The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand(talk) 20:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable person. Being a compliance officer for a bank is not notability. Article created by a now-blocked sockpuppet Dmol (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no prejudice for recreation with improved sources as alluded to by Stuartyeates, the coverage appears to be on blogs, which are generally not considered reliable. However, it is becoming increasingly common for blogs to be considered sources of record; we need a better tuning of when to consider a blog 'reliable' rather than blanket considering non-traditional media as unreliable by caveat. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, does not meet GNG. The subject has only released one album, not on a major label, thus does not appear to meet MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 23:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no prejudice for recreation with sources agreed, needs to be deleted. Biographical articles lacking any 3rd party sources need to be deleted. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced promotional/vanity article with little improvement over several years. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn Keresaspa (talk) 00:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mistake. I wanted to list the redirect, not its target. I slipped. Please close this, I don't want the article deleted. I'd do so myself but I don't want to make it worse! Si Trew (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as indiscriminate trivia. In case any anecdote is actually the subject of significant scholarly commentary, it should be covered in the primary biography article, not a separate list of no clear encyclopedic value. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Sławomir Biały. Ozob (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As interesting as such anecdotes are, this appears to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Some of them are not even correct, for example the one attributed to John Milnor seems actually to refer to George Dantzig (who arrived late for a Jerzy Neyman lecture and thought the problems on the board were for homework). Agricola44 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as truly paradigmatic failure of WP:NOT. postdlf (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I actually found several of the list items to be amusing, but this is NOT ENCYCLOPEDIC information in any way. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or migrate to wikiquotes. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand(talk) 00:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Non-notable footballer, no assertion or sources to show that this player has ever played football at fully professional level. Fails WP:ATHLETE. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the Honduran top flight. Since this league is not confirmed as fully professional, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not familiar enough with football leagues to make a good call on this one, but I do note that most of his old teammates on C.D. Motagua have articles about them. However, I'm not sure this is definitive proof of notability, as many of them have also played in other, more notable leagues, and some of the other player articles there may be questionable as well. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sold. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand(talk) 03:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This page was PRODed by Michig with the rationale "Unsourced BLP. No claim of notability. No major roles. No significant coverage." the prod was removed by an IP with the rationale "MARCUS LYLE BROWN IS THE BEST THING TO HAPPEN TO THIS COUNTRY." After attempting to find sources I agree with Michig. J04n(talk page) 22:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bit roles and a dubious claim to an Oscar don't seem to meet the threshold for inclusion per WP:NACTOR. EricSerge (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete-And you have to love how he won a Oscar in a non existent category. Wgolf (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my prod rationale. --Michig (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to meet notability requirements - major roles in multiple films, significant following, or coverage in RS. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-By the way the creator keeps on adding the unreliable stuff. Wgolf (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-Still don't see the notability-they are mostly just a bunch of small indie films (nothing wrong with that, but the fact that they have nothing going for them either), someday maybe, but not today! Wgolf (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he nor his works have yet received significant amount of coverage, it seems. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite use of {{defn}} in an apparent attempt to make some sort of glossary entry, I think the content clearly meets the A7 speedy deletion criteria. — MusikAnimaltalk 01:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Presumably no prejudice against recreation / undeletion so long as requests for doing so can demonstrate that it meets our policy of verifiability. slakr\ talk / 10:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% this isn't a hoax but even if it isn't there is a complete lack of reliable sources and my search for any was fruitless. The most promising source that I located here actually used Wikipedia as a source and the Wikipedia page predates its creation. J04n(talk page) 20:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm also striking out finding any reliable sources here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep English language search engines probably aren't the best places to find sources about a Pakistani clan chief. But, as a member of the West Pakistan legislative assembly, he would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To Tiller54: How do we know that if we don't have a reliable source? If we do have a reliable source why don't we add it to the article? --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without being given this persons name in the local languages and scripts there is no way we can check for sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Stuartyeates rationale. Quis separabit? 17:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Also not able to find anything, remains unsourced unfortunately. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand(talk) 03:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP that does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Minimal citation found in journal search, no in-depth coverage in web or news sources. Tgeairn (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sirkin is notable for his work in the field of relational disorders. Many works in the field cite his works[2]. Furthermore he has collaborated in peer-reviewed journals in association with noted peers in the field of psychology. He was the Director of Group Training and Research at the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical Center, which makes him a senior faculty member. Zambelo; talk 16:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. Solid, but not remarkable academic with no extraordinary accomplishments or awards, and coverage that is run-of-the-mill, routine and trivial at best, and perhaps even lackluster. My own searches turned up nothing promising. Fails WP:PROF by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One important paper here, with over 450 cites, but it was work done as an grad student & he was not the primary author. We need an article on his quite notable advisor, Donald Mosher. His book, fwiw, is in only 6 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly, no evidence of meeting WP:PROF and WP:ACADEMIC. All I can see is self-publish work, that are insufficient to merit an article here. Wikicology (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I notice that he wrote one book, The Secret Life of Corporations. However, I only found the book reviewed in one place and that was apparently written by someone well acquainted with him. EricEnfermeroHOWDY! 06:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--does not seem to pass WP:PROF (or GNG); with thanks to DGG for his good work. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given whats available about the only possibility for notability is WP:PROF #7, but I don't see evidence for it either. I am One of Many (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the sourcing does not meet the "significant coverage" called for by the GNG. Deor (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP that does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Minimal citation found in scholar, web, news search - nothing that meets BLP Notability criteria. Tgeairn (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the Vice article is the only one that I would say is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and one in-depth source really isnt enough. Brief quotes in the paper or mentions in non-reliable sources doesnt cut it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- merge would have been an alternative - except the INFO-CULT article has been deleted by the nominator. I have now added another notable reference (and expanded the article slightly), which in combination with the VICE reference, demonstrates notability. Zambelo; talk 13:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any article with that name (INFO-CULT, INFO-SECTE, etc) in my history (or in the AfD archives). Are you sure I deleted it (not that I am technically able)? Tgeairn (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even with the sources mentioned above, insufficient substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. Unremarkable academic with no extraordinary accomplishments or awards, and coverage that is run-of-the-mill, routine and trivial at best, and perhaps even lackluster. My own searches turned up nothing promising. Fails WP:PROF by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His story was publishes as a book and subsequent award winning film. Pretty substantial coverage. Zambelo; talk 17:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Our own source for this says "Well, I [Kropveld] was not physically involved, because I had just come down with pneumonia. One of my friends who was also there, Josh Freed, wrote about the experience in his book Moonwebs: Journey into the Mind of a Cult." The fictional drama Ticket to Heaven was based on that book. Even if notability were inherited (it is not), this would be seriously tenuous. Given that the book and the movie depict illegal acts it really needs a much better source as well (not one that describes the subject as "balls deep in anything and everything cult-related since before you were born") --Tgeairn (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: another biography on a non-notable enemy of cults. The sources are unreliable, the coverage is thin at best. I found two more book mentions, [7] and [8], but all these do is mention the subject and his club--there is no discussion, nothing to write an article with. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. The interview in VICE (which does not seem to be notable since WP's article VICE is about something else) is his own words to an uncritical young reporter. Borock (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another cult cruft. And I don't find a library of 2500 books impressive, my personal collection must be around 4000 volumes by now. :-) --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable, has no third-party sources. It was tagged with this problem since 2013, but no improvement has been made. Delete. Otterathome (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Lacks any third-party sources. It was tagged with this problem since 2013, but no improvement has been made. Delete. Otterathome (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Missing any third-party sources. It was tagged with this problem since 2013, but no improvement has been made. Delete. Otterathome (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing my nomination after the info located by Libby norman. No other delete !votes J04n(talk page) 19:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, plus no real claim of notability on the page. J04n(talk page) 18:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hadn't heard of her as she's not so active on this side of the pond, but this profile in NYMAG [9] suggests she's more than just a few chokers. She's also featured in Elle Deco [10] and Elle [11] and Womenswear Daily – which is something of a gold standard [12]. And she has a page on Fashion Encyclopedia, which is usually reasonably well researched and provides refs for all its sources [13]. She has also blogged for Huffpo [14] and has a pretty reasonable write up in Wall Street Journal [15]. Definitely a keep, but with an improve tag – I work on the Fashion Project so don't mind taking this one on. Libby norman (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This person is only notable for being murdered. The event was covered by media, but I thing that she does not deserve separate article per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:N/CA. On the other hand, the murder as an event does not pass the notability threshold. The sources are just routine coverage, and all the sources cited are yellow journals. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sad, but there's nothing out of the ordinary about this murder. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sadly, won't likely have lasting coverage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unable to find and reliable sources to verify the information on the subject of this BLP including a search of the Times of Indiahere. The links on the page are all dead. J04n(talk page) 17:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a former member of the Lok Sabha, he clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN#1. The nominator's WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been very effective - it took me about two minutes to find a source verifying his (former) Lok Sabha membership, which I have now added to the article. PWilkinson (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep please: obviously notable, PWilkinson says this wouldn't have taken much to verify. —innotata 20:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. A quick Google search can verify that the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously as a member of a national legislature. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:29, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Due to unresolved issues going back 6 years I think this page should be used to form a category instead of a list. ~Technophant (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A negative list with no completely objective inclusion criteria should be removed immediately. No sourcing, just the names of some groups the article is calling terrorists. Awful. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category Two of the three groups according to the sources given have in fact been designated terrorist groups by more than one country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.221.95 (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No inclusion criteria stated. I suspect that no criteria could be written that would fulfill our expectations for a valid list on Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, there is no indication of who designated these groups as such, or by what measure. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles: This one only has a ref in Finnish (I don't know Finnish, so I can't vouch either way on its reliability), and the original article's only got a first-party source. Looking around online doesn't show any RS's, either. Supernerd11Firemind^_^Pokedex 18:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting admin's note: While this AfD should continue on the basis of the topic not seeming to meet notability guidlines, it should be noted that I have merged the relevant content (which was a ref, external link, and category) from Hill Climb Racing to Hill Climb Racing (mobile game), and then redirected Hill Climb Racing to Hillclimbing as a plausible search term. - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we're left with jack squat. I'd say merge to Fingersoft, the parent company, but they don't look notable either. Oh well, not enough coverage for the GNG. (Would be better to rename this to Hill Climb Racing and then redirect that to Hillclimbing, so at least this old AfD full stays on the right page, the primary topic.) czar ♔ 01:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete does not appear to meet the guidelines to standalone notability. Provided coverage not only includes wikipedia but appears to mostly be WP:ROUTINE. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst I can appreciate building a car may be an achievement - It's not really for Wikipedia, Anyway fails GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand(talk) 03:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Multiple searches turn up no evidence that this firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After conducting my own searches in Google and the Plain Dealer (Cleveland newspaper) I conclude this company is currently non-notable as it fails WP:GNG. This is not surprising as web startups rarely attract enough coverage from reliable sources, though this could certainly change, but for the present, there is no way to independently verify the information in this article. Altamel (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything in the article is from primary sources. Extensive searching shows no reliable secondary sourcing anywhere. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Just a list of pay tv companies in a country it seems. I think this hsould just be deleted. (I would say redirect but I don't know what it could be redirected too) Wgolf (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I searched Wikipedia and I was able to find similar articles for some other African countries. The Nigerian cable TV business is a very well referenced, reliable and notable market that often draw media attention because of the frequent battle between the providers (especially because of EPL, La liga and UCL broadcasting rights). I have moved the article and added a few references. I don't think this article should be redirected because it is pretty notable on its own. Apart from all the references I added, many other citations do exist as well. It passes WP:GNG. Darreg (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep:I only feel it should be renamed to "List of television stations in Nigeria", listing all television stations in Nigeria. Then "PayTV providers" should be a subsection.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TV stations and satellite cable providers are TOTALLY different. I will create a separate article for the former in the future.Darreg (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They may be different, but very similar; a subsection for paytv providers can always be created under "List of television stations" article.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Darreg and Jamie Tubers above. Subject of the article meet WP:GNG. It only needs to be rename as suggested by Jamie.Wikicology (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Thinking of withdrawing, but is there a category that this list could go into like a list of satellite providers? Wgolf (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-That sounds a lot better IMO. Wgolf (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There are issues with this article. I cannot see that it passes WP:GNG or WP:CORP as written and referenced. It is a good cause, of course it is, and good causes that are notable deserve articles. Ones where that is not established, however good the cause, may not have space here.
The references are imperfect at best. We require references from significant coverage about the topic of the article, and independent of it, and in WP:RS, but many of these are regurgitated press releases and PR pieces, or are directory entries. Additionally, some have been provided to reference topics in the article that are generic topics, unrelated to HAART except in a peripheral manner.
The article is also a WP:COATRACK for the topic of human trafficking per se. Even so, removal of that section alone will not save this article.
Despite our requiring references, it also suffers from WP:CITEKILL. An example is "get people informed about the issue.[2] [6][7] [4][8][9]". This is a practice to avoid even when the references are valid.
If genuine notability can be established then a rewrite based on references is required. If it cannot be established then it needs to go until such time that it is notable, and verifiably so. FiddleFaddle 11:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - I think this artist meets or exceeds WP:GNG. Article needs to be improved but I do not see any reason for it's deletion. Orasis (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Only trivial mention in the two obviously reliable sources mentioned. The two more extensive reviews are from art websites with questionable notability themselves. OhNoitsJamieTalk 16:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the only real hook for notability is having an exhibit temporarily at the Hammer Museum. I'm not sure counts for WP:CREATIVE, because the most notable thing about that museum is that it opened in 2012 after huge cost over-runs. I'd like more information. Bearian (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Low notability. The pageant that the article is using to assert notability is poorly structured and is a primary source (link). As for the second source, I am unable to locate any mention of Raul Patil. The top Google hit is the Wikipedia article and I am having difficulty locating other reliable sources. Tiptoetytalk 18:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sure he's a hottie (and as we know hotties must ALWAYS be notable ;)) but yeah, seriously, while on one level I feel we should be encouraging the claims of alternative beauty pageant winners to notability (if only to counterbalance the grinning ninnies in bikinis brigade that mainly seems to be created by conflict of interest editors), there is no precedent for Mr Gay World contestants to have articles of their own. Even that year's winner François Nel, doesn't have an article. So, delete - although this conflicts me as I suppose he is a national title holder and if he were Miss India, he would have sources on him out the wazoo. The fact he's a gay male does sadly make him less notable than Vasuki Sunkavalli (Miss India 2011) as per coverage/sources. Which I personally hate. But yeah. Delete, despite on principle feeling he should be just as notable as his equivalent Miss India. Mabalu (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be notable per WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep. Notability is not inherited, but neither does marriage to a notable preclude notability. The New York Times felt she was notable enough to write a two page article about her in 2006; she has a a two page entry in the Dictionary of Artists' Models; and her papers are archived at the Smithsonian. She passes WP:GNG with flying colors. Pburka (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pburka, yes, notability is not inherited, but in this instance, Ada Katz was an important part of Alex Katz's work, being his "muse", model-subject, so the numerous references to Alex invariably discuss Ada, along with numerous art magazines and publications. Ada Katz was discussed prominently in this NY Times article, and the NY Times says Ada was the subject of over 250 of Alex Katz's works. And more sources here. What's curious -- did not the lady get tired of sitting still while posing?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WITHDRAWN. Closing my own AFD since it is a procedural withdraw only. I feel there is still some room for debate as to which side of WP:GNG this falls on, but as there has been no support to delete and a great deal of effort to get it up to snuff, a withdrawal is the polite thing to do and doesn't hurt the encyclopedia. Dennis2¢ 18:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A summary, a press release, and two listings at Google play and Apple store. None of that establishes notability. Dennis 23:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability (video games) is worth a read. The overwhelming number of released games aren't "notable" by the standards here, only those that have significant coverage from outlets that aren't associated with the game or selling the game. From what I see, nothing is going to make it pass as it didn't look like has received significant coverage from independent sources. Dennis 23:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can add a section on Reception, and list the reviews out there and other mentions of the game from various independent sources. It has the same, if not more, independent coverage than Warhammer 40,000: Storm of Vengeance, Warhammer 40,000: Kill Team, and Warhammer 40,000: Fire Warrior. I can gather sources and list it. Notability is a very subjective notion, but if I were to measure it based on the other Video Games that are currently listed on Wikipedia, this game is far more notable (and has more independent sources) than many out there. It is my fault for not adding this at the first submission. User talk:Ekimnam 17:15, 26 September 2014 (PT)
It isn't personal, don't take it that way. We've all had articles at AFD, and yes I've had a couple deleted over the years. It is about process, not your worth as an individual. As for comparing to other articles, that really doesn't work, per WP:WAX. But it will be at AFD for a week, giving you a chance to update and then note it here. If I find the article clearly passes, I would withdraw, and others would vote to keep the article. I'm not personally invested in it being deleted, after all. Dennis 01:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never took it personally, and strange to even bring up personal worth. I am merely defending the article and am requesting additional clarity and direction as the reasoning for deletion is vague - as stated I'm relatively new to this. I have added additional references and have included ones from WP:VG/RS. If this still doesn't meet criteria, I would be grateful for direction on what to do next.User talk:Ekimnam 18:39, 29 September 2014 (PT)
Keep and trim: I've added a few sources that prove its notability (148apps, Slide To Play, and Pocket Gamer are all approved by WP:VG/RS), but there's a lot of cruft in the article. I don't want to accidentally throw the baby out with the bathwater by removing it all, but it's certainly excessive. Supernerd11Firemind^_^Pokedex 20:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited down some of the cruft - please do let me know if it should be edited down further! User talk:Ekimnam 18:39, 29 September 2014 (PT)
Keep: What I see now suggests notability, though it is not a strong case, and more cutting is needed. There doesn't seem to be any consensus to delete either.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Dennis Brown, what do you think of the current version? Note that several of the reception sources (but not all) were vetted at WP:VG/RSczar ♔ 14:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets the criteria of notability. I have inserted information, referenced to the secondary reliable sources, supporting the criteria of notability. Note, that this kind of information, was repeatedly deleted from the article. Instead of reliable sources, references to self-published material were inserted. One person has repeatedly removed links to secondary reliable sources and inserted links to self-published materials. This is against Wikipedia policy. (Personal attack removed) --— PeaceForAll777talk \\ 10:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC) — PeaceForAll777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - According to Wikipedia criteria, this article definitely passes the criteria of noticeability. Scaleshombre is engaged in vandalism via trying not once to insert abusive material into this article, based upon his rejection of the subject's views on history, and now filed the unjustified claim for the deletion of the article. (Personal attack removed) --— sophiedookhtalk \\ 12:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sophiedookh (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Sophiedookh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@sophiedookh -- Please note I've removed your personal attack on me, but left the thrust of your argument intact.--Scaleshombre (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC) moved and edited per the move by User:Dreadstar.[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Here are the Reasons for deletion in the Wikipedia policy:
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth) -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS
Collapsed copy/pasted Wikipedia policy on deletion unrelated to this AfD
Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA
Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA
Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject) -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA
Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA
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) -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS
Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA
Redundant or otherwise useless templates - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS
Categories representing overcategorization - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS
Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS
Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace - ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopaedia -- ARTICLE ON IRENE CAESAR DOES NOT VIOLATE THIS CRITERIA. THERE ARE LOADS OF RELIABLE NOTICEABLE SOURCES ON THE LEVEL OF THE STATE TV STATIONS, AND MAJOR NEWSPAPERS
@Sophiedookh: While I know how angering/stressful it can be to see your hard work nominated for deletion, some things to keep in mind:
Only the reason for deletion need be addressed, not all reasons for deletion. Please check WP:N for more information about this one -- "notability" is kind of a technical term on Wikipedia.
Please link to policies rather than copy/paste -- and you can usually take for granted people participating know (or should know) the reasons for deletion. Use of CAPS is also generally unsightly and distracting. A final stylistic note: html tags are typically not needed -- and can create problems -- so no need for <p></p>. You might want to poke around Wikipedia:Help.
Focus on the article and the reason for deletion, not the person nominating it. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is assume good faith. To say the nominator is on a "defamation campaign" is completely inappropriate here. "Defamation" is, furthermore, a serious allegation with potential legal implications. If you feel a user is acting in bad faith or working to malign/smear someone in their Wikipedia article, this is not the place to do so. Instead, look here: WP:BLPN. If you have other questions about how this works, you can leave a message on my talk page. PS: nice signature :) --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it's unclear if any one of her pursuits would pass any of the more specific notability criteria, I'm seeing more than enough sources in total to support passing GNG. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 17:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I hope this article will get some attention from editors who are experienced in the evaluation of Russian sources and topics; to my less-experienced eye, some of the sources look a bit peculiar, and the article has had some history of aggressive back-and-forth editing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks like most of the sources are self-publsihed by the subject of the biography. That may comply with the letter of WP:BLPSELFPUB, but it doesn't make the person notable. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 19:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Malik Shabazz -- (Personal attack removed) There are only three self-published sources in the list of 28 references, and this references were not inserted by me, sophiedookh, the author of the article. User talk:sophiedookh 4:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
? Out of 28 references there were only three self-published sources, which were removed. More references were added to make it 54 references, including references to major publications in respectable academic journals on Irene Caesar: "Sapiens", the Journal of the Miguel Hernandez University, "The Dialogue of Arts" (official journal of the Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, which published Arthur Danto's article on Irene Caesar" (2012), "Maintenant: Dada Journal, the New Yorker Magazine, The Brooklyn Rail, and others.
Please refer to the history of editing of this article. The relevant material was repeatedly erased from the article, while this material had information supporting Caesar's notability, and referenced to reliable reputable secondary sources. Please refer to Irene Caesar's Data published on the site of the Association of Art Critics of Russia: http://www.ais-aica.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2937:2012-08-15-17-35-50&catid=28&Itemid=53
This data has the list of her publications, exhibitions, art collections, lectures, TV, Radio and Film coverage, including major Russian TV stations, and such American TV stations as NTV, and RTV. She was invited to give Public lectures at the leading Universities of the world, like the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Moscow University, Miguel Hernandez University. She was published in the New Yorker Magazine, by the St. Petersburg University Press, Ivan Fedorov Publishing House (the leading State Publishing House in Russian in the 90's), and Lambert Publishing House: http://www.amazon.com/SHOULD-UNHAPPY-ABOUT-HAPPINESS-ARISTOTLE/dp/3838344995/ref=sr_1_2/189-8202992-9917308?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413091326&sr=1-2. Scholars of the Turin University, Columbia University and the University of the South analysed her work in their monographs on art: http://books.google.com/books?id=ye9LAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=tiziana+andina+irene+caesar&source=bl&ots=VUBgbsNh-l&sig=cOlMlJlsft2N4yHnHuKQNCz4hw8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ahA6VJ69IsKK8QGUzYD4CQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tiziana%20andina%20irene%20caesar&f=false Arthur Danto, the leading Anglo-American art critic and philosopher wrote an article on Caesar for the major art magazine in Russia -- "The Dialogue of Arts" of the Museum of Modern Art in Moscow. Caesar was exhibited in multiple Museums in Russia and US, including Tretyakov State Gallery, major Russian Museum, Russian Museum, second Russian Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, Chelsea Art Museum in New York, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, the Museum of Russian Art in Minneapolis, Museum of Russian Art in Jersey City, The Harriman Institute, Columbia University, in the Neuberger Museum of Art. Her art is in the collection of the Zimmerli Museum, Duke University Museum of Art, Bayly Art Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Miguel Hernandez Univeristy, Norton Dodge Collection, Kolodzei Art Collection, Mashkov Art Museum, and Museum of Other Art in Moscow, among others. Here is what Arthur Danto tells about Irene Caesar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK1cSrzBrGY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.24.30.184 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Delete. I tried, but I couldn't scrape together enough reliable sources to give me reason to believe she passes the GNG or the artist guidelines. I don't see major expositions or endowed chairs or important fellowships, or even reviews published in reliable sources--except for one from The Brooklyn Rail, which I added to the article. The article is problematized from both sides--no, from three sides: one editor seems to wish to promote the subject but fails to add reliable sources (note the many, many incomplete notes with missing bibliographic information, the video links, the blogs, etc.), and another appears intent on poisoning the well by focusing--unduly--on the subject's own blog, which features some rather ridiculous conspiracy theories. But that has little to do with her art and isn't remarked on by anyone but herself, and thus should be excluded; unfortunately it is likely to attract editors with a distaste for distasteful material who could just vote "delete" just to get rid of her. And the subject herself is of course the third side: hard to imagine someone less sympathetic than a person who claims that the ISIS beheading videos were photoshopped by Obama, or whatever; never mind the, ahem, racial theorizing, the phrase I use instead of a BLP violation.
Anyway, I just can't find the material to prove her notable, and have no option but to vote "delete". Drmies (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
? It looks like, if you analyse the history of editing this article, that the author of the article did not insert the references to Caesa'r blog, which are not relevant here. Somebody else inserted this reference without realising the nature of Caesar's work. Editors should take into consideration that Caesar is a conceptual artist and defines her art as absurdism and ideological provocations. For editors to become critics of Caesar's absurdism is beyond the scope of wikipedia, as it seems.
Delete per Drmies. I don't see notability given the sources. Its not enough to have"sources". Sources themselves have to indicate notability. (Littleolive oil (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Keep With today's large expansion of the article, I believe there are enough sources discussing Caesar and her work to make her notable. --NeilNtalk to me 14:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) (x3) - Drmies - I'm confused about the sourcing problem. Disregarding the list of sources cited, even, and just doing a quick search it seems like I've found an awful lot. She's into self-promotion, that's for sure, but there's not a problem finding sources that cover her in depth that aren't self-published. Just going down the list that she put together herself at her website, it's clear [to me] that any sense of her not being notable would be due to the language barrier.
It looks like she's had her work shown at some well-known Russian and American galleries (Moscow's Museum of Modern Art, Moscow State Institution of Culture, Chelsea Art Museum, Columbia Univesity)
had a number of television outlets cover or interview her (RTV, NTV-America, some documentary about her that aired on a couple Russian TV stations, a few interviews on St. Petersburg TV, etc.)
Some of these sources are so-so, but even a google translate will show they're substantial/in depth -- and these are just the flattering ones she links on her website. Something tells me that having achieved a certain level of success, when considering some of her opinions, there's probably some negative press out there too. She seems to easily pass the bar for GNG/BIO. Oh, also, while it's a primary source, of course, she's been published by The New Yorker and given talks at some prestigious universities. There are big problems with the article and its most active editors seem to have some POV issues, but I don't think it should be deleted. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rhododendrites, I can only go on what I know, and it ain't Russian. It is possible that Lady Boss is a legit journal (but you're linking to a likely copyvio and you should consider removing it). I've already added the Brooklyn Rail thing and commented on it (yesterday). Haberarts--who is John Haber? This is someone's web site and there is no indication it's reliable or worth noting. The Birch is an undergraduate journal, and those are typically out. Russian Minds is a blog--and I find nothing more about them than "RussianMind is the part of Russian Media Solutions", so I have no idea what their reliability or editorial policy is. What is "http://www.portal-credo.ru"? What is "svoboda.org"? Whatever they are, they don't look like reliable publications. So while I appreciate the effort, I'm not convinced (except maybe by the Lady Boss thing, which looks to be something). As for being interviewed in various media or speaking somewhere--yes, one can gather that this means she means something, but it's hardly as strong as printed information about the person in reliable media. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drmies It looks like "Russian Mind" is not less reputable than "Brooklyn Rail". John Haber is a well-known art critic in New York, working for the Oxford University Press. "svoboda.org" is a major American Radio Station "Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL)", a broadcasting organization that provides news and information which broadcasts in 28 languages to 21 countries with corporate offices in Washington, D.C, created through the efforts of the National Committee for a Free Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Free_Europe/Radio_Liberty Caesar also gave interview to the "Voice of America" --the official external broadcast institution of the United States federal government.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
Hat sock comments. Dreadstar☥ 20:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep - I have made a major edit for this article, based on thorough additional research. The notability is now clearly shown. The major appearances on the state-level TV, Radio, in major museum collections and museum exhibitions are demonstrated, as well as numerous references from highly respectable sources, such as Academic monographs and articles, which include major art critics and philosophers of the world. No self-published material. No doubtful philosophical speculations. There are no video links, and any links to any blogs. --— Exclusive analysis55talk \\ 8:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: Drmies writes: "the judith chapter gives caesar a sentence and a half, but it's a self-published book". Both of these claims are not true. Answer: I gave an exact citation from the source, which is a paper in the academic journal on Biblical studies. Also, Drmies writes: "I don't see major expositions". Answer: Caesar was exhibited in multiple Museums in Russia and US, including Tretyakov State Gallery, major Russian Museum, Russian Museum, second Russian Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, Chelsea Art Museum in New York, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, the Museum of Russian Art in Minneapolis, Museum of Russian Art in Jersey City, The Harriman Institute, Columbia University, in the Neuberger Museum of Art. Her art is in the collection of the Zimmerli Museum, Duke University Museum of Art, Bayly Art Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Miguel Hernandez Univeristy, Norton Dodge Collection, Kolodzei Art Collection, Mashkov Art Museum, and Museum of Other Art in Moscow, among others. --— Exclusive analysis55talk \\ 8:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
the judith chapter gives caesar a sentence and a half, but it's a self-published book". Both of these claims are not true. Answer: I gave an exact citation from the source, which is a paper in the academic journal on Biblical studies. Also, Drmies writes: "I don't see major expositions". Answer: Caesar was exhibited in multiple Museums in Russia and US, including Tretyakov State Gallery, major Russian Museum, Russian Museum, second Russian Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, Chelsea Art Museum in New York, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, the Museum of Russian Art in Minneapolis, Museum of Russian Art in Jersey City, The Harriman Institute, Columbia University, in the Neuberger Museum of Art. Her art is in the collection of the Zimmerli Museum, Duke University Museum of Art, Bayly Art Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Miguel Hernandez Univeristy, Norton Dodge Collection, Kolodzei Art Collection, Mashkov Art Museum, and Museum of Other Art in Moscow, among others
Note: Littleolive oil writes: "Its not enough to have "sources". Sources themselves have to indicate notability." Answer: The sources include major state TV programs, and the assessment of Irene Caesar contribution to culture by Arthur Danto, the most celebrated art critic and philosopher, world celebrity, and by quite a few university professors from the leading Universities in the world. --— Exclusive analysis55talk \\ 8:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
In regards the Judith chapter here is the exact citation. In her monograph, published in the in the Journal on Biblical Studies, Prof. Helen Efthimiadis-Keith, the reputable professor of the University of the South, compared Caesar's interpretation of Judith to the interpretation by Botticelli, Donatello, Giorgione, Cranach the Elder, Caravaggio, Andrea Mantegna, and Gustav Climpt, and concluded: "No other image of Judith expresses the fear of the woman’s castrating sexual potential quite as well as Irene Caesar’s 1996 ink drawing (Plate 2),3 Judith with the Head of Holofernes." She continued: "Judith ‘usurps’ the male role (Dundes 1975:29) and so the male authority and prescription of what woman should be that she is both saint and murdering seductress, chaste, spiritual and carnal. It is also for this reason that she poses such a great threat to the male psyche, which baulks at the thought of a woman so powerful that she can easily beguile a powerful general and cut off his head. The head, being symbolic of the penal head, then conjures up images of the dreaded castration and concomitant loss of power, life and vitality. This element is clearly depicted in Irene Caesar’s drawing.... The woman kills the man with her overpowering sexuality – note how the woman’s legs and hair surround the man in vulva formation – thus castrating him and subverting his authority, for it is she who is in control, not he." [1]
? Please refer to the history of editing of this article. The relevant material was repeatedly erased from the article, while this material had information supporting Caesar's notability, and referenced to reliable reputable secondary sources. Please refer to Irene Caesar's Data published on the site of the Association of Art Critics of Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Irene_Caesar
This data has the list of her publications, exhibitions, art collections, lectures, TV, Radio and Film coverage, including major Russian TV stations, and such American TV stations as NTV, and RTV. She was invited to give Public lectures at the leading Universities of the world, like the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Moscow University, Miguel Hernandez University. She was published in the New Yorker Magazine, by the St. Petersburg University Press, Ivan Fedorov Publishing House (the leading State Publishing House in Russian in the 90's), and Lambert Publishing House: http://www.amazon.com/SHOULD-UNHAPPY-ABOUT-HAPPINESS-ARISTOTLE/dp/3838344995/ref=sr_1_2/189-8202992-9917308?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1413091326&sr=1-2.
Scholars of the Turin University, Columbia University and the University of the South analysed her work in their monographs on art: http://books.google.com/books?id=ye9LAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=tiziana+andina+irene+caesar&source=bl&ots=VUBgbsNh-l&sig=cOlMlJlsft2N4yHnHuKQNCz4hw8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ahA6VJ69IsKK8QGUzYD4CQ&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=tiziana%20andina%20irene%20caesar&f=false Arthur Danto, the leading Anglo-American art critic and philosopher wrote an article on Caesar for the major art magazine in Russia -- "The Dialogue of Arts" of the Museum of Modern Art in Moscow. Caesar was exhibited in multiple Museums in Russia and US, including Tretyakov State Gallery, major Russian Museum, Russian Museum, second Russian Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, Chelsea Art Museum in New York, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, Museum of the history of St. Petersburg, the Museum of Russian Art in Minneapolis, Museum of Russian Art in Jersey City, The Harriman Institute, Columbia University, in the Neuberger Museum of Art. Her art is in the collection of the Zimmerli Museum, Duke University Museum of Art, Bayly Art Museum, Museum of Modern Art in Moscow, the Harriman Institute of the Columbia University, Miguel Hernandez Univeristy, Norton Dodge Collection, Kolodzei Art Collection, Mashkov Art Museum, and Museum of Other Art in Moscow, among others. Here is what Arthur Danto tells about Irene Caesar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK1cSrzBrGY— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.24.30.184 (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like Drmies above, I also could not find enough material in reliable independent secondary sources to justify writing an article, and none of that indicated that the subject was in any way notable in accordance with any of our guidelines. We need a lot more meat than this to justify an article. I don't see anything saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing in the english-language sources to support notability and none of the Russian language sources appear to be on line, but I note a conspicuous lack of a ru.wiki article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
? I found it quite easy to find Russian sources with a basic google search, and even linked to a few above. --— Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:N, WP:PROF, WP:ARTIST, as coverage, if verifiable, doesn't seem to be significant and substantial across numerous sources anyway. --slakr\ talk / 10:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Not sure why the current Wikipedia article or the academy is not real or wrong but these are not grounds for deletion. There are sources here, suggesting it is definitely "real". The academy is at least 75 years old.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is of a real school, and the data is correct. The nominator is apparently an unskilled editor. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•Speak! 12:38, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nominator's statement that "This is not real" is incorrect as there are a number of independent sources that confirm the existence of the school. I can't comment on "and data is wrong" but if data is wrong then the way forward is to fix it and add a reference (best) or tag it appropriately. Indeed, the sourcing of the page is woeful and I have tagged for improvement. Having said that, this is a long-established school containing a high school and it looks notable. Currently, no valid grounds for deletion have been given nor has evidence been adduced that, with a search for local sources, WP:GNG cannot be met. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No real reason given to delete a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus at AfD that high schools of confirmed existence are automatically considered notable. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very little sourcing (just website). Only google his are FB, linked in, a youtube video. Appears fails WP:GNG —Gaffταλκ 13:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: I took my time to search reliable Nigerian dailies for any coverage on the subject but I found none. The article looks to me like a charismatic leader trying to use Wikipedia as a means to publicize his ministry. Darreg (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly, no evidence of notability. The subject obviously fails WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not in VIAF.org or worldcat.org as an author. Nothing obvious in google. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
delete: Plenty of murders, robberies, and other types of attacks take place every day and get plenty of coverage. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see anything in this article that would make it notableThe Determinatorptc 13:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC) The Determinatorptc 13:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Nominator blocked indef Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Determinator.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep - Otherstuffexists in the context that there are plemty of other situations each day that recieves news coverage is not a deletion argument. This situation recieved worldwide coverage and passes both GNG and CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nothing has changed from last nomination meets WP:DIVERSE and meet general notability requirement per WP:GNG--Shrike (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS does not trump notable events that are covered extensively by media.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, only when notability can be established. In this case there is no notability. DrSultan85 (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)blocked sock Brad Dyer (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is another way of saying WP:EVENT, though. It's two months later and no one's talking about this. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my rationale at the previous AFD: Fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS as reliable sources appear to have ceased talking about it a day or so after it happened. The fact that some seem to find it a cool and novel method of killing is not a reason to ignore our policies. I'll add that in our globalized Internet age + the 24-hour news cycle, it's really easy for something non-notable to get worldwide coverage, but if no one cares anymore two days later, it still doesn't pass our event notability guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are not run of the mill crimes, but acts with international ramifications. The claim that it is no longer mentioned in reliable sources belies the facts of a rudimentary google search. [19] --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 15:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What were these ramifications? This just sounds like "any event in Israel is automatically notable because the Arab-Israeli conflict is geopolitically important," and that's not currently part of our notability policy. If you think it should be, you can propose a change to the policy. Also, be careful when citing Google searches, because they don't ensure that the hits are relevant or come from reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try on the strawman argument there. By non reliable sources did you mean thisTimes of Israel article published on September 25, almost two months after the event, in which the attack is listed as one of the most notable Jewish related events of the year? --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 16:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What Brewcrewer said. Plus the fact that ongoing coverage is the measure of notability, and this story continues to be discussed now - October - published articles in a pretty wide range of reputable publications. ShulMaven (talk) 19:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTNEWS all the way. What ramification were there, that wouldn't have occurred with another similar crime. WP:EVENT. Roscelese nailed it. That article from times of Israel is like a directory. It mentions that as a part of many crimes.70.63.179.18 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE: User:Brewcrewer brough up ramifications, are those ramifications that the "Video of the attack taken by a bystander was shown on international news media." I am convinced those are great ramifications, still delete.70.63.179.18 (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:Delete: I agree with IP contributor. Looking the the article the impact section reads like it is defending the article inclusion in Wikipedia. I'm sorry but this article is a delete. IP editor, although I agree with your reasoning, but not approach. Please be nice.DrSultan85 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
blocked sock--Shrike (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, notability is not temporary. Just because a certain subject is not mentioned every day in media after time passes doesnt take away its notability. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last AFD was open for 16 days and was closed only on August 7th and this AFD was opened on October 4th less than month by the nom now indef blocked.Now nothing has changed from last nomination meets WP:DIVERSE and WP:GNG. Now the question of WP:LASTING 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.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. It's certainly overly promotional at present, but I don't think it's unsalvageable. Per WP:ARTSPAM, it could be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view, including removal of peacock terms and all the (presumably highly selective) quotes from reviews. A NewsBank search finds 17 articles with "HighTide" in the headline in national newspapers, all of which appear to be on topic, so I see little doubt that it's notable. Qwfp (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject shows a lot of google, particularly reviews of the plays. The article might have a promotional tone, but you can't hold that against the subject. There are lots of formatting problems, I cleaned up a few revealing more sources clearly. The list of performances, while already long is seriously incomplete/out of date, the prose substituting for listings of plays. None of these problems amount to a case for deletion. Trackinfo (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs some serious trimming (or the addition of more references), but it clearly meets WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand(talk) 03:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable judoka. Competing in juniors or respresenting in regional events not cause for notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Success at a youth tournament and merely competing at a regional judo event are not sufficient to pass WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Junior events don't show notability nor does simply participating in a regional event.Mdtemp (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing to support any claims of notability for the kickboxer, although I did find a politician with the same name. There is no independent support for any claims of martial arts championships. Of the 5 sources given, I didn't find his name at any of them. Admittedly, I couldn't access two of them and one of them is a link to videos. There is nothing to show he meets WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no evidence of being a notable kickboxer or martial artist and no significant coverage to show he meets GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - record doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, doesn't seem to be significant coverage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Philg88 ♦talk 05:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article is some random unsourced musings of the value of inspections to foreign businessmen because of the difficulty with quality control in China. Suspiciously, the original author's only other contributions to Wikipedia has been an article on a company which specialises in quality inspections in China for foreign businessmen, and the speedily deleted Inspection service in china. Just can't see anything in there worth saving. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inspection in China as a general topic can be notable, but not in this state. With the use of a company infobox (worst at giving a specific headquarters address and key person) and some sources redirects to a bid object in Alibaba.com, it is too much advertising. WP:G11 or WP:TNT. 野狼院ひさしHisashiYarouin 11:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it because there are a lot of problems on the page. PinballWizard29 (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't dispute the fact that article are often kept on the basis of notability, but this one in question is a mess. Deletion is the best decision. Wikicology (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, non-notable individual season article, which fails WP:GNG. Parent article previously at AfD. Parent article should be kept, but these season content forks should be deleted. JMHamo (talk) 09:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following article for the same reason given above.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these fork articles, no evidence of notability. At most they could be merged with the parent article. GiantSnowman 10:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Included in the parent article is a Winners section, which I think is sufficient JMHamo (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS, not a team in a top professional league, no indication of any reliable sources discussing these clubs' particular seasons outside of WP:ROUTINE match reporting. Major WP:NOTSTATS issues as well due to the near complete lack of sourced prose. Fenix down (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No sources or even a single google found any sort of proof that this play actually exists. This could most likely be a hoax as well. 和DITOREtails
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find solid evidence of this play existing, more sources may exist in Kannada. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:CRIC by having not played first-class, List A, or Twenty20 cricket. By extension fails WP:ATH. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NCRIC - Note that he is part of the national team that plays in the 2014 ICC World Cricket League Division Three (notable according to WP:NCRIC point 3.), which starts on 23 October 2014, and the article can be restored once he has played in a game. -- Taketa (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete may be WP:TOOSOON, could be re-created once other guidelines as per Taketa's suggestion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nominating this after checking out a COI editor's contributions after I blocked them for a COI username. The original version of the article was fairly promotional in tone, but there is enough of an assertion of notability to where I decided to clean it up. You can see the original version of the article here. (So full disclosure with all that.) Even after cleaning the article I had a lot of trouble finding sources for everything. The article asserted that she was in various episodes and so on, but I don't see where she's listed in IMDb for any roles- she doesn't seem to have a profile at all. The roles all appear to be minor, trivial bit parts from what I can see. As far as her modeling goes, I couldn't find any sourcing to really show that her gigs have attracted any true notice at all. It's expected that models will model for various places, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by Rodriguez having modeled for various notable places. Her biggest assertion of notability is for her beauty pageant titles, but I can't see where any of them are particularly noteworthy either. She holds the title for Ms. Alaska United States, which I want to stress is not the same thing as Miss Alaska USA (as Ms. United States is/was an alternate title for Miss United States). I can't really find anything out there about this pageant that doesn't come back to various WP:PRIMARY sources about Rodriguez. The other pageant titles appear to follow along the same guidelines. A search for "Andreina Rodri" (as one of the Spanish language news sources has her under that name) doesn't bring up much of anything either. I can't see where she particularly warrants an article on Wikipedia at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have to concur with the nominator here - having seen how thorough and methodical she is in the past with source searches, I don't believe there's evidence of notability out there to be found. Yes, this is a 'per nom' vote but well, look at the nomination. It's all there. Mabalu (talk) 12:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This looked like an article against which the somewhat dirty tactic of gutting before dragging to AfD had been practiced. While this is true to some extent, even after looking at the original version I'm still not seeing anything rising to the level of a Special Notability pass as an actor, nor do I feel GNG is satisfied here. Carrite (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't meant as an underhanded tactic- initially I did it because I'd been somewhat certain that there would be sources out there for some of the claims and that she'd pass notability guidelines, so I was pretty surprised that she had as little coverage as she did. I did link to the original format in my post above though, so people could compare the two. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite Tokyogirl's diligent attempt to clean up the article and salvage it, I can't find anything to suggest that it can be reworked. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:54, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete before people confuse with Airoli Kalibari Trust Bengali Association. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability, promotional/COI article. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As already thoroughly demonstrated on the talk page, the article is a WP:POVFORK of a whole bunch of better articles on Japanese culture that may or may not mention hypothetical Korean connections for the topics mentioned. It has stitched together a bunch of sources that either (1) present Korean connection as one (the less likely?) of several possible theories of a cultural artifact's origins, (2) are written by Korean nationalists with no training in Japanese culture, or (3) don't mention "Korean influence" at all, but refer to a Japanese-born and Japanese-raised originator, whose remote ancestors might have immigrated from the Korean Peninsula. The topics Chinese influence on Japanese culture, European influence on Japanese culture and United States influence on Japanese culture are almost certainly more notable, but we don't have articles on those topics -- or, for that matter, any other articles with titles in the form "<Country Y> influence on the culture of <Country X>" -- because such articles by definition would violate WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and more. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of those articles are comparable, since they are not in the form "<Modern nation-state that didn't exist yet during the relevant time period> influence on the culture of <Other modern nation-state that didn't exist yet during the relevant time period>". The more accurate name for 90% of this material would be "Baekje influence on late-Yayoi culture". Many of your examples don't include the relevant word "culture", as well, and please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As to the book: have you read it? It's author has no visible credentials in Japanese studies, the publisher is a specialist in English-language travel guides on South Korea, the book almost certainly fails WP:RS, and a lot of it is downright offensive to boot. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, books with "hidden history" in their subtitle tend to be WP:FRINGE, and WP:SPAs who cite such books -- including the article's creator and several later contributors -- tend to be here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That source seems fine and, in any case, is not the only one out there. I browse a little and soon find this — an account of the influence of the Paekche of Korea on Japan. This work is published by a university press and so demonstrates and further confirms the notability and the scholarly nature of the topic. Our corresponding article references the page in question in its section Baekje#Relations_with_Japan, giving it as a main article. This demonstrates that the page in question is interwoven with our other content and is not some fringe fork as you seem to suppose. As for righting great wrongs, you seem to be the one on a mission here as your sandbox indicates you've been grinding this axe for months now. Andrew (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue is not whether any of the content on this page is true, sourced, or whatever. It's about balance: the "topic" is notionally as vast as my example below of France and England, and there is thus no coherence between bits about the Baekje arts and bits about writers whose ancestors were or might have been from Korea, and even less relevance of the bit about Jindai moji. Never mind "influence", why not have an article of "American superiority over the British" -- it could list all sorts of things (wasn't there a yacht race with rather one-side results), a few battles, and everything could be true, referenced, and even in native level English. But it would not be a good article. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@user:Andrew Davidson: I'm sorry, but where did Jinwung Kim (the author of the second book you cite) gain his knowledge of Japanese history? I ask, because the paragraph you link to appears to be loaded with errors: (1) if any legit scholars think the Soga clan were immigrants from Baekje, I have yet to read their work (WP:FRINGE) -- the Soga were in fact active in Japan long before the great Baekje immigration of 660; (2) "Soga Noumako" is not a possible name-reconstruction -- his given name was "Umako"; (3) no one says "Asuka-ji"; (4) what's with the scare quotes around "Emperor" Kanmu? Also, the equation of the extinct Baekje civilization (whose educated populace by and fled to Japan) with modern-day Korea is extremely problematic, since they had their own (likely unrelated) language, etc. It seems pretty obvious that this is a WP:TERTIARY source reliant on other, better sources that do not support your claims.
Also, nice personal attack on my sandbox speculation about the obvious sockpuppetry on the part of Korean-nationalist SPAs (sockpuppetry that has been observed by others such as User:Canterbury Tail on ANI last Christmas Eve). I'm just trying to analyze as much of the information as is available to me to work through what's clearky a massive violation of WP:SOCK that has been going on for years. How about instead of rooting around in my user space you actually read the commentary I provided on the article's talk page clearly demonstrating the disastrous abuse of sources in the article.
Jinwung Kim is a Professor of History and seems to be a reputable academic. As for sockpuppets, notice that, when you posted your commentary on the article's talk page, nobody, but nobody, responded. Andrew (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Professor of History" doesn't help much. It's like saying someone who is a "Professor of Science" is automatically a reliable source on the vertebrate eye, when their qualifications are in fact all in nuclear physics. However, Googling his name and the phrase you provided I was able to find his "Author Bio" on the publisher's website. I'm guessing that's what you read, too: what it actually says is "Jinwung Kim is Professor of History at Kyungpook National University in Taegu, South Korea. He has published widely on South Korean–U.S. relations, with a particular focus on South Korean perceptions of the United States." You cleverly chose to omit the area of history he specializes in, since the area under discussion in the article -- and the area in which he made the somewhat embarrassing mistakes I already pointed out -- concerns a different country, over 1,000 years before either South Korea or the United States even existed! Anyway, being published by a university press doesn't necessarily mean the book is an even-handed, scholarly source. I read through most of the GBooks preview: there were no inline citations, and scant notes (I couldn't read the notes since they were not on the same page). This implies that it is meant for a general audience, like most of Bart Ehrman's books (all of which come from Oxford University Press). Nothing wrong with that, but it means we can't easily track his sources and find out why he thinks that "the Soga clan were immigrants from Baekje" is not only an obscure theory he ascribes to but an established fact. It also makes the polemical, somewhat anti-Japanese nature of every part of the book that might be relevant to this discussion (again, what's with the scare-quotes??) problematic for its use as a source anywhere on Wikipedia, especially as a source to demonstrate that we can rewrite this article to not be as polemical and anti-Japanese as it already is. Also "seems to be a reputable academic" -- what are you basing that on? That he holds a teaching position in an unrelated field in a Korean university? That an American university's publishing department published a general-audience book by him in that same unrelated field?
And besides, you have not yet touched on the main argument for deletion. The page is a POVFORK, and will never be anything more. Neither I nor anyone else has proposed a GNG rationale for deletion, so your digging up obscure, semi-reliable sources will not help.
As for sockpuppetry: How does the lack of a response to my detailed talk page analysis affect that? They don't usually use talk pages, and are more accustomed to edit-warring. Plus, a lot of those accounts seem to have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, so maybe, at the time, they thought of me as an "ally" who did them a "favour" by getting their "opponent" blocked? (Note that this user actually got himself blocked, but still...) And if in fact all of the dozens and dozens of single-purpose accounts all editing in the same area were actually different people independently patrolling the area, don't you think at least one of them would have seen my post and responded? If anything (I don't actually believe this, though) the lack of a response is an argument for sockpuppetry having taken place.
If I may interject Hijiri, but I think your interpretation of the article title is a tad faulty. You've mentioned a number of times above that most of these influences come from Baekje and affected Yayoi Japan, and that they have nothing to do with "modern nation states". I read the title more as "influence of Korean people on Japanese people's culture", nothing about countries. That's all I see wrong with your argument. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No preference, but Japanese culture might be a better location for some of this. The current article has grammar issues throughout, and does seem to have a severe slant toward presenting Korean culture as influencing practically everything in Japan without presenting dissenting academic opinions and research. If this article is not deleted, it will definitely need a serious overhaul, and shepherding from editors willing to work together and put any nationalism aside in that effort. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is of no real value to English-speaking readers. Most importantly, there is no need for generic articles "Influence of France on English culture" (to give an example closer to (my) home), because such influence is general, all-pervasive, and obvious. In this specific case, of course, both Korea and Japan went through many centuries under the influence of Chinese civilisation, and Korea is geographically in the middle, so obviously it is possible to make a hodge-podge list of "connections", but this does not an encyclopaedia article make. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more than enough scholarship on this subject to make an article. Even the Kyoto Cultural Museum noted that "In seeking the source of Japan’s ancient culture many will look to China, but the quest will finally lead to Korea, where China’s advanced culture was accepted and assimilated. In actuality, the people who crossed the sea were the people of the Korea Peninsula and their culture was the Korean culture." What is very glaring about the nominator's source criticism is that he seems to admit that he's hasn't actually read the scholarship he is criticizing. He writes at length about why sources like Covell, Mitchell, and Farris should not be included in the article, but doesn't acknowledge he has ever actually read the books. This is just quibbling with sources and not a legitimate reason to delete the article. Farris' book, for instance, notes that "Together South Korean and Japanese archaeologists have been able to show that from the late fourth through the late seventh centuries Korean-borne continental ideas, technologies, and materials streamed into the archipelago. Influence from the peninsula hit peaks in the mid-fifth, mid-sixth, and late seventh centuries and played a crucial role in population growth, economic and cultural development, and the rise of a centralized Yamato state." The nominator says that "there is no Chinese influence on Japanese culture and there never will be, because Chinese nationalists are apparently not insecure enough that they need to go onto English Wikipedia and denigrate another country's culture". Statements like this show how wrong-headed an attempt to delete this article would be. First of all, someone should write an article about Chinese influence on Japanese culture because that is also an important subject, but secondly, there is no historian today who doesn't acknowledge the massive influence people from the Korean peninsula had on Japan and that has nothing to do with appeasing the so-called "insecurities" of the Korean people. William Wayne Farris, the Kyoto Cultural Museum, and all the other scholars who have written extensively on this subject are of course not inspired by Korean nationalism, they're just acknowledging the fact that Korea has played a tremendous role in shaping Japanese politics, culture, and society, something definitely noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Curtis, I'm noticing a pattern here. So far, you and I have interacted four times on Wikipedia (including this time). On all four occasions, I stated that an article violated WP:SYNTH, and on all four occasions you opposed me on that point. On all three previous occasions, consensus worked out on my side in the discussion. Because I was right. Last time, you were told by more than one user that if you were actively trying to violate WP:NOR or just couldn't tell that you were engaging in OR, you would probably need to be either banned or blocked. You managed to avoid this result last time, but I find it hard to believe you would come here and defend the same type of OR as you did there, given the potential consequences for you. Both User:Nishidani and I have pointed this out to you, and if I recall correctly User:Sturmgewehr88 and User:Curly Turkey basically agreed. Now, given that in 100% of your four separate interactions with me you have engaged in SYNTH (in three cases in the service of a modern political agenda), what are the odds that 100% of your other edits have been disruptive in this manner?
(2) Regarding the scholars you name: the authors of the article also clearly have not read most of the sources, since they clearly contradict each other, contradict the material in the article, or are on completely unrelated topics and do not mention Korea at all! Clearly you did not read my long post with enough care: Covell is not a scholar, and you have not demonstrated that he had any qualifications in Japanese studies. You have not read Mitchell either, and so you cannot be right in your assertion that my argument that, given how he is cited in the article, he probably does not back up the text to which he is attached. (I've grown accustomed to this kind of argument from you.) You have not read Farris, either, but the more important point is that the statement to which Farris is attached in the article has nothing to do with "Japanese culture" (it is about metal-working techniques used in the Yayoi state 2,000 years ago). Also, given that the statement violates WP:WEASEL with the word "essentially", we cannot assume Farris actually backs it up; if "essentially" is actually his word and not an "interpretation" by Wikipedians, then does he mean "probably" (60~80%)? If so, then the material should be added to the relevant article, and given the proper context; its being stated as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, with no in-line reference to Farris, violates WP:POVFORK.
(3)Regarding the rest of your post: per WP:V, naming institutions and scholars who have written a large volume of work, even providing quotes, without actually giving page numbers, links, publication titles, etc. is pretty useless. And even all the sources in the world won't help this article, since neither my deletion rationale nor those of the other contributors is based on WP:GNG. This article is a WP:POVFORK, and trying to place the WP:BURDEN on me to create the hundreds of other articles (Irish influence on British culture, anyone? Mexican influence on American culture? North Sudanese influence on South Sudanese culture!?) necessary to provide balance is ridiculous. All of those other articles would need to rely just as much on the OR/SYNTH that you know and love so well, Curtis, as this one. Or maybe you don't sincerely believe those hundreds of articles should be made, and are just trying to goad others into violating WP:POINT. Please stop this kind of disruptive behaviour, or you will be blocked. And on that point...
(4) I notice that in all but the first of my four interactions with you, you have shown up at an article you have never edited before, and opposed me with an extremely weak rationale. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you edit an article on ancient Japanese history, except when you showed up to revert me. I'm beginning to think that you have been following my edits, and showing up to revert me when I edit an area of which you have some knowledge and it seems to you that my position is weak. Per WP:AGF, I'll give you until your fifth infraction on this point, but your constant violations of WP:NOR will probably get you in trouble before that. I would also like to politely ask you to withdraw the above no-rationale, bad-faith oppose !vote per WP:REVENGE and WP:POINT.
User: Sturmgewehr88 warned you previously about threatening to ban people for disagreeing with you, and yet you're still doing it. Regarding the matter at hand, I have read Covell and Farris, and Farris makes clear that Korea played the defining role in shaping Japan's state and society, as indicated by the quote above. You could argue that Korea and Japan were quite different entities in ancient times, but ultimately we ought to basically stick to the wording of reliable sources, which seems to be the main thing you always object to in my line of thinking. The fact is that Farris and other sources like him define the ancient peoples living in the Korean peninsulas as being, broadly defined, "Koreans", and the ancient peoples living on the Japanese island as being "Japanese". There is nothing wrong with sticking to the wording of our sources. I read Farris when looking into the subject of the Relations between Kaya and ancient Japan and, incidentally, he does note that the Soga Clan, like many major Japanese clans, most likely had Korean roots. Korean migration to Japan began well in advance of 660. It takes no original research to see that the society and culture imported to Japan from Korea constitutes "Korean influence on Japan". If this article is really based primarily off Korean nationalism, then explain how Korean nationalists managed to infiltrate the Kyoto Cultural Museum.CurtisNaito (talk) 16:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You, and certainly the editors of the page, have not used Farris, a very important source used only generically without page citation so far on the page. From your remarks above, it is reasonable to assume you haven't read Farris's important book. Where does he define the people on the Korean peninsular as being 'broadly defined "Koreans"'? The peninsular peoples were as much Kulturträger of Indian, Chinese civilization as contributors of their own distinctive styles (a distinction that must be observed. Immigrant peninsular assistancee in drafting the 律令 does not mean that code was of 'Korean' provenance: it means immigrants from the Korean peninsular sufficiently sinified to be masters of Chinese law and Confucianism, played a role in its drafting). His most frequent term for the priod is 'peninsular peoples'. Evrything hinges on such distinctions. He does not say the Soga clan had 'Korean roots'. He says that clan had 'intimate ties' with immigrants from Korea (p.111). The problem is not documenting the obvious: i.e., that ancient Japanese society had profound links in its formative state period with peoples and kingdoms in Korea, and that technology, art, religion and writing came over together with peninsular immigrants, to make a seminal impact on the shape the Yamato state took. The problem is to find editors capable of documenting the obvious without sounding like illiterate juveniles, incapable of keeping the text clean of nationalistic nuancing, retrospective discourse on 'Koreans' and 'Japanese' etc. In your remarks, and in your editing elsewhere, you show no ability to make use of scholarly sources in an acceptable encyclopedic fashion.Nishidani (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Farris, "The Soga were probably of Korean ancestry". He does use the word "Korean" and "Japanese" to describe those relevant regions. For instance, "The repeated convulsions in Korea are the context in which historians should place the archaeological evidence of the influx of Korean-borne technologies and material culture. Again, Korean immigration to Japan was undoubtedly responsible for much of the influx..." Or "Korean immigrants served on the committees that drew up the law codes. Of the nineteen members of the committee that drafted the Taihō Code, eight were from Korean immigrant families. There were no Chinese. If one excludes the high aristocrats such as Fujiwara no Fubito and Prince Osakabe, who probably did little of the actual writing, then about half of the authors of Japan's most comprehensive set of Chinese laws were from Korea." You yourself may not believe that the aspects of Japanese culture which were imported from the Korean peninsula constitute "Korean" provenance, but Farris clearly does and what I was advocating is that we stick to the reliable sources rather than personal opinions.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'The Soga were probably of Korean ancestry'. Good example of your method. You assert that you have read Farris, and the book the page we are discussing cites Farris's 1998 monograph on this topic. You assert that Farris says the Soga had Korean roots. I checked the work by Farris we cite on the page, and he says no such thing. You come back citing his general history of Japan from its beginnings to 1600 (without naming it) for the view. Of course, Farris says that 2009:35, but no one will know that. You hide the source I guess because it means that you weren't reading Farris 1998, which is what we are discussing, but found the statement you need in a later book by Farris never cited in this article. Either you are being disingenuous or, I suspect, you just enjoy wasting people's time. As for Koreans. You are wrong. The term 'peninsular peoples' is used from memory 35 times in the 1998 monograph and is the default term in that book for contexts where we are speaking about the impact of Korea-born culture and technology on the Yamato state. Again, this is another reason why it is impossible to edit with you. Nishidani (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean. Just read the quotes above. They are all direct quotes from Farris' works. He does use the words "Korean" and "Japanese" very often, even more so than "peninsular peoples". He does say that the Soga were of "Korean ancestry". These facts speak for themselves.CurtisNaito (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the proof
I stated earlier
In your remarks, and in your editing elsewhere, you show no ability to make use of scholarly sources in an acceptable encyclopedic fashion.
And you now confirm.
I don't understand what you mean.
I also looked at the sourcing, much of it is false. Didn't you note that?Nishidani (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, an actual source that speculates the Soga were of Korean ancestry. However, that theory should be included in the Soga clan article, and mentioned as one of the theories, not claimed as a widely-accepted fact, unless (as on Yamanoue no Okura) it can be demonstrated that a broad plurality of scholars agree, and it is the most widely-covered in reliable encyclopedia articles. We should NOT uncritically include it in a list of "Korean influences on Japanese culture". Also Curtis, I did not "threaten to ban you". I don't have that power. I threatened to bring your constant OR (or support thereof) to the attention of the community, and warned you of the likelihood of repercussions. If User:Sturmgewehr88 actually does think that you have been engaged in anything less than WP:SYNTH on all four of the occasions you and I have interacted, or that you are constantly engaged in SYNTH but repercussions are not warranted, I'd like to hear it from him: despite your claim, your diff above shows that last time, he was talking about my threatening to bring you to ANI for your personal attacks, not about OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Andrew Davidson and Curtis Naito raised a book written by Covell as an evidence of the legitimacy of this article. However the book is a Self-published source and two book reviewers concluded the book is hardly academic.
The publisher "Hollym International Corp" is a private company with only three employees.[21] Its office is a small house located in a residential area.[22] So the book never be a "peer-reviewed publication".
WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when 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. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when 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." However Alan Carter Covell's only qualifications are that "having spent many years in Texas, [he] knows horses and their capacities as well as their weaknesses. (Dust jacket)" (Guth)
2. There are two book reviews regarding Covell's book.
Guth, Christine (June 1986). "Book reviews: Korean Impact on Japanese Culture". Numen. 33 (1). BRILL: 178–179. ISSN1568-5276. JSTOR3270133.
Best, Jonathan W. (Summer 1990). "Horserider Returns: Two Recent Studies of Early Korean-Japanese Relations". Journal of Japanese Studies. 16 (2). The Society for Japanese Studies: 437–442. ISSN1549-4721. JSTOR132691.
These reviews criticize harshly (or with sarcasm). Some of the examples are as follows:
"In this slender volume of one―hundred pages, the authors describe the Korean impact on Japanese Culture from the Prehistoric through the modern era. Such a task presupposes an understanding of and ability to synthesize a vast body of confusing and often conflicting historical, political, and artistic evidence. This subject, more than any other in Japanese and Korean studies, requires objectivity and well-rounded scholarship. All are lacking in this book intended, according to the dust jacket, "for Popular consumption rather than the specialist's tedious reading."" (Guth)
... "Covell's presentation of this provocative thesis is sloppy and full of factual errors. Furthermore, his text suffers from a lack of editing." .... (Guth)
"Whereas Part I attempts a broad characterization of early Japan through sometimes questionable interpretation of historical sources such as the eighth century Kojiki and Nihonshoki,..." (Guth)
"... Dr. Covell deliberately presents a distorted picture of the state of Japanese scholarship in the field of Buddhist sculpture.... This statement is both unnecessary inflammatory and historically inaccurate." (Guth)
"There is a need for a publication aimed at a general audience that explains the close relationship that has traditionally existed between Japan and Korea. This book, however, does not fill that need." (Guth)
"A close scholarly critiquing of the volume would prove even more tedious for all concerned." (Best)
" Approximately four‐fifths of the book's hundred pages are devoted to Korean inpact on Japan prior to the eighth century, It is this section that is the most plagued by the Covelis' propensity to take uncritically a single entry from a historical source.... and to elaborate it exponentially in a fashion to suit their particular historical notions and sensationalizing literary style." (Best)
"... Where does one begin to critique such a presentation? It is basically the stuff of historical novels, not of history." (Best)
"... but the potential value of its message is seriously impaired both by the numerous historical inaccuracies that appear on its pages and by the historically unsupportable elaboration of minimal evidence in which its authors repeatedly indulge." (Best)
(EDIT CONFLICT) Phoenix, I should thank you for tracking down those scholarly reviews. As I pointed out on the talk page, I had only been able to locate some guy's blog. How on earth did you get them?
Anyway, I should point out that roughly 30% of the article as it stands now is a slightly-reworded form of the SPA User:Globalscene's original one-editor article, which, including in-line citations I had previously missed, cited Covell 7/10 times. The article was originally based entirely on (and essentially named after) Covell's book, and later expanded on by mostly other POV-pushing SPAs and IPs, using stitched-together sources that don't actually draw the same conclusions our article does. (Notice, to give one of dozens of possible examples, how it cites Mark Schumacher when it sees fit, clearly considering him a reliable source, but neglects to mention him when claiming that the Guze Kannon shows Korean influence? That's because he contradicts that claim...)
No, the fons et origo of this page may be seen in the first edit which created it. This was an article by Jared Diamond about the origin of the Japanese. This is an interesting account which states, inter alia, "A theory favored by many Western archeologists and Koreans, and unpopular in some circles in Japan, is that the Japanese are descendants of immigrants from Korea who arrived with rice-paddy agriculture around 400 b.c. ... These are not just academic questions. For instance, there is much archeological evidence that people and material objects passed between Japan and Korea in the period a.d. 300 to 700. Japanese interpret this to mean that Japan conquered Korea and brought Korean slaves and artisans to Japan; Koreans believe instead that Korea conquered Japan and that the founders of the Japanese imperial family were Korean." So this is clearly the sort of topic which attracts nationalist partisans and we seem to have some here now. But if someone of the stature of Jared Diamond is able to discuss this in a balanced and educational way, we should aspire to match this. This is our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... the first edit was followed by about a dozen other edits over a period of two weeks, all by the same person (the other users didn't alter the content at all). So we can take the original author's original version as being the one immediately before the article was first edited by someone else. Anyway, Jared Diamond is not a Japanologist, and unless you can name some of the western archaeologists he mentioned in his non-academic popular articles, he is pretty irrelevant to this discussion. And I would ask you, once again, to kindly retract your assumption of bad faith on my part ("we seem to have some here now"). I have said it to you twice already, but please examine my edit history in this area rather than trolling around my userspace for evidence of "bias" and "nationalistic partisanship" on my part. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hollym seems to be a respectable and specialist publisher and distributor of books about Korea. It is based in NJ while the Covells were based in Korea. That's not self-publishing. In any case, the page in question is not dedicated to the Covells' book which is just one of many sources. The reviews of the work demonstrate the notability of the actual topic by showing that there is academic discussion and debate. If we don't care for the Covells' work then we can instead use the work of one of their critics such as Jonathan W. Best. For example, here's a review of his work which states, "The impact of the Korean kingdoms on the early development of Japanese culture is widely recognised today, even in Japan...". Or another review which states, "...Paekche's role in the introduction of Buddhism into Japan, a widely acknowledged fact. Best's contribution lies in providing several new perspectives for this well-discussed topic. ... In particular, Best has judiciously taken into account the role played by the material culture of Buddhism (especially temple architecture) in the process of this complex religious transplantation, which was to prove one of the two greatest transformations of Japanese culture..." Q.E.D. Andrew (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using the word "seems" -- whether Hollym is a vanity press or just a non-academic niche publisher is pretty irrelevant. The book in question has a subtitle that, if you were an objective, critical editor, would be sending up red flags. (And while were on the subject of objectivity, kindly take your previous ad hominem WP:AXE comment back. I'm not the one with an axe, here. If that was my mentality, then why would I have "helped" the Korean POV-pushers by spending more time arguing with their opponents than with them?) Anyway, the quotation you provide above proves nothing relevant to the current dispute. If you want to be WP:BOLD and move the page to Baekje influence on the early development of Japanese culture, go right ahead. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andrew Davidson, are you familiar with the expression "rearranging chairs on the Titanic"? You keep beating around the bush and arguing against straw-man "this topic is not notable" claims that neither Imaginatorium, nor Phoenix7777, nor myself have made. This article is a POV fork and there is nothing comparable anywhere else on Wikipedia, or in any other general reference encyclopedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kongō-gumi, Tōdai-ji, Shitennō-ji, Asuka-dera, Jindai moji, Buddhism in Japan, Yayoi period, Asuka period, Kofun period, Nara period, Nara Daibutsu, Soga clan, Ernest Fenollosa, Nara, Yamanoue no Okura, Baekje, Korea-Japan relations, Buddhist art in Japan etc., etc. You will notice that at present virtually none of these articles discuss Korean influence in that much depth at the moment. Forking all of these topics into a single article that presents near-consensus statements (Yamanoue no Okura was likely a first- or second-generation immigrant from Baekje, and so on) and remote fringe theories (Man'yōgana was imported from Korea, and so on) equally as "facts" is most definitely a violation of WP:POVFORK. In the main articles we can provide discussion of the various theories (and, in several cases, the fact that no one takes the claims of people like Kim that the Soga clan were of Korean descent seriously). This fork article exists so Korean-nationalist POV-pushing SPAs (90% of the page's contributors) can add WP:FRINGE material without having to get it by the editorial standards of good-faith Wikipedians like me who have those other pages on our watchlists. It also presents one theoretical picture of 7th-century Japan, and refers to it as "Japanese culture" as though Japan has remained static and wholly-Korean for the past 1,400 years. A title-change and massive content overhaul might solve this last problem, but how do you propose we deal with this? So far all either you or CurtisNaito have offered is "this topic is covered in books, and books are full of thinking". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give the people who wish to have this article here some months to rework it up to a minimum respect for scholarship. The article takes a serious and fascinating topic, which has been the subject of intense scholarly focus in oriental linguistics, ancient history, the history of art, and, using poor sources, itsy bitsy dabs of factoids and tabloid talk points, makes a caricature of the subject. The importance of academic scholarship for any article of this type is ineludible in order to avoid the pitfalls of competing traditions of nationalism, Japanese and Korean. There was stictly speaking no Korea or Japan (unified states with a common national culture, but 'secondary states' both drawing on Sinocentric conceptions. See Gina Barnes,State Formation in Korea: Emerging Elites, Curzon 2011 passim) for that matter, at this point in time. Korea was riven between the claims of three kingdoms, Silla,Goguryeo, Baekje with distinct linguistic (Suksin-speaking Mulgil, Umnu, Malgals; Puyo-related speakers, Sinic Mahan, Chinhan and Pyonhan groups) and ethnic makeups, each with its own national history (Ki-Moon Lee, S. Robert Ramsey, A History of the Korean Language, Cambridge University Press 2011 p.37) just as Japan had similar territorial complexities. Korea was a conduit also for many things, craftsmen, Buddhist priests, Chinese scholars bringing in continental civilization in succeessive waves. Japanese elites' Korean-peninsular connections, and reverse immigration, also complicate the picture. What happens in the newspaperoid and subacademic popular literature is a retrospective interpretation in which Korea's experience of modern Japanese colonization, and the subsequent establishment of a southern Korean state, was accompanied by Korean assertions their ancestors were responsible for much of ancient Japanese culture, and Japanese repudiations of such claims. This is a popular obsession: scholarship alone, in Japan, Korea and foreign oriental studies, has risen above the nationalistic POVs, and the picture we get is in no way reflected in the childish simplifications of this article. We have wonderful monographs on all this, not least most recently, H. Mack Horton', Traversing the Frontier: The Man'yōshū Account of a Japanese Mission to Silla in 736–737, Harvard University Press, Harvard East Asian Monographs 330, 2012.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia aspired to encyclopedic status which means it should not be dabbed up by patches from miscellaneous sources of fair to mediocre popular impress, of the kind, once more, we get in this absolutely bone-shakingly tedious article.Nishidani (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis: you write:'There's more than enough scholarship on this subject to make an article.' Well, against your own practice, which I have had occasion to laboriously document elsewhere, you never use it, or if someone does, you look past it, apparently incapable of understanding it.Nishidani (talk) 13:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - While I think this subject is of encyclopedic value, and I'm an Inclusionist, I do see problems with the article itself and the sources. I won't give a ye or nay now, but I think other editors should try to fix it up before it's deleted, or at least salvageable sections moved to other articles. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 15:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, slightly leaning delete. I don't buy the arguments that it should be deleted just because Chinese influence on Japanese culture or Influence of France on English culture (or that those articles should not be created), and I don't think an article about the Korean influence on Japanese culture is in the least out of place. However, the article as-is is far too imbalanced—obviously POV-pushing in a very contentious area. Unless someone is willing to step up and give the article the balance it needs (which I don't equate to adding refutations to all the claims), then the article would better be deleted. Of course, the best solution is to rewrite the article in a balanced, comprehensive, NPOV way on the real and significant contributions of Korean culture to Japanese culture, with balanced, due-weight discussion of disputed areas. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What does one do when, point by point throughout the article, you discover this kind of fraud?
(a)Uehara Kazu's article on the 玉虫厨子 is said to associate it with the Northern Qi. But on the Tamamushi Shrine page, which appears to be sourced conscientiously, his 玉虫厨子: 飛鳥・白鳳美術様式史論 p.1f. is cited for a date round ca.650, over 80 years later than the end of the Northern Qi.
(b) Fenollosa's Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art: An Outline History of East Asiatic Design, p.49 is cited in support. He associates certain motifs there (th Buddhist deities on the door), not with the Northern Qi but with the style of the Northern Wei, which is even earlier.
(c) C.J. Ryan,Art in China and Japan, New Century Corp., 1914. Note there is no page numeration. Ryan's work is just a review of Fenollosa, a mere article published in The Theosophical Path, 7, no. 1 (July 1914): 5—12. Theosophy?
In short a complete sourcing fuck-up. I fail to see why with this incredibly bad mess of sourcing, th article should be retained. Retaining it, means retaining crap, known to be such, and giving serious or competent editors a burden to fix what the original editor created. Nishidani (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^[Prof. Helen Efthimiadis-Keith of the University of the North, South Africa, Text and interpretation: Gender and violence in the Book of Judith, Scholarly Commentary and the Visual Arts from the Renaissance Onward, «Old Testament Essays» Journal, 15/1 (2002), 64-84, The analysis of Judith’s depiction by Botticelli, Donatello, Giorgione, Cranach the Elder, Caravaggio, Andrea Mantegna, Gustav Climpt and Irene Caesar, pp. 70-72]
^C.J. Ryan. Art in China and Japan. New Century Corp., 1914
^Fenollosa, Ernest F (1912). Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art: An Outline History of East Asiatic Design. Heinemann. p. 49.
This is a deletion discussion not an FA review and so such nitpicking is inappropriate. Moreover, it is our explicit policy that articles may be imperfect: "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress." It is easy to find fault with any article — one merely has to look. For example, if one looks at the first article listed as Nishidani's creation on his user page — Barasana — one immediately finds a sourcing issue in the first line. An alternate name of Taiwano is listed with a citation of The Palm and the Pleiades but when one consults this work, one finds that the Taiwano are another group - similar but different. The article goes on to say something of this but it needs improvement to present the matter more clearly. The page in question needs improvement too, no doubt, but so it goes. This is not a reason to delete. Andrew (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spurious. The classification of the tribes can be by descent or by language. By language the Taiwano are virtually identical to the Barasana, save for 'minute dialectical variation' (P&P p.23-4;FtMR p.12). Lack of clarity in a minute issue on an article which has been written with close attention to many academic sources is one thing: unpaginated or irrelevant or misleading sourcing throughout a contentious page from top to bottom, reeking of both authorial incompetence and insouciance to the relevant scholarship is another.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Andrew Davidson: I'm the biggest advocate of WP:IMPERFECT rationales you will ever find, but in this case the article is fundamentally imperfect and can never be improved except by (1) renaming the page, (2) removing virtually all the current content, and (3) replacing it with better content that is neutrally-worded and properly-sourced. In other words, the only way to improve the article is to delete it and start over. Also, virtually all the contributors to the current one would be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE if they hadn't abandoned their previous accounts already, so preserving their "contributions" is of questionable value. You have not addressed any of these concerns yet. You asked me for a list of the articles of which this one is a WP:POVFORK, and when I provided you with a scant eighteen examples, you just pretended I hadn't responded. So far the only user other than you who is arguing to keep the current page is Curtis, who has a significantly longer history of following me to discussions of this type and opposing me just because he "lost" the last debate than of good-faith contributions to AFD discussions or working on articles in this general area. So it looks like it's entirely up to you to figure out why this page should not be deleted and (possibly) started-over. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that, anyon who actually wishes to make a page along these lines, has a vry simple but cogent source guide to draw on: Farris 1998:68-9 (from memory). By using those headings and sub-headings, it would be the work of a few days to get a good article sketched out on a solid academic basis. I haven't the time nor interest to do that. But the schema there is more informative than the sprawling magpie hodge-podge we have here.Nishidani (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Farris' Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures: Issues in the Historical Archaeology of Ancient Japan? This has a substantial chapter Ancient Japan's Korean Connection. This is about 70 pages long and seems to be a development of his paper of 1996, Ancient Japan's Korean Connection. These look fine to me and tend to confirm what Diamond was saying at the outset. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. Andrew (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but neither Farris nor Diamond (!) are valid sources for the claim "most western scholars believe the Japanese are descended from Korean (horse-riders?) who left the peninsula for the archipelago 2,000+/-400 years ago. The only evidence I can find of this from a specialist is Donald Keene having aid Ledyard gave an excellent description of the situation in Asia at the time; he didn't say he agreed with Ledyard's conclusions, much less that most western scholars do. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andrew Davidson is wrong about both the original article being based on Diamond's 1998 Discover article and said 1998 article being relevant to this discussion and here's why:
Despite Andrew's claims, Diamond is not the right source for this.
I haven't read Diamond's 6,000+ word article, but I should point out that as far as I'm concerned an article in a popular magazine like Discover, with no footnotes, inline citations, or any sources to speak of, is only a reliable source on the opinion of the author in question. If the author in question is a respected scholar in the relevant field, and his/her claim is that the majority of other scholars in the field agree, then until someone else contradicts that claim we must take it as accurate. In this case the author is, according to his institution's faculty page, a "with research interests in Biogeography, Geography and Human Society" who "teaches classes in world regions and past societies".
User:Andrew Davidson cleverly chose to omit the preceding part of the relevant quotation. Diamond actually stated: Archeologists have proposed four conflicting theories. Most popular in Japan is the view that the Japanese gradually evolved from ancient Ice Age people who occupied Japan long before 20,000 b.c. Also widespread in Japan is a theory that the Japanese descended from horse-riding Asian nomads who passed through Korea to conquer Japan in the fourth century, but who were themselves—emphatically—not Koreans. A theory favored by many Western archeologists and Koreans, and unpopular in some circles in Japan, is that the Japanese are descendants of immigrants from Korea who arrived with rice-paddy agriculture around 400 b.c. Finally, the fourth theory holds that the peoples named in the other three theories could have mixed to form the modern Japanese.
Let's look at this quote a bit more closely. :(1) Diamond states that the most popular archeological theory in Japan regarding Japanese origins is that they gradually evolved from ancient Ice Age people who occupied Japan long before 20,000 BC. This is interesting in a number of ways. First, "long before 20,000 BC" date is a new one, since as far as I can tell the earliest period in which Japanese archeologists can establish human activity on the islands is the Jomon period, whose beginning is as far as I can tell rarely dated before 1,1000 BC (1,3000 BP). This is actually a minor error, if it is an error, though. The real problem is that he essentially admits that the most popular theory among archeologists overall, regardless of nationality, is that the Japanese gradually evolved from ancient Ice Age people who occupied Japan long ago. It seems pretty unreasonable to think that there are more archeologists specializing in Japan outside Japan than within, and until a source can be found that actually indicates otherwise, we can't assume that the Japanese themselves comprise a minority of specialists in this area. :(2) Diamond states that the theory that the Japanese descended from horse-riding Asian nomads who passed through Korea to conquer Japan in the fourth century is also "widespread" among Japanese archeologists. What this essentially means is that the theory has appeared in popular literature, but per 20the%20Horseriders%20-% 20Looking%20for%20the% 20Founders%20of%20Japan.pdf Ledyard 1975 (who actually accepted the theory) this theory has little archeological support, and at least one reliable source has compared it to the Ancient Astronauts theory in terms of plausibility. If Diamond's sources indicate that the situation changed between 1975 and 1998, I would be interested to see, but as far as I can tell as of 2014 things are pretty stable in terms of the general consensus on this all-but-fringe theory. I would wonder where Diamond got the idea that this is a popular theory among Japanese archeologists, since as far as I can tell he does not speak Japanese, and it doesn't appear on first glance that he mentions in the article making a research trip to Japan accompanied by an interpreter. :(3) "but who were themselves—emphatically—not Koreans": This is, as far as I can tell from Ledyard, not a part of Egami Namio's kiba minzoku-setsu as described above. Opinions between advocates appear to vary between Buyeo and Baekje, with Eguchi favouring the former and Ledyard, who essentially introduced the theory to the English-speaking world, taking the latter. (The Covells, for what it's worth, appear to have borrowed Ledyard's Baekje theory but not credited him, according to Best's review cited by Phoenix7777 above.) :(4) "A theory favored by many Western archeologists and Koreans, and unpopular in some circles in Japan" -- this is interesting as well. What does "many" mean? Is it a majority? Even it was, as pointed out above, a "western majority" is still almost certainly a minority among scholarship overall. Also, grammatically speaking, the implication is that some western scholars, but the majority of Korean people regardless of background, like this theory. Why would that be? And why should we take into account the opinions of non-specialists, just because they happen to have been born in Korea? We are not taking into account the opinions of Japanese laymen. For that matter, why would we reject the majority consensus just because the majority happen to be Japanese? Discrimination much?
Additionally, it should be pointed out that the original article misquoted Diamond as saying the latter was the theory favoured by western archeologists, and neglected to mention that it is also popular in Korea.
With all of this, I think basing an argument to keep this article on the work of Diamond is extremely weak.
Also, genetic connections between the Japanese and Korean "races" and philological links between has nothing to do with "Korean influence on Japanese culture" anyway, since genetics are irrelevant and whether or not the languages are related is not a question of one "influencing" the other. That appears to go against the whole thrust of Diamond's closing argument that the Japanese and Koreans are like siblings and should stop antagonizing each other by, for instance, claiming that the other has never in their history accomplished anything without reliance on them.
Comment This discussion page is now 50% bigger than the page in question and still growing. I could respond in similar detail to all the points which are being raised but am mindful of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TLDR. The essential question here is whether we have a notable topic which merits further development rather than deletion. The fact that we are able to discuss it and its sources in such extensive and minute detail indicates that deletion is not appropriate. Andrew (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a ridiculous excuse for an argument. "You think this article misquotes its sources, and went into detail explaining it, therefore the article is fine and shouldn't be deleted"? I think we've identified a new candidate for WP:ATA! Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew. I'm not trying to bludgeon anyone. I am simply looking at the page from a technical point of view. The subject matter deserves an article, yet this page is a POV/sourcing disaster. I could have written more extensively, but I haven't. I'm all for eager editors jumping on board to contribute: I am also worried that failure to insist they master and apply the quite elementary procedures for article development only flatters a superficial approach to editing, and leaves the burden of improvement on others, while leaving our global readership none-the-wiser about the quality of what they are taking on trust. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm replying to you both after an edit conflict. Firstly, the procedural issues are reasonably well covered already in WP:ATA in the section Surmountable problems. This indicates a difference of wiki-philosophy where I suppose we must agree to disagree. Then, from a technical point of view, there seem to be plenty of alternatives to deletion which have not yet been fully explored. These include:
Knocking the page down to a stub or summary. Hijiri88 will be familiar with what was done recently at Historicity of Jesus, for example — a less is more approach in which a broad outline of the issues is presented without getting bogged down in detail.
Renaming the page by moving it so that the focus is on the ancient period which seems to be the focus of sources such as Farris.
Tagging the page with cleanup/disputed tags so that readers are made aware of the issues and invited to help resolve them.
Your proposal is quite different from the Historicity of Jesus article, since with that one the exact same words appeared on other pages, where they belonged. The problem with the historicity article involves the words of the Wikipedia articles being forked being taken out of context in a manner that appears to support a fringe POV. In the present article's case, the very words of the sources are being taken out of context, and it appears none of it is salvageable. If you can find one single paragraph that doesn't abuse a source or cite a questionable source, I will take this statement back. But the fact is that as you pointed out earlier the very first sentence written for this article was based on Diamond 1998, and as I pointed out a bit later that first sentence was a complete misrepresentation of Diamond's point. The article has gone down from there. I actually agree with ... everyone else, that this subject is theoretically notable and deserves an article, but I also agree with everyone else except you that the current article contains absolutely nothing of value that would need to be salvaged. Userfy the current page yourself right now if you like; I'll help you fix it, and we'll share the credit when the at-least half-decent article on the subject eventually gets put back in the mainspace. Or, are you not yourself willing or capable of rewriting the article? Because you know, neither Nishidani nor myself are obliged to rewrite the entire article ourselves in advance of a deletion discussion. If you think the article can "in theory" be saved in some version of its current form, the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate such. Otherwise, this seems like a classic case of WP:TNT. (I'd compare it to the ending of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, but I don't wanna risk spoiling it in case you haven't seen it. :P ) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri, please don't say that I have a "history of following [you] to discussions". Over the past two years I've only bumped into you editing from your undisguised account two times, an average of one per year. Regarding the matter we are actually supposed to be talking about, Diamond's article is not the basis for the article, but it would be worth including in the future. He makes a very solid case based off anatomical and genetic evidence that "immigrants from Korea really did make a big contribution to the modern Japanese, though we cannot yet say whether that was because of massive immigration or else modest immigration amplified by a high rate of population increase." Still though, Diamond only deals with one issue rather than the larger trend of Korean influence on Japan noted by Farris. Farris says
"A chronological list of Korean contributions includes iron, iron goods, and the ferrous industries, which really matured in the fifth century although known earlier. Horse use and equipment gave rise to mounted warfare. Ditch- and pond-digging technology gave peasants access to more fertile, higher grounds for the first time. Ovens became available for households, and Japan's initial wheel-thrown, kiln-fired gray stoneware was used by the aristocracy. Techniques for stone corridor and chamber tombs, more sophisticated stone fitting, and decorated grave walls entered the archipelago from Korea, as well as gold and silver jewelry. New silk-weaving methods; writing and mathematics ; more advanced methods of bureaucratic elaboration such as the surname, title, and eventually ranking; a system to supply the court with services and craft goods; Buddhism and its architecture; Chinese-style law; mountain fortifications and the crossbow—these were other peninsular contributions."
I don't think either Farris or this article are saying that all Japanese culture originated in Korea, but such a long list of contributions requires acknowledgement. Probably the main problem with the article is the lack of page-specific citations, without which it is unlikely to reach good article status. It's not a bad article as it is though, and very few of its facts are particularly controversial among scholars. Deleting the whole thing would be a big loss. I concur with Andrew that this article is a work in progress with some issues that can be resolved without deletion. Furthermore all the sources I've checked so far appear to be accurate albeit without the page number. For example Elisseeff says "The fact that Silla and Paekche as well as Kugoryo influence the ancient music of Japan is well known in the field of Korean and Japanese historical musicology. That is why more weight should be given to the term 'acceptance' rather than 'influence' in an account of the ancient history of Korean music and its relationship with foreign music." Cooper says, "Like many other developments in the history of Japanese ceramics, the origins of porcelain are largely attributable to Korean influence." Perkins says, "The ancient Japanese learned shipbuilding techniques from the Korean kingdom of Silla." The Needham sources says, "From 1592 to 1595 the Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi unsuccessfully attempted to conquer Korea and among the booty he brought back was equipment for movable-type printing; it was used until about 1650, being popular among the court, individuals, and the temples." Batten says, "The individuals credited by Chronicles of Japan for building the fortresses all bear Korean names and were, in fact, former subjects of Paekche who had fled to Japan after the war." And I could keep on going on, but suffice to say that while the writers of this article may have made a few minor errors, I don't know where anyone got the idea that the sources were systematically misrepresented.CurtisNaito (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:CurtisNaito: You are misrepresenting the timeline. I have seen you do this in the article space, where it violates WP:NOR; when you do it in places like here it's not technically a violation of WP:NPA, but it's close. "Over the past two years" I have only been active for about eight months; you yourself have not gone a month without editing, but you make fewer edits overall. You have made 939 edits overall; your second favourite page is Talk:Emperor Jimmu with some 44 edits; of your top 12 favourite pages (including talk) 3 are ones you followed me to. In my eight months active on Wikipedia since first interacting with you (and nominating one of your POV/OR-infested articles for deletion), you have followed me to three articles you had never edited before. In all three instances (as in the first) you were either objecting to my removal of ridiculous OR or threatening to add new ridiculous OR.[23][24][25] Say what you want about how you "didn't know the IP that edited the Jinmu page was me"; but the fact is that at the time you did that the talk page looked like this (with my signature on it 30 times as a result of a recent RM I started) and my user page looked like this (with a clear identifier of the IP as me on my phone); you came along two months after my edit, during which time numerous others edited the page. You went through the history of the page and made an active decision to undo my edit. Of all three of these articles, you had never edited a one; you have to date never edited either of the first two for anything other than reverting me, and you have even now not touched the article currently under discussion. Not only User:Andrew Davidson, but both of the "neutrals" and the "neutral leaning delete" have agreed that the current article has significant problems that can probably be fixed. Curly Turkey speculates they probably won't be; I asked Andrew Davidson if he wanted to do it and he ignored the question. The only one here who thinks there isn't a problem with the current article is you. I can work with folks like Andrew Davidson, Curly Turkey and Sturmgewehr on improving problem articles like this. I agree that the topic is notable (hence my never once citing GNG in this debate), but I think the article needs both a title change and a complete rewrite of nearly every single word. You claim there is no problematic material in the article, as you have openly defended the worst of it. You have a history of edit-warring with me and claiming your own personal opinion is "consensus" even when no one agrees with you. If this page is not deleted as a result of this discussion, I now have every reason to believe you will revert me and anyone else who attempts to improve the article. When are you going to stop getting in my way whenever I try to remove POV/OR? I would take you to ANI and ask for a topic-ban, but on what topic would such a ban be? ALL Wikipedia editors are permanently banned from "original research" to begin with. Is it a block you want? Because that might actually be the only solution for behaviour like yours. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't engage in any original research. I think you need to explain better how directly quoting from leading scholars constitutes original research. My point is that, while the footnotes would benefit from page numbers, very few of the facts presented in the article are at all disputed among scholars who have studied Korea's impact on Japan.CurtisNaito (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hijiri, please calm down. While Curtis synthesized at Jinmu, and I'm unfamiliar with your prior confrontation, he hasn't even edited Korean influence on Japanese culture, so I don't see why're you're so agitated. Curtis, I suggest you cast your AFD !vote and discontinue debating with Hijiri, as you're not going to get very far. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 06:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sturmgewehr88: I'm perfectly calm. :-) Whether this article gets deleted or moved and rewritten, I'm not going to go into a hole and cry one way or the other. Unlike the article's creators, for me Wikipedia is just a hobby, and I'm not that interested in promoting my particular worldview (despite what Curtis has implied and Andrew has directly accused, my own personal opinions don't really matter to my proposal that this article be deleted; the only time I have even brought them up is in saying that the Covells' book is offensive, which is almost an objective fact at this point). I provided the links, so you can go and check Talk:Soga-Mononobe conflict and the early versions of the Taminato Incident article (as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassination of Tomomitsu Taminato): every single time Curtis and I have interacted, he has shown a complete and utter lack of understanding of the meaning of WP:OR. In this case, the problem is not that he has violated NOR in the article, but that he has promised to engage me in another revert war like on Emperor Jimmu if I try to remove the OR that is already in the article. Every time he has posted on this AFD, he has insisted that the only thing wrong with the article is the lack of page numbers, but that none of the sources have been abused. Let alone that the authors of the article clearly have limited English, so their ability to understand what was written in the few legitimate scholarly works they cite is questionable, Nishidani and I have already thoroughly demonstrated that virtually all of it is questionable. We're currently 4.5-ish vs. 2 in favour of deletion, so the odds of Curtis' edit war actually coming to pass are slim, but it's still annoying that he has threatened to start another edit war like the last one.
@User:CurtisNaito: No, you have never in my interactions with you "directly quoted from leading scholars": on the Taminato article you SYNTHesized the far-right ramblings of known right-wing agitators cum historians like Watanabe Shoichi with other material about the "background" and "aftermath" of the event from sources that didn't actually mention the event. On the so-called "Battle of Shigisan" article you found a whole bunch of mutually contradictory sources that said barely anything about the event and SYNTHesized them together into an entirely original narrative supported by none of them individually, and you also threatened to "expand" the article by claiming (without any sources) that since this battle (which you had essentially invented) marked the beginning of the rise of the Soga clan, it was the main factor in the later establishment of Buddhism as the major religion in Japan (a claim you are now contradicting by claiming this article is correct in attributing this entirely to Korean immigrants). In the Emperor Jimmu article you insisted that about half of the article-text and two-thirds of the images should be centered around World War II, even though you were unable to find a single source on Emperor Jimmu that even mentioned World War II; you were WP:SYNTHesizing various sources that either didn't mention Jimmu at all or only included piecemeal reference to him. (By the way, I've since read Bix, along a few scholarly reviews of his book: in placing the full blame for the war on the Emperor he is essentially on the WP:FRINGE and should only be used with caution as a source for our article on that emperor; you can't use him as a source for any of the latter's remote ancestors.)
Now, given that the last time I argued with you on an AFD your side wound up winning by default even though (excluding a bad-faith !vote from that guy) it was 7/3 in favour of deletion, I'm actually kinda worried this currently 4.5-ish vs. 2 AFD will close as no-consensus and, when I try to clean up the article, Curtis will once again start edit-warring with me claiming his personal opinion as "consensus". He has all but promised to do so, given his constant refrain of "the only thing wrong with the article is the lack of page numbers" -- the 10 citations to a fringe book that is considered by top-scholars to be on the level of historical fiction apparently notwithstanding. I essentially cut the two sections on areas in which I have expertise and know were full of crap, so I assume that all the rest that appear to be equally full of crap probably are; Curtis insists they aren't; I'm interested in knowing what he thinks of the already deleted "Okura was a Korean poet" and "the Koreans invented Man'yougana in the 9th and 10th centuries"? Are my edits from months ago now going to be reverted?
Oh dear. I'll just take the last example to show what's going on here. To make an analogy:The first American printing press came from England, and therefore the printing press is part of the English impact on American civilization (forget Germany).
Andrew. I'll address you becausee you have the professional competence as a librarian to assess things like this. This last example is one of many examples of fraudulent composition.
The evidence is as follows:
text. Though the Jesuits operated a Western movable type printing-press in Nagasaki, Japan, printing equipment[76] with many Korean technicians and their fonts brought back by Toyotomi Hideyoshi's army in 1593 from Korea to Japan was starting of its own movable-type printing.[77]
source:Joseph Needham,Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin,Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology. Cambridge University Press, 1985
Note (a) the sentence is ungrammatical, and uncorrected by those who cite it.(b) No pagination is supplied, so the text can't be verified by the general reader or editor. We are directed to Needham vol.5 pt.1. I have a copy of that.
In that volume, Needham and Tsien write:-
'From 1592 to 1595 the Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi unsuccessfully attempted to conquer Korea, and among the booty he brought back was equipment for movable-type printing . . .During the same period that movable type was introduced from Korea, the Jesuits brought a printing press from Europe to Japan. The press reached Japan in 1590 (before Hideyoshi's booty, Nishidani), accompanied by two Japanese brothers who had been trained in type-casting and printing in Portugal.' (Needham & Tsien vol.5 pt.1 (1985) pp341-2. No mention of Korean technicans.
I.e. the source is Needham, but Needham never mentions Korean technicians. How did that get into the text? It either got into the text via another, unacknowledged (the real) source, or that source incautiously copied this wikipdia article, and messed up his own academic paper:
'From 1592 to 1595 the Japanese warlord Toyotomi Hideyoshi unsuccessfully attempted to conquer Korea, and among the war booty he took back to Japan was the equipment for movable-type printing, many fonts and technicians. Hye Ok Park, The History of Pre-Gutenberg Woodblock and Movable Type Printing in Korea, in International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 4, No. 9(1) July 2014 p.12
As one can see, in that paper Park plagiarizes verbatim, without paraphrase, Needham's words.
In that paper Park cites Needham 1954 p.341. Well, that is no help because Needham 1954, the first volume of that magnificent encyclopedia, doesn't contain more than 319 pages. What happened was that he confused vol.1 of Needham (1954) with vol.5 pt.1 (1985), which indeed contains this statement. However, there is no mention of many Korean technicians and their fonts in Needham.
Either Park lifted this false statemeent from wikipedia or Park added this, and some editor (perhaps Park? IF so WP:COI)pretends he is citing Neeedham, but in fact his language (and lack of pagination) shows that he is paraphrasing Park, who in turn pretends that Needham mentioned many fonts and (Korean) technicians. The fact that the earliest use of movable type in Japan came from Europe is suppressed (the date of 1590) also indicates the editor is driving a POV.
This, caught by chance because I happen to have a private copy of Needham's encyclopedia, and know the volume on the history of printing well, surely indicates that whoever worked up that article wasn't immune to fraudulent use of sources (pretending his source was Needham, though actually accessing a Korean scholar who tampered with Needham). The subject is fine, but nothing in the article can be taken on trust. Trust that an editor has consulted his source and faithfully paraphrased it is fundamental to wikipedia. There is no trace of that here. Nishidani (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Park paper was published in 2014 and so that's irrelevant as the section in the page in question was added in 2012. It's not difficult to find a work which talks of the fonts and technicians, e.g. Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science (1978), "Korea was invaded by Hideyoshi Toyotomi ... during which time a large number of type fonts and Korean technicians were taken to Japan." It's not quite clear how Needham got into the mix and so maybe there's another unstated intermediate source but the result seems reasonably good faith. In particular, the section in question starts out by talking of the "Western movable type printing-press" and so there is reasonable balance and context. The Encyclopedia of Library and Information Science is more effusive about the Korean technology in its account, "The genius of Korean moveable type printing ... this was a distinctly Korean invention ... The influence of Korean moveable type printing on the printing of China and Japan cannot be overlooked ... early Japanese moveable type editions seem to have been influenced far more greatly by Korean typography than by the work of the Jesuits ... it is not surprising that Japanese printed books of this period resemble Korean books even down to the smallest details of typographical style." Andrew (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the diff shows that the original editor made the error, and it has remained for two years uncorrected. The genius of Korean moveable type printing ... this was a distinctly Korean invention ... The influence of Korean moveable type printing on the printing of China and Japan cannot be overlooked. Well, Needham doesn't say that because it is incorrect. 'Moveable type printing ...' was not a distinctly Korean invention. It was invented in China five centuries earlier, developed from clay to ceramic movable type and then developed into bronze copper-tin alloy movable type printing press. Korean developments of this technology were magnificent, of course. I just object to any form of nationalist spinning, Chinese (who underestimate Korean creativity, Japanese (who tended to ignore its importance) but also Koreans who overestimate and oversimplify things.
Cf in that same diff another example-
'The Koreans were indeed among the first to adapt Chinese characters for phonetic purposes, producing Idu, Gugyeol, and Hyangchal, who deviced probably the model of the Japanese Man'yōgana syllabaries.[100] '
Ungrammatical, WP:OR, distortion of source (Earl Miner:'It seems quite possible that it was Koreans rather than Chinese who devised the model of Man'yōgana.' p.9). The Chinese developed their characters for phonetics to describe foreign languages. This was adopted by the Koreans who managed to create a far more efficient system than the Japanese. Note that when the source mentions a distinct possibility, for that kind of POV-pushing editor it means strong probability, as nuance is collapsed towards likelihood.Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take some of the content but rewrite it. Delete in that version. Basically the book covers a longstanding controversy as Japan culture - see Nihonjinron has been claimed as being unique and Korea having never any influence on them. The book tries to counter that. Its a part of the Koko ga Hen da yo Nihonjin narrative. A possible title would be as Challenges to Nihonjinron. Serten (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Korean culture has clearly influenced Japanese culture and there are clearly reliable sources on that influence. Having said that, the current article clearly needs a sever trim. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the discussion above. The subject is basically notable, but the current article is rotten to the core, with every single sentence consisting of some sort of OR or SYNTH or misrepresentation of a source or complete fiction. If you can find anything of value worth saving, please cite it specifically; otherwise, there is no point in not simply deleting the article and starting over. If we take what appears to be your position that the article is basically good and can be improved, and rewrite it (as I've said above, if you think the article can be improved, the WP:BURDEN is on you to implement the improvement) we're almost certain to inadvertently save some piece of SYNTH or the like in the "improved article". And, as Andrew and I proved above, this article has been contained more SYNTH than fact since its very first edit, so it's very difficult to see what you would want to save. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Oda Mari (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content can no doubt be improved, but it does not strike me even now as a random collection of data or disconnected factoids; it's an attempt to cover the subject in a systematic way. The proper course for those who think a better article is needed is to work on improving it. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These votes, with their neglect of examination of details as to how this was decitfully patched up, are getting weirder by the day
Our text
'Ernest Fenollosa, American scholar of Asian cultures, describes the Kudara Kannon as “the supreme master piece of Corean creation”.
source. 'Epochs of Chinese and Japanese Art'. (no page given)
The source actually writes no such thing of the Kudara Kannon, since Fenollosa simply remarks of the Kudara Kannon that the 'close fitting of the drapery is essentially Corean,but that phase of it which may be Sassanian is native' (p.48) What Fenollosa considered the greatest perfect monument of Corean Art that has come down to us ..is the great standing Buddha, or possibly Bodhisattwa. of the Yumedono pavilion at Horiuji' (p.50) “the supreme master piece of Corean creation” for Fenollosa was not the Kudara Kannon but the Yumedono (Guze) Kannon, as it is of this other masterpiece that he then goes on to hail as 'the supreme master piece of Corean creation'.The editor confused the two GUZE KannonKudara Kannon. The sourcing for the whole fucking article is like this, fa Chrissake and that even editors of considerable experience and generally fair judgment are not embarrassed by this massive fudging is, well,..surprising. Nishidani (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Stuartyeates. I understand the current state of the article could hurt some Japanese editors and readers, but this one appears to be a notable topic and deletion is not cleanup. Cavarrone 09:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only Japanese editor who has cast a delete !vote is Oda Mari. Yes, Andrew's above implied assertion (or false attribution to Jared Diamond) that the Japanese are incapable of researching their own early history and it's the responsibility of "western archeologists and Koreans" to establish a scholarly consensus on early Japan is of course offensive to me, but if it wasn't offensive to me I don't need to tell you what that would make me. Per WP:BURDEN, you have a reaponsibility to show that something in the article is worth preserving. It is not possible to balance the current article without creating a whole bunch of other articles on similar topics such as Japanese influence on Korean culture (which the present article's creators would certainly oppose), not to mention moving the page and either cutting or radically altering every single piece of information in the article. Also per BURDEN, even if this AFD fell through we would be justified in cutting the page down to a single sentence and demanding verification before anything else is added. Therefore, if you plan on cleaning this article yourself, you will need to take it out of the page history anyway, so why not just WP:USERFY it yourself right now, or !vote that way? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible to balance the current article without creating a whole bunch of other articles on similar topics such as Japanese influence on Korean culture: there's nothing in policy to support such a statement, and I don't buy it in the least. Both articles could certainly be created by editors armed with reliable sources—but there's no reason why the editors of one should be held accountable for the creation or content of the other. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I get it. The effort made to clarify technically what is irremediably fucked up here is breezily ignored as wikipedians assess comments like mine 'psychologically' or ethnically. I'm not a Japanese editor, if that is how the several contributions to this discussion I've made are being read. The toxic relations between all three countries are such that you get denialism and blind assertivenss on all of these topics, and that is incompatible with wikipedia. The whol subject is confused by Chinese, Korean and Japanese popular and scholarly retroactive nationalism (reading the past in the light of recent concepts of their modern identity), and the article as fudged up boosts the middle term, as I have shown in three separate examples.
There is not the slightest doubt that the cultures of ancient Korea (three distinct political, probably ethnic and cultural and linguistically differentiated entities:Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla) deeply inflected the formation of early Japanese civilisation: that cultural mosaic was a mixture of Southern and North Chinese trends, commerging principles of Chinese statecraft, techology, and Indian-Buddhist art and religion. 'Korea' was a creative transit point for the complex interactions of Indian/Chinese civilizations, and the only way to write of this is to sidestep the nationalistic bickering and edit in instead, in each instance, the precise scholarly state of each argument. Sources like Fenollosa, which reflect that early nationalist rhetoric, are not reliable. 'Korea' everywhere should be peninsular Korea, as 'China' should specify which area (southern/northern) etc. There is a very simple methodological reason for this. Korea was an extremely complex knit or mosaic of distinct cultures and language groups, and the identification of who belonged to what tribe, group etc is based on linguistics, which has absolutely no consensus. Let me illustrate:
Literary scholars such as Susumu Nakanishi have speculated that Yamanoue no Okura, a well-regarded Man'yōshū poet, may have been an immigrant from the kingdom of Baekje.
Untrue (Susumu Nakanishi, Man'yō no utabitotachi (Poets of the Man'yō ), Kadokawa Sensho, Tokyo 1980 Vol.2 pp.115ff.) This means nothing since in Baekje two different languages existed at that time, neither 'Korean' in the modern acceptance of that word. It's a small point but Nakanishi Susumu states that as the wars raged in the Korea peninsula, with a joint-T'ang-Silla military confederation attacking Baekje, Yamanoue no Okura's father, a court physician, brought him to Japan when he was 4 years old. Since the poet's father was a court doctor, he would have spoken the dialect of the court which appears to have been affiliated to Goguryeo. That however was distinct from the Silla-Korean language of the under class. Further in Baekje Wa, i., proto-Japanese tribal groups are attested (Christopher I. Beckwith, Koguryo, BRILL 2007 p.38). That Yamanoue no Okura's father was resident in Baikje tells us nothing about his putative 'Korean' roots. To the contrary, asserting from geographical location of birth that he was 'Korean' is, for that period, meaninglss at best, nationalistically misleading at worst. There is nothing 'Korean' in that great poet's work. His culture is intensely sinocentric, while his language is old Japanese, much as Li Bai or 薩都剌 (Sà Dōulà) are Chinese poets, though theories are endlessly spun about their possible Turkic or Mongol origins respectively. Do any of you have the slightest idea of the nationalistic context afflicting this from all sides? Is serene editorial neutrality (cursing all houses in such pulling and shoving, claiming and denying) a dying species? Nishidani (talk) 11:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT (@DGG in particular) So would you insist that, by way of example, "Since World War II, there have been numerous Zainichi Korean writers of Japanese." is not a "disconnected factoid"? And presumably insist that the topic of "Korean influence on Japanese culture" is exemplified by people whose grandparents were born somewhere else? Or is it somehow the combination with Yamanoue no Okura, who might have been born in Korea, which gives coherency to this particular section of this rambling shopping list? Actually it reminds me of reading (the coffee table version) of Joseph Needham's stuff which I have: titled "The Genius of China" it is full of frankly absurd claims. I just opened it at random, and read that the Chinese anticipated modern[sic] biochemistry by 2200 years. Right. Of course there are facts listed, many of them no doubt true, but the whole effect is a distortion. I have the sort-of advantage over many of the people here that my knowledge of the early history of Japan and the Korean peninsula is almost zero. So I can't point to *anything* which I know is factually untrue; yet I can tell that the article is not balanced, and not encyclopedic. Just another example: the factoidal description of "Satsuma ware" is not telling us anything, it's arguing a corner. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Needham was both a biochemist and an acclaimed expert in the history of Chinese science whereas you seem to be telling us that you are ignorant of these matters. It seems quite presumptuous for you to be deciding that this material is so absurd that it should be deleted. Andrew (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The coffee table version is not Needham and his multivolume work is on of the greatest works of history ever written, thoroughly reliable. I should add in case this rotten article is retained that the ref to Hidyoshi and the printing press unpaginated, refers to two distinct passeges in Joseph Needham,Tsien Tsuen-Hsuin,Science and Civilisation in China, Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology. Cambridge University Press, 1985 pp.327, 341. But I'm not going to waste weeks fixing this shit. Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violation of WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:RS, etc., as pointed out by the nominator, Nishidani and others. Overall, the opponents of the deletion have not provided effective counterarguments. De 4 de 171 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a company whose Director / Founder is J. Colby Doler, contributed by User:Colbydoler, who also removed the Prod notice without comment. No evidence of attained notability either presented or found. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable corporation and production company. A Google News search yielded ZERO news sources, and a Google keyword search revealed a collection of social media, corporate directories and other secondary sources that fail to satisfy the specific notability guideline for organizations per WP:ORG. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per this new production company failing WP:COMPANY. Perhaps they'll meet the requirement in few years, but being only marginally sourcable they fail at this time. Allow undeletion when notability standards are met. Fine with a userfication to whomsoever wishes to work on it out of mainspace. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Central Information Commission. Although there may be sufficient notability here, I agree with The Bushranger that the current "article" is unsalvagable. Therefore I think deletion (and a redirect as suggested by Abecedare) is the best solution, but without prejudice to recreation if sufficient sources can be found. Randykitty (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
there is an assertion of notability, but there are few sources. lifelong bureaucrat not in a high profile job except for the last two months before retirement, there looks to be little genuine notability with this cv masquerading as a bio Ohc ¡digame! 03:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very senior civil servant at a level which should give him automatic notability (and certainly would do if he was at this level in the USA or UK). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mess of an article, but he had significant roles at a high enough level to establish his notability, per Necrothesp. —innotata 04:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation per WP:TNT - while he does appear to be notable the article as it stands is unsalvagable; it would be best to WP:BLOWITUP and start over. - The BushrangerOne ping only 02:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Central Information Commission The current article is a huge mess, but I could see it being reduced to a one liner in the form of "is a Indian Civil Service officer who served as the Chief Information Commissioner of India's Central Information Commission from Sep-Dec 2010" (note that that final post is the highest post held by the subject). However when one notes that the relevant source glosses this as, "Information Commissioner A. N. Tiwari will take over as the new Chief Information Commissioner on Thursday, succeeding Wajahat Habibullah. He will, however, hold the job only till December 19 this year when he is due to retire, and this is, therefore, virtually a stop-gap arrangement", even this one liner seems excessive, and a redirect should suffice. Abecedare (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I've tried extremely hard to find something to prove R. Gopakumar exists, let alone been noticed. True, Saatchi Gallery (the bricks and mortar version) shortlisted him for their new digital art competition and he took part in an Italian exhibition with dozens of other artists in 2011. The remainder of the list of exhibitions claims a wide variety of venues, but it is a copypaste from his website and impossible to verify independently. There's no trace of a mention on the Tate Gallery website, for example. How this article can remain without some proof of wider notice, or significant award, I don't know! Sionk (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks that his work is mentioned in multiple art books, see for example this or this (a profile in the book Neopoprealism Starz: 21st Century Art Compendium of New Millennium which might be a good starting point for our Wikipedia article) ... and what abnout the sources in foreign languages such as this one (copied on his Facebook page, originally published by Gulf Madhyamam Daily)? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, at least we have proof he exists, which is a start! Sionk (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There's a discussion on my talk page about this. I'm inclined to keep, but semi-protect for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a publicly traded, major company. The article in its current format is not blatant advertising, but I gather there may have been some problems with the writing. Problems with writing, however, are not a reason to delete if the subject is notable, and this subject is. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 06:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given the school project hijack problems flagged by PhilKnight, I think it would be hasty to get rid of the article. Fundamentally it does seem to meet notability guidelines – I'd like to see more information about its history as a co-operative, which appears to date back to the 1920s [26]. It is also mentioned as being part of the reason for the foundation of the California Avocado Commission, suggesting that more and better-quality information should be retrievable. Clearly it has to be rebalanced to lose the non NPOV and investor-speak, but potentially could be a useful and informative article. Libby norman (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 10:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His published books are not even in WorldCat. Not conceivably a notable author . DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some searching and I can't find anything to show that he's particularly noteworthy. His books are self-published and while that doesn't mean that they (or he) can't be notable, that does mean that they're less likely to have gained notice. I just can't see where he's gained any true coverage anywhere. Also in full disclosure, I want to add that I've blocked the article's creator for a COI username as they appear to be representatives of Mycottleville.com, which is a local business/events catalog that also offers service and business profiles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as this is the second nomination.--114.81.255.40 (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and feel free to salt too). I know of notable photographers whose books aren't in Worldcat, but nothing about this article suggests that this person is among them. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (soft) slakr\ talk / 11:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
News program that was a local one in a town that has no notability. Also created by a sock puppet it appears. Wgolf (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any evidence of notability through sources and, as it doesn't appear to be on air now, new sources are unlikely to emerge. Obviously, Makati is notable, and the network that produced it – RBN – is also notable, but don't think the article has enough legs to stand unless sources can be found. Libby norman (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this BLP, I do not belive the page meets GNG or ARTIST. J04n(talk page) 18:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough evidence of notability that I can see from a search – and no third party sources quoted although this article has been in existence since 2006. Libby norman (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems clear this does not meet NARTIST. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus for keeping is sufficient, and the arguments much more substantial than the nominator's rationale for deletion DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough because, it is a registered political party in Bangladesh since 2008, when an act was imposed requiring all political parties to be registered at Election Commission (of Bangladesh). It had been led by a religious authority, better known as Chormonai Pir, and this movement had been known as Islamic Shasjontontro Andolon (lit. Islamic Governance Movement) since 1987. The Pir is more prominently known as religions-political figure than the movement itself and albeit, the movement/party is significant enough to be on Wikipedia. That being said, this article need citation improvement. – nafSadhdidsay 03:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs massive improvement on NPOV and probably close monitoring to ensure it stays that way, but I agree it meets notability as described above. It's mentioned in India's National Security Annual Review 2009 [27] and even though most other news sources seem to relate to the Daily Mail story currently used as the sole third-party reference, it would seem to be an article that can be developed. It does badly need more references and context from someone who understands Bangladeshi politics and should be flagged as such. I've started a Talk page. Libby norman (talk) 12:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
there is an assertion of notability, but it's impossible to discern how important his work is with the cv masquerading as an article. Ohc ¡digame! 02:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is very poorly written (I mean only the lede, everything else is copy paste from some CV). But there are significant enough references in the article. Dr. Alam is (strongly) notable in national scope for his contributions in government backed genome projects of jute etc. and passes WP:ANYBIO. As of now, the article should be stripped down to a stub cleaning up all CV like text. – nafSadhdidsay 20:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has put out some genome papers but during a kind of "gold-rush" era where any sequenced genome with minimal analysis was rewarded with a high-impact publication. Additionally, Nature papers alone do not a notable academic make — in my view, the subject does not hit any of the prof test criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. benmoore 14:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think ANYBIO is the criteria that we shall consider. His notability stems from national perspective. – nafSadhdidsay 17:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a far higher bar than the academic specific list, unclear why you're insisting it's the most relevant (generally when considering professors the best port of call is WP:PROF). Please provide the tertiary sources documenting this professor's contribution to the enduring historical record of the field, I have searched and found none. benmoore 21:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found one now (in Bengali): http://archive.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2010-06-19/news/72004. Most sources, I think I came to read about him, were on national Bengali media (print and TV) - which are hard to find on internet, and hard for me locate them as I am not in the country now. That being said, I was never sure why he gets that much media coverage in Bangladesh; all he did was leading some genome sequencing projects for the government. I can't however deny the fame he attained there. – nafSadhdidsay 04:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't clear based on WP:PROF - I couldn't find any good sources in English (I see WP:NONENG is ok with non-English sources, though). If the consensus is to keep in the end, the article needs to be cut down to the bare minimum - as it is, it's mostly just copied and pasted from Alam's homepage. The Bengali wiki page might be a good starting point for this, but I can't tell. Amkilpatrick (talk) 07:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles that get very high citations when the subject is just one of many co-workers on a very large project doesn't count for much, even when publishedin Nature or PNAS, but he seems to bethe responsible senior investigator for a whole string of mpapers on anaerobic bacteria by his group in Hawaii. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 05:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 15:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Campaign biography for repeated candidate who has lost elections as both a Republican and Democrat. I don;t think that's quite enough for notability DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What? He's never lost an election; he's never been on a ballot. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Granted he does not meet the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN - but he definitely meets WP:GNG which trumps POLITICIAN. He has been the subject of major, months-long, national-level, substantial reporting, far more than most elected officials. Even if he loses in November, he will remain one of the most notable political figures of 2014. --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough source material to meet general notability as it stands and more coming through by the day to support political mover and shaker by the looks of it [30] and [31]. I'd suggest a flag so that the article reduces its reliance on his campaign website and provides a more balanced perspective. Libby norman (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 11:03, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: He is planning on contesting for Delta State gubernatorial election and looks like a pretty strong contender for the post based on the blessings from the "godfathers", but that does not translate to passing WP:POLITICIAN! There are reliable references in the article but they do not say anything noteworthy about him just some campaign BS, that anyone can get during this election period. I really do not want articles like this to be on Wikipedia. In summary, he strongly fails WP:POLITICIAN and weakly fails WP:GNG. Darreg (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a mess! It obviously fails WP:POLITICIAN. His political ambition is of no encyclopedic importance. the article serve no other purpose than a political campaign. The section Political Future is a blatant political campaign and WP:ADVERTISEMENT. However, Wikipedia is not a place for political campaign. Wikicology (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As-yet-unelected candidates in elections do not qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot properly demonstrate and source that he's notable enough for other things to qualify for a Wikipedia article independently of his candidacy, then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to become notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly Keep: I suggest that this article be kept on Wikipedia! There are truly reliable references in the article and it is currently being improved on. For us in Nigeria, it is hard to find information like this online and to contribute to content accuracy and availability of local contents I have taken the pain to contact his family to obtain further details. I was able to obtain his website and this has been added. I am getting noteworthy achievements especially by way of his contribution to human advancement. The internet is a growing technology in Nigeria but there are very few persons willing to sacrifice their time to improve on such contents. I am currently working with a group of individuals to gather more information to improve this article. Although I do not know the original poster, I do feel that such information is important for us as Deltans and will do my utmost to improve on it with reliable references so it meets the required standard. Together we can grow Wikepedia. GURUNETWORK— Preceding unsigned comment added by GURUNETWORK TECHNOLOGIES (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that under Wikipedia's inclusion rules for politicians, spelled out at WP:NPOL, a person is not eligible to keep an article on here just for being a candidate in an election — rather, they must win an election, and thereby hold a notable office, to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. So he'll be eligible for an article if he wins the election — or if you can properly source that he has preexisting notability for other things irrespective of his candidacy. Your assertion about it being "hard to find information like this online" in Nigeria has no bearing on our inclusion standards — in fact, if it's that difficult to properly verify the information, then it's even more critical that we uphold our sourcing and notability standards rather than waiving them. Wikipedia articles can be (and often are) misused as an attempt to damage the subject with the addition of improper commentary or inaccuracies about his career, but if we can't properly verify the content of the article, then we can't fix any inaccuracies. So like it or not, if he needs more campaign publicity then it's local media in Nigeria, not Wikipedia, whom you need to press for more coverage of him. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 11:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, I added a passing reference in 2011 to this, but reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage have yet to evidence themselves. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable filmmaker. Quis separabit? 17:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as WP:G3, an obvious hoax. If anyone can find evidence of this I'll reopen it, but offhand it looks like this is one of several articles created by an editor known for hoax articles. I've opened an SPI to check for sleepers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deor (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No indication this is a notable film, Article started by what appears to be a PR company GBfan 01:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I actually nominated this same article for speedy deletion before GB fan nominated in for standard deletion, and it still has no indication of significance or notability. Dustin(talk) 03:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NF. Apparently this has completed filming, but lacks the coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Allow undeletion of recreation if or when notabilitystandards are met. Userfy to author if requested. Schmidt, Michael Q. 06:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per lack of significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. No issue with recreation if coverage does emerge, presumably when the film is released. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is pure original research and in-universe essay. Sources do not cover the subject in any detail. Prior discussion at [32] seemed to indicate these should be sent individually, not as a group. The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination seems confused and contradictory. One moment it claims that this is "pure original research", the next it talks of the sources. In fact there is extensive coverage of the topic out there in sources such as Tribal Television: Viewing Native People in Sitcoms and so any flaws in the current draft should be addressed by our editing policies WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE rather than deletion. Andrew (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ddcm8991 and Andrew, the article might need some improvement, but that's not a reason for deletion. Smile Lee (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is pure original research and in-universe essay. Sources do not cover the subject in any detail. Prior discussion at [33] seemed to indicate these should be sent individually, not as a group. The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is obviously not "pure original research" as facts such as the voice actor being Toby Huss are readily verifiable in reference works such as Television Cartoon Shows: an illustrated encyclopedia; Masculinity and Popular Television; America Toons In: A History of Television Animation; Drawn to Television: Prime-time Animation...; &c. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing and deletion policies. Andrew (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Subject is notable. Improve the article if necessary, do not delete.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is pure original research and in-universe essay. Sources do not cover the subject in any detail, IMBB is not a reliable source and Fox is primary. Prior discussion at [34] seemed to indicate these should be sent individually, not as a group. The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tell ya what man, dang ole Isaiah 55:7, now that's what I'm talkin' 'bout, yo. Mean you hearing voices? Dang ole encyclopedia, full o' facts 'bout them Texas boys, yeah. Original my ass, imperfect more like. Like it's danged if you do and danged if you don't. Andrew (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Subject is notable. Tell you what man, improve the dang ole article if need be, but ain't no need to delete the dang ole thing. :)--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article is pure original research and in-universe essay. Sources do not cover the subject in any detail. Prior discussion at [35] seemed to indicate these should be sent individually, not as a group. The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The result of the prior discussion was to keep the page as there was no consensus to delete it. No reason is provided to change this and so it's just a case of WP:KEEPLISTING contrary to WP:DELAFD, " It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome". Andrew (talk) 14:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Subject is notable. Improve the article if need be, don't delete.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "Keep" vote by Andrew doesn't address the deletion rationale. Instead it refers to the result of old AfDs and makes an assumption of bad faith. I am neutral on the topic of deletion. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale is false. It states that the article is "pure original research and in-universe essay". You simply have to read the article to see that it, for example, tells you who the voice actor is. That's neither original nor in-universe. Andrew (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, the article is only 9/10ths original research. The actual content about the voice actor isn't enough for an article. The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 21:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sources do not cover the subject in any detail. Article is pure original research and in-universe essay. Prior discussion at [36] seemed to indicate these should be sent individually, not as a group. The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew. Subject is notable. Improve the article if necessary, don't delete it.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Close call. Certainly not a public icon on the scale of Bart Simpson, but the case can be made that this is a lesser icon worthy of encyclopedic coverage rather than a typical in-universe character. Needs massive editing, such characters should not be treated as "real" biographical subjects. I'm almost persuaded that WP:TNT is the best approach here... Carrite (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would work great, except that every time I try to remove the OR from a related article I get reverted (see the history of Dale Gribble). The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wholesale deletion of 98% of the article is not the removal of OR material, but instead is WP:POINTy. It is clear that none of these articles will be deleted, so the best course is non-pointy work to improve them. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Zero third-party sources. All sources in the article are primary. Article is pure original research and in-universe essay. Prior discussion at [37] seemed to indicate these should be sent individually, not as a group. The Master---)Vote Saxon(--- 01:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn/Merge and redirect. JHCaufield - talk - 19:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Declined PROD. This article didn't appear to pass WP:GNG when it was first created in March 2014. I proposed merging it to Funny or Die, got consensus, and eventually finished the merge. The page does not appear to have gained in notability in the last six months. JHCaufield - talk - 01:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator - yes, this AfD was erroneous. The page will be redirected instead. JHCaufield - talk - 14:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The last part of a content merge is to redirect, not delete. That will preserve the attribution history per Wikipedia's copyright policy. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with Gene93k that a merged page should not be deleted, in order to preserve the attribution history per Wikipedia's copyright policy. — Cirt (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page contains no valid sources. Most of the information it mentions have no sources - as evidenced by the tags. So there is no point in having an inaccurate page present on the wiki. Sciophobiaranger (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article includes reliable sources which show evidence of significant coverage, including an AP article and two pieces from the Chicago Tribune. Some of the references are inappropriately listed as external links, but that's not an appropriate deletion rationale. EricEnfermeroHOWDY! 08:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google books gives a number of additional links, including Life. US News and World Report, a long interview in the Texas Monthly , discussion in quite ann umber of books dealing American communism in the period, a note in Pravda as reported in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, . I'll add them. I'll also add some basic bio: his degrees, for one thing. What happened to WP:BEFORE? For that matter, what happened to reading the article & looking at its source lists before concluding there were no sources? DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do know a whole section contained no sources, right? And the only source in it was a dead link, right? The article did not contain many sources, the only two working sources were an AP article and a Google Book. And the article clearly was biased, and didn't offer any other viewpoints. Add sources now, but there weren't many to begin with. Are you unable to notice the "CITATION NEEDED" tags or are they not appearing on your end? The article lacks appropriate sources and neutral point of view. What happened to WP:NPOV? What happened to looking over the article and noticing that there are quite a lot of citations needed? What happened to getting a pint of logic and realizing that the article is extremely bias when there is clearly a rule against that? Sciophobiaranger (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. As nominated it had five different newspaper articles about the subject, a clear pass of WP:GNG. The fact that four were listed as external links is irrelevant. And a trout for the nominator for trying to delete an obviously-notable subject, for continuing to make false claims about the nonexistence of sources, and for using AfD when cleanup is the more appropriate choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
