] shows that she is just trying to get in the movie industry (and it's not very convincing). rubyface (talk) 12:35, 11 June 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 The Witcher universe#Characters. Consensus seems to be to merge...but nobody specifies where to. "The book series" is what's suggested, but there is no page for the book series indpendent from the main article. There is, however, The Witcher universe#Characters, which seems to be the logical place for a merge, so I have closed it as such. The Bushranger One ping only 06:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yennefer of Vengerberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Yennefer of Vengerberg (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character; WP:GNG CyanGardevoir 10:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We had an AfD about this before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yennefer. This is not flagged up above, presumably due to the change of title. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The related article, Starsza Mowa, is also nominated for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starsza Mowa. People who have an opinion on this may also have an opinion on that, and vice-versa. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It seems that this a major book series in some countries even if it has not made a big splash in English translation. There is a film, TV series, comics and a video game. This article is apparently about one of the main characters, one of two characters which have articles. This is consistent with the way we cover fiction in general where main characters get individual articles. We should not let the fact that this is not a big hit in English language culture put us off covering it. The reason I am suggesting keep only weakly is that the article is not great. It needs better referencing and more complete coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument is that we have a established general practice that major fictional franchises can have individual articles for their main but not their minor characters. My point was not that some other articles like this have flown under the radar but that articles of this type are well recognised within the normal structure of Wikipedia. WP:OTHERSTUFF is a brush off for people who just try to justify crap by saying that other crap also exists. My point is that this is a valid subject, not a crappy one (although the article itself might be poor).
I doubt that anybody actually disagrees with this point, as a general principle. Surely you do not intend to nominate, say, Buffy Summers, James T. Kirk, Harry Potter (character) or Sherlock Holmes for deletion?
The real issues here are:
  1. Whether or not this is a major enough franchise for the same rules to apply. As I already explained above, these are successful books with movie, TV, comic and video game spin-offs so it certainly seem to be.
  2. Whether this is a major enough character within the franchise. This has also already been covered.
I don't think we would even be having a discussion about this if this was an English language phenomenon. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All those articles you just said meet WP:N and WP:GNG - they have enough sources and thus have gained notability. This does not. For me, that is the main issue - it may be the least important character in the world and yet have enough sources to justify notability. CyanGardevoir 05:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ‣ I've added a couple more {{find sources}} templates up above that result in more representative hits. As one of the main characters of the franchise this topic receives substantial coverage within sources discussing the book series, film, TV series, comics, and video games—there are actually at least two of those—and WP:N states that significant coverage is "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material", which IMO describes the coverage of this topic. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's still a short article. Why can't we merge it to "The_Witcher_universe#Yennefer_of_Vengerberg", which already exists? Please explain. CyanGardevoir 06:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a character list until we have enough to demonstrate independent notability. This may be a bit of a systemic bias issue, since the source material doesn't seem to be primarily in English. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you looked at the Google News searches above, though, or for example the sources and external links used in the various Witcher articles in the nav bar? Many of them prominently mention Yennefer - if this were a real person mentioned in this many places comprising international coverage over more than a decade, it seems like this would be an unquestionably notable topic. And for example, it would be notability-establishing evidence for an actress to have played this role in the film or television series. (In fact, Grażyna Wolszczak who played the role in the film has an article, though with contested notability that doesn't seem to have been examined yet.) And, as DanielRigal points out, keeping this article would be consistent with how we treat the major characters of other notable media franchises. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IMDb article merely states that she plays Yennefer. It does not demonstrate just how the subject of this article is notable. Sources need to be provided for stand-alone character notability. Just because "other" franchises have main character pages does not mean this one needs one (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Oh, and this isn't a real person, don't understand how this is a valid point for discussion... CyanGardevoir 06:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the AfD process sources don't need to be provided to anyone in particular or be placed in the article in question, it's sufficient that they exist. An AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, it's a request to other editors to investigate and evaluate an article and its topic in the context of a deletion argument.

    You have nominated this article for deletion based upon lack of notability but the coverage in so many sources that describe the book series, film, TV series, comics, and video games establishes notability as it would for the topic of a real person with equivalent coverage - you can't just say that the coverage in reliable independent sources "doesn't count" because this topic is a fictional character instead of a real person.

    If you want to concede that the coverage that exists does away with notability concerns and make some separate argument that Wikipedia does not "need" an article about this topic even though it satisfies notability requirement you must do so formally with explicit reasoning. It's not impossible but it's very difficult to make such an argument objectively in appeal to Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 12:19, 28 May 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, Tow talk 22:25, 4 June 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, →Bmusician 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the book series as the sensible compromise solution. There's no need to delete the material, and a redirect is appropriate. TOOSHORT is not an argument for deletion, but it can be an argument for merging. A merge can come here to be resolved, because the decisions here have a certain degree of stability, and it is at any case logical to consider all the possibilities together. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. As long as the article remains underdeveloped, independent of the character's notability, there simply is no need at the moment for a stand-alone article. – sgeureka t•c 13:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a compromise. Not enough sources to WP:verify notability and meet the standard set out in the WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:50, 12 June 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 Slax. I have given hardly any weight to the non-policy base keep votes and the establised users have a clear consensus. Maybe in while there will be enough coverage to justify breaking this out to a standalone but the consensus is that we are are not there yet. (non-admin closure) Spartaz Humbug! 18:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note OS[edit]

Note OS (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)

Notability disputed. Linux-based operating system released yesterday May 25th (on its first stable version). Of the three references, two are primary and the other is an unreliable blog hosted by Wordpress. The "about" section of such site claims that "Saved Computing is a blog on computing, which also includes helpful tips, articles, and more." Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 04:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Slax. I couldn't find any third-party references to establish notability, but we could mention it at the Slax article, seeing as Note OS was forked from the Slax distribution. It seems too soon for Note OS to have its own article now, but if third-party sources appear in the future then there's no reason why we couldn't restore the current version and improve the sourcing. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 May 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, Tow talk 22:28, 4 June 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, →Bmusician 02:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in independent third-party sources. Far too soon for the subject to have established any notability. No need to merge. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting young distro --Hiddenray (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Hiddenray! Unfortunately, comments based on how interesting the subject is don't carry very much weight at all in deletion discussions - see here for the reasons why. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I ain't a bureaucrat, so i just said my point of view without reading all policies before. However i think that the article should be kept. Moreover, estimate the notability from external sources is a questionable way to estimate the worthiness of subjects. If the owner of this linux distribution had enough money to corrupt bloggers and journals you'd have hundreds of articles and sources... and the very same linux distribution. IMHO keeping the article damages no one and helps everyone --Hiddenray (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary; external sources are the only means we have of estimating the notability of subjects. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Hiddenray said "Moreover, estimate the notability from external sources is a questionable way to estimate the worthiness of subjects". You are free to believe that but it is a widely accepted Wikipedia guideline and determines whether an article is kept or not. The reasons for this are not merely bureaucratic in nature, because without reliable third party references a proper encyclopedia article cannot be written and Wikipedia would simply degenerate into a blog where any opinion could be presented as fact. - Ahunt (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's an operating system you can download. It's not an opinion, it's there. I present this as a fact, because it is a fact. In a blog-like website any opinion can be presented as fact, but an operating system is not an opinion. It' something you can virtually touch... because unlike Google's Chrome OS - in this case - the article has been published after the release of the software. I explain this illogical thing in the post bellow. --Hiddenray (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is some good sense in what is written in the two pages there. Anyway, it's hard to image how any Apple's product is "notable" for the encyclopedia even before it's available on the market, but the same product without all the advertising wouldn't be notable even after. From this point of view, the free encyclopedia is more similar to a vacuum unit for advertising: the more the advertising is spread, the more the thing is notable. Also, the "identifying reliable sources" guideline is a bit strange, because the reliability of notable authors is up to you to decide. In the same way as a notable author is often notable only for his/her supporters. As Google is legally registered as an advertising company(!), i ain't surprised by seeing all of its products with a dedicated page and several categories (Google, Google services, ...). In fact, the history page says that the Google Chrome OS article has been created much before the actual product was available (yes the day after its announcement, this OS was already notable for Wikipedians...). The more i know about Wikipedia from the inside, the less it seems to me free (as in freedom) and open (as in open minded). Why was Google Chrome OS notable the day after its announcement, but a real operating system like Note OS is not notable? Perhaps because this encyclopedia isn't so much free, only who is big and can pay and can buy his notability in a day is notable, and this encyclopedia isn't so much open because its doors are closed to whom has another name rather than Google or Apple. In my first day my first impression as registered editor of this wiki, isn't much good.--Hiddenray (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: example of a notable yet (at the time) non-existent operating system: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Chrome_OS&oldid=300938345

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks, announced by Google on July 7th, 2009, to be shipped in the second half of 2010

— Wikipedia
announced by Google = automatic notability; announced = marketing/advertising/non-existent product --Hiddenray (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Looking for conspiracies in how the Wikipedia community decides notability is not the way to argue for keeping an article. Just because something exists does not mean it should have an article. I am quite sure that Note OS exists, but then my neighbour has a cat that exists too. There is no reason that the cat should have an encyclopedia article about it, though. As I noted above, the reason for requiring third party refs about a subject to have an article on it is not so that only subjects with big advertising budgets behind them get written up, it is strictly because you can't create an objective encyclopedia article based on what the subject sponsors say about themselves on their own website. The requirement for independent third party refs ensures that there are reviews and criticisms included and not just a rehash of public relations spam. Also there is no requirement that the authors of reviews and criticism are notable themselves. WP:RS requires that these be publications with editorial oversight and not just self-published personal blogs. This all adds up to a good deal of insulation against PR campaigns, because it requires these independent third party refs and no amount of company PR, blogging, Tweeting and Facebook pages will get a Wikipedia article created and kept.
To answer your question "Why was Google Chrome OS notable the day after its announcement, but a real operating system like Note OS is not notable?" Simply because many independent third party publications took notice and wrote reviews and stories about Chrome OS. As far as we can discover no one has written anything about Note OS outside those working on the project. That means there are reviews, positive and negative, about Chrome OS on which to base an article. In the case of Note OS there seems to be nothing upon which to base an article beyond what the developers of Note OS have said about it themselves. We don't accept Ford's opinions about how great their cars are, why would we do the same with a small Linux distribution?
There are articles on Linux distributions with no corporate backing, like Debian and Puppy Linux that illustrate that it is not advertising that counts, but third party references. These articles are here because there are reviews and criticims published about them that we can base an article on.
To be frank, we have been around the "non-notable Linux distribution" issue many times. The truth is that creating your own Linux distribution is not that hard these days, many thousands have been created and most are just personal hobby projects that land here looking for exposure on Wikipedia. The articles are basically promotional in nature and get deleted. - Ahunt (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My question: "Why was Google Chrome OS notable the day after its announcement, but a real operating system like Note OS is not notable?" Your Answer: "Simply because many independent third party publications took notice and wrote reviews and stories about Chrome OS" How is that possible? When the operating system has been announced, nobody had a chance to test it. Because it was non-existent. It has been announced, not published. The "independent third party publications" were Google's independent publications. The independent reviews of a non-available products (i guess) were based only on the propaganda published by Google or were written ... by wizards (?). And what about the exorbitant amount of personal point of views and speculations about "how will the world change with Google's OS?", notability via speculations?. I don't understand why non-notable Linux distributions are actually a problem, and thus why are some real/existent/available Linux distributions marked as non-notable. The number of ("non-notable") Linux distribution isn't infinite. The disk space of the servers is available. Why don't we accept everything that exists and people might look for. This is what i ask myself. In the end, the "notability" issue has the opposite result of its main purpose. All products sponsored by big multinational companies are always notable even from the very beginning, and everything else is just "nothing". This is not fair, and makes the encyclopedia biased by default. Note OS is not notable because (unlike Google) its authors were unable to ask and pay for "independent third party publications" and thus all the advertising. The amount of third party references is what a rich advertising company owning a search engine is able to obtain in a very short time. Google OS has its page on Wikipedia from before its existence, Note OS will have its page only if used by the NASA (and if they write about it). It's just unfair the way the two operating system,s both based on Linux, are treated. However, it's plain. It has been already decided this article about Note OS shall be deleted. --Hiddenray (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it hasn't been decided that it will be deleted, if that were the case then this debate wouldn't have been re-listed twice to get more opinions, it would have just been deleted. If it gets deleted it will be strictly on the basis that no one anywhere outside the distro devs themselves has written a word about it anywhere. If Wikipedia included articles on non-notable subjects then we would have articles on every person, cat, dog and pet hamster that ever lived, all based on blogs and Facebook pages. Wikipedia would become nothing more than blog itself. The notability requirement was developed and is supported by the consensus of the Wikipedia community for that reason. - Ahunt (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I understand your point of view, but i disagree with it. I've well expressed my point of view already, and so i don't have to add anything else. --Hiddenray (talk) 22:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the verdict, I am reading merge. ObtundTalk 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is up to the closing admin to adjudicate, when this is finally closed, which should occur on 18 June 2012. - Ahunt (talk) 00:14, 17 June 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 is to delete WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Onion the dog[edit]

Onion the dog (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)

Not notable. Someone's pet that is due to be destroyed for killing a child. Although newsworthy it seems to be mostly to be of local interest. The one 'international' link is to a UK tabloid, probably as it fits in with a campaign against dangerous dogs (quite the opposite of the "international focal point for animal welfare advocates" the article claims). Lots of POV issues but even if fixed it still won't be notable. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Onion the dog story should be compacted and inserted in the animal euthanasia page, or the animal rights page. Having a complete article for this dog is absurd. Rubyface (t), 9:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Notability clearly established according to WP:GNG by over 150 newspaper print and website articles, including Los Angeles, Denver, Chicago, and New York dailies, television and radio coverage in markets other than Nevada, articles on Huffington Post, and numerous Associated Press nationally-distributed articles.

MadZarkoff (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete It is a badly written and heavily pov-laden article on a subject that has no longterm notability. The article probably exists only so that those with a vested interest in the ongoing local story can claim that a local issue is of greater importance than it is. Wikipedia is not a Facebook page, and articles should not exist as outlets for editors to express their indignation about such-and-such an incident. Meowy 16:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - AfDs are WP:NOTCLEANUP (in fact, it's not even as bad as some of the articles on Wikipedia are). WP:NPOV here is fairly good, and presents both views of the incident without significant bias. And I don't know what the heck the second part is - it does have significant sources where the information has been sourced from. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 23:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, meets content policies. I have mostly addressed the POV issues by copying in a less-biased article from a project that uses the same license as we do. JYolkowski // talk 02:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with keep and cleanup As I wrote over at Citizendium keep the article. The article has been rewritten after the article was "borrowed" from Citizendium and moved to WP. The article now contains historical fact. It is no longer a "drive-by" article. BTW I was one of the authors who helped edit the current article at CZ and WP. I contribute to both. Quill and Pen (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is local news and nothing more. I could not find any New York Times articles about this dog. MadZarkoff: can you find them and add them to the article? Bearian (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - meets WP:GNG, but does not adequately meed WP:NPOV. Content also needs cleanup and needs to be wikified. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 02:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were many non-local citations, but one of the editors deleted them all. I added a couple I just found quickly. There was also a Denver Post article, t.v. coverage from West Palm Beach to Texas to Seattle, from Los Angeles, etc. etc. Just google. They're all over. Huffington Post, Associated Press. etc. MadZarkoff (talk) 01:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Bearian and the Delete-judging administrator. Bearian asked for additional non-local citations to show this is national coverage so I obliged. Then another editor deleted those citations. I just put them back in -- the first time in my editing life I ever reverted another's edit, and I did not feel comfortable doing it. Bearian, I did what you asked. I cannot control other editors. MadZarkoff (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legal and moral ramifications[edit]

The following comments were posted to the Onion article discussion page. I placing them here for review. I have found sources both nationally and internationally. Also, this case has been sent to the Nevada Supreme Court for review. Comments from discussion page: That's OK. There has been national and international coverage. I have found sources using the Associated Press (that's national) and at least one source covering this story in Britain. The story has the makings of a philosophical and ethical debate as the role of pet ownership is evolving. It used to be if you had a vicious dog you put the dog down. Now we have "pet parents" and a whole different way of looking at animals. Another way to look at this too, is the reported recanting by the dog owner who reportedly signed over ownership to the Henderson animal control officials. She now claims "duress" and wants to have the dog sent to a no-kill animal shelter. So there are some legal aspects of this case too. Quill and Pen (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC) Quill and Pen (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability can be established in various ways. WP:EFFECT stands for the proposition that otherwise apparently non-notable events are notable if they have long-lasting effects. It does not stand for the logically-nonequivalent inverse, that events are not notable if they do not have a lasting effect, as Trevj by referring to it seems to imply. Notability here has been established by extensive media coverage as per WP:GNG.

WP:EFFECT also states: “It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.” Judgment at this point on this basis is clearly premature, the result of the court proceedings having not been concluded.

I believe that the comment that the references do not address the subject of the article is incorrect. They concern the ongoing legal battle to save the dog’s life.

Editor Trevj also comments that the article “already” appears on the list of dog-related deaths. That seems to imply that other articles are not needed because they appear on a list. Where do you draw the line? I reaffirm my KEEP vote on the basis of notability. MadZarkoff (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would draw the line where the death received far more attention than this. Where e.g. there was a notable criminal case or where the law was changed as a result (but there the article would probably be on the case or the law instead). A dog killing someone is not notable. The local court cases since then don't make it notable. I.e. it is very much a local news story without national or international implications.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my confusing note above. I've amended it. -- Trevj (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to List of fatal dog attacks in the United States. This tragedy is well documented, but sources provided don't seem adequate to support an independent article. This article isn't even about the dog; it's about the tragic incident. As an event, sourcing on this fails EFFECT, GEOSCOPE, INDEPTH, PERSISTENCE, and DIVERSE. Lots of speculation and conjecture. Ten years from now the dog and the story will be dead. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:BLP1E is instructive here. If this were a living person who had angrily lashed out and killed a child, normally we'd be obliged to delete per BLP1E and WP:CRIME. Because this is a living animal we seem okay with ignoring those policies. BusterD (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen and ladies --

WP.GNG -- If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. COMMENT. Satisfied by the article. WP.NTEMP -- Notability is not temporary - once a topic has been the subject of significant coverage in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. COMMENT. Thus, what occurs 10 years from now is not relevant. Editor commentary on the subject matter also does not bear on these criteria. Thanks. MadZarkoff (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Outside of the single tragedy, the dog isn't notable by any standard of policy or guideline. What might be notable is the event and the effect thereafter. The WP:10 year test is part of the essay on Recentism, which points out that editors sometimes overfocus on events which happened recently. Because news coverage often exists on non-notable topics, imagining whether the subject would be considered notable enough for inclusion ten years in the future is sometimes a useful exercise. As User:MadZarkoff points out, notability isn't temporary, I and others often wonder whether recent news counts as significant enough coverage to meet the standards for WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. In this case, in my view, coverage is not significant and the topic fails several event criteria. BusterD (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed my comments as I did not realize this constitutes a vote. I am new here, and am learning the process, so I appreciate your patience. Thank you! Quill and Pen (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QandP as a new editor didn't know that one can COMMENT without VOTING. His comments were valuable and I accordingly take the liberty of repeating them here under my own name. I hope this doesn't violate any WP standards. Reverse vandalism perhaps??

QandP wrote, The article is about the proposed euthanasia of a dog that mauled and killed a child. If the dog is allowed live, this would set legal precedent as most US municipal codes euthanize dogs that are declared vicious. The article also has legal merit as the case is under review, or has been reviewed by the Nevada Supreme Court. As to new coverage, this incident has received both national and international coverage. Also, the article could reflect a societal change in how US citizens view pet ownership. We now have "pet parents" and there are some who have started to treat their pets as children and may expect to have the same rights conferred onto their animals as humans. While this article may not be complete, it is because the event is ongoing and has not ended. I highly recommend keeping this article based on its legal merits, wide news coverage and the potential reflection of societal change. MadZarkoff (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I do not think this dog meets the notability guideline. Certainly the case is well covered but for a singe incident which, as far as I can tell, doesn't confer notability. There is a marginal case for an inclusion in List of fatal dog attacks in the United States if it is not already mentioned there. --Lw (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote earlier the article should be kept. FYI I am a retired journalist who is well versed in covering governmental affairs. I read the City of Henderson Municipal Code and it seems to be inline with most other city codes when it comes to dealing with declared vicious dogs. Onion may very well end up being a test case on several fronts: 1) If the State of Nevada Supreme Court, or a lower Nevada court, determines that Onion should not be euthanized for whatever reason legal precedent could be set. Cities throughout the US will have rewrite their municipal codes when it comes to handling declared vicious dogs. 2) The other precedent is the owner "recanting" under duress. This is a legal issue but a very important one. What happens if other dog owners decide the same thing? How will local governments determine how to handle dog owners who have second thoughts? There is also the issue of assigning new status or legal rights as some dog owners now consider their pets their "children" and this case could be a test case to determine if pets deserve the same legal status, or at least the status to petition the court on a routine basis, to not have a vicious dog euthanized.

I’m sorry if I voted twice. I didn’t think I did. Plus, I’m sure the WP administrator making the decision on this article would have noted that. But I don’t think my inadvertent error, performed in good faith, justifies the striking of my comments. I hope this resolves this disagreement amicably, and I again apologize if I made an error. Quill and Pen (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

Note: The article has been moved to Onion (dog) as the name of the animal is simply Onion. With no links to the redirect page other than those pertaining to this AfD I'd recommend the redirect be deleted upon closer of the AfD (in case of deletion, under WP:G8, otherwise WP:G6). JIMp talk·cont 03:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Per WP:AFDEQ, I thought page moves were often left until discussions are closed. -- Trevj (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I'll keep that in mind. JIMp talk·cont 16:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily a huge problem, just an observation. -- Trevj (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a notable animal. The fact of extensive media coverage is not sufficient to make a current news event notable; some indication of lasting value or interest is needed. Also, though the attack might become notable, the dog will not. Delete for now but revisit if, for example, the event sets an important legal precedent when an article on the attack (but not the dog) might be justified. TerriersFan (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT. TF wrote-The fact of extensive media coverage is not sufficient to make a current news event notable--YES it is. Please read WP:GNG. TF wrote-Some indication of lasting value or interest is needed.--NO, it's not. Please see WP:NTEMP. The event has already set an important legal precedent in being heard by a state Supreme Court.MadZarkoff (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - read WP:NTEMP - "Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." I believe that to be the case here. There also seems to be ongoing coverage based on the publishing dates of the sources anyway. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 23:25, 23 June 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. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 08:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conférence des Directeurs des Écoles Françaises d'Ingénieurs[edit]

Conférence des Directeurs des Écoles Françaises d'Ingénieurs (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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The schools and institutions controlled by this agency may very well be notable, but nothing I have read in the references for this organization gives me any impression that the administration is the same. At the bear minimum, this needs merging out into another article, which would cover it, at the most it needs deleting. As a separate agency, I don't see its general notability. 

 BarkingFish  01:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:Article Titles#English-language titles, when is the last time you used Conférence, des, Directeurs, Écoles, Françaises, or d'Ingénieurs in normal conversation?  If you have?  I need to stay away from your clique.   WP:Article Titles#English-language titles says "is commonly used by English language."  Beyond that, the cites are the article.  :- ) Don 04:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

08:00 section break[edit]

  • Keep as notable. Though this is not really relevant to the AFD, the use of the English title seems absurd - we retain the actual name (ie French) of such institutions, École nationale d'administration, Institut national des études territoriales, École Normale Supérieure, etc, for the good reason that is how they are known either by title or acronym. I cannot imagine why we would translate these in normal use except as part of an explanation if what they were. Of itself the translated name is meaningless. --AJHingston (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Totally agree with AJHingston. Very notable and the use of English title is absurd. There are a lot of articles on English Wikipedia concerning French Education with a French title, which is normal because it is their official name. See for example : category:grandes écoles. 80.13.85.217 (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I renamed it because of your PROD. If it survives AfD, I would have no problem with reversing that rename. I technically cannot do that myself.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Your' PROD is ambiguous. There may have been a misunderstanding. There is some guidance here, but where the article title is a proper name the correct thing is to use the version most commonly used in English. So Arc de Triomphe not Triumphal Arch, but Eiffel Tower not La Tour Eiffel. It is difficult to imagine anyone looking this subject up using anything other than the proper name or its acronym, nor is there evidence that it is commonly referred to in English by a translation of the name, so the natural name for the article is the proper, French, one. --AJHingston (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about the attribution. Dcshank PRODded, 80.13.85.217 notified me of the PROD, and I assumed.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep.  WP:OSE  If these were UK or American, one-half would be kicked for notability.  But being French, implies importance, at least according to the authors and the titles.  I find very few citations, if any that are independent, mostly just lists of the organizations.  I can't wait for the next paper released by the Conférence des Directeurs des Écoles Françaises d'Ingénieurs, I'm sure I will learn a lot.
After looking at a few hundred renown organizations from around the world, it appears there is not a problem, most institutions use English names, with the notable exception of the few French that made the list, and a few other European groups here and there.  I propose that the rule be amended that all titles shall be in English or French.(author's choice, if French sound more cool, then French)  I assume that the alphabetizing software is already in place.  I will wait for a notable Chinese of Japanese organization that prefers to stick their nose in the air and use only Mandarin or Kanji.  :- ) Don 13:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the levity. Please consider striking your delete !vote, and making your choice of article name unambiguously.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Needs to be changed to all English. French equivalents are irrelevant to the English article. And not because they don't "allow" English to enter French, but just from common sense. The French is distracting. What they do may be of value/interesting. But having to translate it before the reader keeps the reader, and the article, from progressing in knowledge. Not supposed to be a French lesson. Any more than an article about the equivalent board in American/US/Australia or wherever should be an English lesson in the French version of Wikipedia. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable standards setting body. TerriersFan (talk) 20:13, 16 June 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 Roman Catholic Diocese of Pasig. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger One ping only 02:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

San Sebastian Parish[edit]

San Sebastian Parish (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 worn a Template:Notability since May 2009. There is no assertion of notability in the article itself. No independent sources are cited: the only sources cited are two diocesan webpages. A Google search for ("san sebastian" pasig) turns up no evidence of in-depth coverage by independent sources; by avoiding English-language terms in the search, I should have found any Spanish-language coverage as well. According to the article, the parish was established in 1990, so it probably doesn't have much notability from a historical standpoint. There appears to be a fairly clear failure of WP:GNG here. Ammodramus (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This parrish is as notable as the one my wife works at.(established in 1962) Neither deserves a wikipedia article. NOT Notable....William 01:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excommunicate. Not all parishes or churches should have Wikipedia articles, especially ones which are relatively new and have not been the subject of reliable coverage. Even the Basilica which is just a few minutes from my house probably doesn't have an article, and it's been around for about one-and-a-half centuries so why should this one have? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Roman Catholic Diocese of Pasig  Article is currently insufficiently sourced to establish notability, and the nominator has presented evidence that work will be needed to find sufficient sources if such exist.  A redirect does not prevent restoring the article if sources are found.  The topic is already covered in the encyclopedia, so there is no AfD case to delete the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 18 June 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 slapped right out of the encyclopedia. The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamboning[edit]

Hamboning (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 a dictionary of neologisms. -- KTC (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Juba dance, which is also known as "Hambone". It does involve slapping one's self, although whether it's insane or not is a matter of taste. ... discospinster talk 01:31, 11 June 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Match It[edit]

Match It (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)

While it has a release date, I believe it to be true that a television show must still demonstate notability. This show, thus far, does not. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 28 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 June 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,  —HueSatLum 00:48, 11 June 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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger One ping only 02:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vserv[edit]

Vserv (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 CSD'd due to no assertion of notability, but author subsequently made such a claim ("voted as one of the top global ad networks") on the article's talk page. However, I'm skeptical about the reliability of that source of that claim. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC) Psychonaut (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 28 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 June 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,  —HueSatLum 00:47, 11 June 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 Dried fish. The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obambo (fish)[edit]

Obambo (fish) (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)

Does not show notability.No references at all. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 15:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - This article was recently split from Obambo -- a fact that should have been noted in the article history. Additionally, the two articles should link to each other.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this is essentially a WP:DICTDEF, which is a problem. Obambo seems to be one of several names used in East Africa for dried fish. The information in this article should be retained, but not necessarily under this title. This presentation on an FAO website uses "Obambo" as one of several terms referring to drying of fish in East Africa. Here's a recipe for Obambo on a website for Kenyan women: [71]. That recipe lists two alternative names for this type of fish. I can imagine an article on fish drying and use of dried fish in East Africa, or perhaps this belongs in a broader article on the drying of fish in general. --Orlady (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I recently created the article. The information was tacked on to the end of the article Obambo, which is a type of ghost in central Africa. The two words appear to be homonyms. In meaning, they have nothing to do with each other, so I thought it would be best to put the fish information on its own page. I know almost nothing of African culture, ghosts, or fish. If the article is deleted, I have very little invested in it. I'm not sure why the information would be moved to another title, or what title that would be, or what benefit it would have. If another editor can improve the articles, I think they should remain separate. Boneyard90 (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry -- I should have explained myself better. There are two concerns about the relationship between this article and Obambo:
1. To provide an auditable trail in relation to copyright law, when we take content from one Wikipedia article and insert it into another article, the edit summary for the new article is supposed to indicate where the content came from. The "dried fish" content was added to Obambo on 30 September 2011‎; it was not new when you added it to this article.
2. Wikipedia commonly encounters terms and names that have multiple meanings. WP:Disambiguation tells about how we handle those situations -- particularly to help users find the other meanings of a term, other people with the same names, etc. In this case, it's important to use some sort of link, such as a "See also" section or a hatnote, to help users who encounter one Obambo article to find the other article. --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to Dried fish, there is already a list there where it will fit right in. The type of dried fish described is prepared all over the world. There does not seem to be anything special about the Lake Victoria version. There should also not be an article on the word, by "not a dictionary." (Nor does info on the word belong in the other article, which seems to me to be about a notable topic. Info on the word could go in Dried fish, but is not really needed there either.) Borock (talk) 20:32, 4 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dried fish per Borock's argument, there is no notability for a stand-alone article, but including the information in the Dried fish article would be appropriate. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:42, 11 June 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mundial de tango[edit]

Mundial de tango (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've cleaned up this article by removing a number of blank lines and other missing information, but it is written without any references whatsoever. Vertium (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK, the current article is just as dire as the nominator says, but in most circumstances (and, unless someone can produce evidence suggesting a copyright violation, I'm fairly sure this is not an exception), what is supposed to count here is the notability of the topic, not the current state of the article. And there are literally thousands of GNews hits, mostly in Spanish or Portuguese (either of which I struggle to read) but many of them seem substantial and are from reputable newspapers from a variety of different countries. Notability, I think, is very unlikely to be in doubt. PWilkinson (talk) 22:09, 8 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve – The topic passes WP:GNG. Some sources:
Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon upon whether or not sources are present in articles.Northamerica1000(talk) 01:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for finding and adding the references. As I don't speak Spanish or Portuguese, it was difficult for me to cite with any degree of confidence. Thanks for the update! Vertium (talk to me) 02:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As for notability, there are many sources available online in addition to the above. As a sample, some from Argentina [72] [73] [74], and from Spain [75]. Note that there is also Worldwide tournament of tango dance covering the same subject, so one of them should be merged/redirected. I'd be glad to add verification for each edition's winners (not so sure about the rest of the finalists, though), but I'm not sure which title is preferable. The official name seems to be Campeonato Mundial de Baile de Tango, and it is only casually referred to as Mundial de tango, so the title Worldwide tournament of tango dance is more accurate — Frankie (talk) 20:38, 14 June 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oorlagh George[edit]

Oorlagh George (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)

Merge with Terry George. Does not yet merit her own article based on rather slim CV; any achievements are due to her father's film accomplishments. Quis separabit? 18:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks. Quis separabit? 19:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Admittedly, there's not much in this article, but the subject's main achievement in film won her an Academy Award this year. I would give her the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, just to be clear, I am not recommending complete deletion, merely a merge until such time if/when she is sufficiently notable in her own right. Quis separabit? 17:53, 5 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 June 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. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 10:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safetray[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Safetray (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 fails WP:CORP. Article was re-created by Carolinewhitham (talk · contribs) (Office Manager at Safetray Products Limited), after being speedily deleted a week ago at AFD. Notably, they even were Braging about it on their website. Seems they also "Spiked the football" on both Twitter and Facebook boasting that Safetray was "gettin' wiki with it". Has several links but they seem to be limited and trivial coverage or mentions. All fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" for Safetray Products Limited. Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You'll note that I was the one who deleted the article a week ago — but as spam, not for notability issues — and that I was the one who moved it into mainspace. Since Caroline wanted to recreate it, I told her to recreate in userspace, and at her request I reviewed it before moving it. I was slightly concerned by the sourcing, but there's enough present here for me to believe that it's independent and substantial. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still blatant promotion, its still COI spam and it is still not notable. The issues then and the issue now remains - it is sourced with press releases, buisness relationships, distributors and trivial coverage or mentions which all fail WP:CORPDEPTH. --Hu12 (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was the editor which passed it the first time from AfC to the mainspace, afterwhich it was speedily deleted. I think it has indenpendent, verifiable and reliable sources (Times and Metro) and is the main subject of the articles. That, I think, is sufficient to display notability. (Of topic comment: Safetray is not a company or corporation, it is a product.) Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article's subject doesn't pass notability muster. If we keep it, I want an article on my cat. And my Dad's book. Heck, I want an article about the ten-pound tomato featured in our large, metropolitan newspaper but, just because it was written up doesn't mean it merits a WP article. My question: Do the authors/proponents of this product's article have any connection at all with the product or its inventor? The answer to that question would be telling, methinks. A more global stewardship question we should all answer: Should we allow Wikipedia--and the hours we invest therein--to be hijacked for some peoples' personal monetary gain? Posting "We're in Wikipedia" on Twitter or Facebook is rarely, if ever, an indicator of good faith. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 13:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The creators of the article don't affect its notability. Only the sources and article content do that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said; please do not attempt to put words in my mouth. And, yes, if the creators/proponents of an article are WP:COI, it surely does make a difference; it casts a shadow of suspicion over the entire process. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 00:32, 12 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per WP:GNG, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources:
Also, per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary, and once a topic has received significant coverage, it does not require ongoing coverage to establish notability. —Northamerica1000(talk) 02:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article's creator, I've hesitated to comment because I've been worried that my input would not be considered relevant given my vested interest, but I feel I should try to put my point of view accross openly. I hope that I have now complied with all necessary steps to disclose my connection with the company - I deliberately chose my own name as my username right from the start in order to be transparent about my position, and have now added a disclaimer to my userpage so that anyone interested can see that I work for the company. It was never my intention to brag as though I had cheated the system or got one over on Wikipedia - I've been a long-term fan and anonymous editor of spelling and grammar for many years. I did get overexcited about writing the page and getting it approved, but have since removed all mention of the page on our website and social media platforms - I honestly did think I was doing a good thing, however miniscule in the grand scheme of things, by bigging up Wikipedia and driving traffic to our article. I hope that the notability questions over the page's sources have been answered above - the main difficulty as I see it being that our most notable article, the one in The Times, is hidden behind a paywall and the article can't be easily accessed to establish its length and scope. However, I do have the article archived [| here] if anyone would like to see it. I hope that the coverage we've had in The Scotsman will also be taken into account - although it is a regional newspaper, it is Scotland's second largest newspaper by circulation and is widely read across the whole of that country. Full disclosure - I hadn't personally included the Restaurant Management source given above, which has since been added into the article, as it was actually a reprint of a press release that I sent them, so I'm happy to see it removed if others feel it should be. All other sources mentioned have been written by third parties. If there is anything further I can do, I am very open to suggestions - as a newbie writer, I know there are no doubt many mistakes I've made and may make in future. Carolinewhitham (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)Carolinewhitham[reply]
  • Delete per clear promotion, as already recognized by the closer in the first AfD (with whom I disagree in this process). Without putting words in anyone's mouth, I'd like to give my own take here. While I disagree with her actions, I commend the page creator for "playing it straight" in this discussion. I really appreciate the reliable User:Northamerica1000 for providing a sample of sources; this gives us information upon which to base such a discussion. IMHO, if somebody NOT connected with this product created this article, we could have a fair discussion on the merits of inclusion. Since an editor who had the most direct kind of COI created the page, we're unable to have the discussion we might be having: Safetray refers to at least three products: this serving tray, an Arizona-based sharps device, and a New Zealand-based dental tray. If promoters of those products had as much money to generate and elevate local press (plus the boldness to breach COI policy here), we'd be discussing them. User:Carolinewhitham has put Wikipedia in the position of choosing to pick winners here; this is exactly why we have a COI policy. Company representatives have used Wikipedia purely for first mover advantage/search engine optimization, then bragged about it on Twitter and Facebook. In this discussion, we're considering rewarding a company for bold misbehavior. Applying RS to this advertisement defends and justifies the misbehaviors, and because of the Twitter and Facebook exposure encourages COI page creations in the future. Allowing a keep outcome here is the worst kind of IAR and sends exactly the wrong signal to others intending the same self-serving ends. BusterD (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've taken the liberty of discussing this COI issue at WP:COIN, since to my surprise it hasn't been discussed there before. I'd also like to request a second relist so more editors can weigh in on what I see as a major issue being discussed in a narrow forum. BusterD (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On being asked to consider my statement above I re-read what I wrote, and see I have assigned a motive of my own imagining. This was entirely incorrect, and I have struck through this part of my assertion. BusterD (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the sources cited by User:Northamerica1000 establish notability in complianece with WP:GNG. Potential WP:COI issues for the article have nothing to do with the whether an article passes WP:GNG. Article can be tagged for WP:NPOV if there is a problem. We do not delete articles as a form of punitive punishment. --LauraHale (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources shown above are more than enough to represent the notability of the product, per WP:CORP. It seems that a prior version of the article had an issue with a promotional tone, but that it has been rewritten and better now. What the company does elsewhere is of no concern to us, all we need to focus on is whether it is a notable subject and that it is written neutrally. SilverserenC 21:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - but only because I believe the sources are sufficient and appear to be of rather high quality.  -- WikHead (talk) 05:11, 19 June 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. The Bushranger One ping only 02:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Douglas[edit]

Steven Douglas (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)

Kept at AfD in July 2007. However, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage, meaning this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Irish premiership is a notable league, this player is available on FIFA therefore must be notable Seasider91 (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leagues themselves do not confer notability onto their players. For example, the Humber Premier League is notable, but that doesn't mean players competing in it are. And what does availability on a video game have to do with Wikipedia notability? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:48, 17 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He has played in the uefa champions leauge [76] for Linfield against Finnish opposition.Surely merits his inclusion? By the way of an aside if this article is deleted kept the same teatment will have to be received by the rest of players for LinfieldFinnegas (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Playing in the qualification rounds of European competition generally isn't considered notable. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This player has significant press coverage and has appeared in european competition, this player is surely notable as he is clearly professional.Seasider91 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Significant press coverage"; if this is true then could you highlight some of this? All the article has at the moment are three routine reports by the BBC and his club's website. Playing in European competition is irrelevant; it's not a fully pro league so does nothing to help the subject meet WP:NFOOTBALL. And can you support your assertion that the subject is "clearly professional"? Considering he competes in a semi-pro league it is far from obvious that he is "clearly professional". Not that it matters, since WP:NFOOTBALL is concerned with the professional status of leagues, not players. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to very reluctantly change my descion to *delete because try as I might can't find something to prove notability.Seasider91 (talk) 13:00, 14 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2012_June_11&oldid=1142634823"