Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 8

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< July 7 July 9 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep in the sense of "not delete"; no consensus to merge. Discussion about a merger can continue on the article talk page.  Sandstein  18:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Moore controversies

edit
Michael Moore controversies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:WTA#Article structures that can imply a point of view, articles should not be structured in a way that implies a point of view. "Controversy" is often used on Wikipedia simply because you can't say "scandal", even where the usage of the word is incorrect. As such, they tend to be POV forks. I believe this article is a POV fork: it makes no attempt to neutralise the sides of the controversies-except in the Fahrenheit 9/11 section-instead just being a term for admonishment. Per POVFORK, this article should be deleted or, at the very least, merged into the Moore article. Sceptre (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So put the most salient criticisms into the main article. There just isn't a better way to organize criticism than "criticism sections" or "controversies articles"; the notion that ALL of it can be "weaved in" among other information is a fantasy. Some of it could be handled this way, but that doesn't mean that the whole article could be merged; it can't. It doesn't mean the whole article should be deleted; it shouldn't be. Croctotheface (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, source, and rebuild This article is about the work produced by Michael Moore, and the controversies surrounding his body of work. This article should be renamed as such, perhaps: "Controversies inspired by works of Michael Moore" to eliminate BLP pitfalls. However, I still have issues with the underlying content of this article. There article does not discuss controversies so much as allegations against the productions and details of individuals being offended or publicly challenging those works. While Moore's works play into, highlight, or take sides in preexisting controversies, I don't see them as creating controversies where none existed before. I find this article presentation, structure, and title to be POV, but not, perhaps unsalvageably so. More importantly, this article could serve as a useful place to discuss the works of Moore without running into BLP issues. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge—If the individual articles on the films want any of the content, then put it in them. The stuff about each movie belongs in the movie's article. Since the kB volume added to each article is negligible, this isn't a legitimate size related fork. After any legit content is merged, redirect to Michael Moore. Livitup (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for "Mat'olesh Lehad". The rest weren't included and listed so I can't delete them, but feel free to redirect editorially. Daniel (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mat'olesh Lehad

edit
AfDs for this article:
Mat'olesh Lehad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable; fails Wikipedia:Music#Songs. Fleetflame 23:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 —Dark talk 13:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fit Brains

edit
Fit Brains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable; no sources and fails WP:WEB. Fleetflame 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect; users can merge whatever parts they feel necessary editorially, as the last version before redirecting is available in the history. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unveiled (album)

edit
Unveiled (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability; Fails WP:MUSIC Fleetflame 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Sese

edit
Jose Sese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article appears to be a hoax. The only G-Hits for "'Jose Sese' baseball" are either Wiki-clones or an unrelated person. The Baseball Cube, which contains a database of all minor league players since the mid-1970s has no record of this person. On top of that, it just sounds like a hoax. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chikwangwa (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British politicians by wealth at death

edit
List of British politicians by wealth at death (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate collection of information. It's not surprising to learn that many British politicians were rich, but what's the point of presenting this information in this form? Also original research with wholly inadequate sourcing. See, mutatis mutandis, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British military, naval and air force figures by wealth at death.  Sandstein  22:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Seems to Random Chikwangwa (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC) !vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This information is not original, but is sourced to two well known reference sources. It provides information helpful in answering a number of important questions about British political figures throughout several eras. The information is comparative, appropriate cautions are given, modern equivalents are provided and it is quite extensive. It will be of interest to general readers as well as those doing beginning level research. I suugest those who want to delete it, browse through the various articles of pure trivia throughout Wikipedia. This information is serious, accurate, useful and relevant. It concerns the leadership of Britain at a time when it was a great power. Polycarp
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to School District 20 Kootenay-Columbia --JForget 22:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Rivers Elementary School

edit
Twin Rivers Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability whatsoever. Húsönd 22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nomination Chikwangwa (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)!vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:CRYSTAL has anything to do with what I said but, if you misinterpreted it or I wasn't clear enough than please accept my apologies. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had just said to another user above that redirecting instead of deleting would facilitate needless recreation of this article, and you say that if the school becomes notable on its own then there's no problem with that. It looked like WP:CRYSTAL to use speculation on an eventual future notability to counter my opinion that we should not have a redirect because it will simply not dissuade recreation. Let's not forget that unregistered users can easily modify a redirect, but cannot create a page that has been deleted. And that makes a huge difference. Húsönd 13:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd said keep because it might become notable I'd totally agree with the WP:Crystal thing but, that isn't the case. It wasn't about countering your opinion but, about my understanding of the policies and guideline (plus previous practice of non-notable schools being redirected to the district). Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's a practice I'll need to have a word with when I find myself with enough patience. A LOT of enough patience. Húsönd 14:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Dark talk 13:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number-one country hits of 2008 (USA)

edit
Number-one country hits of 2008 (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Redundant to 2008 in country music, and outdated to boot (Blake Shelton's "Home" is #1 this week). Also listing related pages:

Number-one country hits of 2007 (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Number-one country hits of 2006 (USA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timpanogas Regional Hospital

edit
AfDs for this article:
Timpanogas Regional Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete this was nominated in a mass-nomination achieving the usual "no consensus" 7 months ago, since that time, no references, nor anything showing notability has been added to the article; hospitals are not inherently notable and this one has no indication showing its notability; WP is not a health care directory nor a guide for your HMO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC) *Delete no references. Chikwangwa (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)!vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by NawlinWiki per CSD A3 due to no meaningful, substantive content. WilliamH (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrightenism

edit
Wrightenism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism or possibly stuff that someone made up. No assertion of notability or references. Rambling weasel words. TrulyBlue (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nkulu Zao

edit
Nkulu Zao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, no references provided that are independent of White Wolf Games. Online searches (which, of course, don't cover everything) don't seem to find any references that aren't independent of WW, or aren't fansites, other wikis, etc. Information has already been transwikied to the White Wolf wikia (or has otherwise been implemented there independently). --Craw-daddy | T | 21:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete g4, see deletion after 2nd afd. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return of the Ghostbusters

edit
AfDs for this article:
Return of the Ghostbusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts almost no notability through reliable sources, and does not have sufficient notability to have its own article. Deserves at most a one sentence mention in the Ghostbusters franchise article under cultural impact. THIS ARTICLE HAS ALSO BEEN SUCCESSFULLY AFD'D TWICE. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If we can't find a realiable sourse for it. Buc (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm unfamiliar with topic so trying to look at it as an impartial observer; Seems to be non-notable, references are IMDB (see WP:NF) and local media. "Cultural References" is reading like a long Trivia section so the article needs a clean up if it is kept. Already failed two AfD's so a precedent has been set. - JVG (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cross the Streams - film fails WP:NF by not having significant coverage in outside sources. The one source that might have had something (it looked like a Denver newspaper) was a broken link. As noted by Burwellian, imdb does not bestow notability, and if it has been knocked twice, its return should include the needed sources, which it doesn't. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to do anything. Merges can be pursued editorially on talk pages, possibly with more success (as the argument for delete v keep is removed). Daniel (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cure tribute albums

edit
The Cure tribute albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's no coverage by independent reliable sources that any of these albums are notable. indopug (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following article is of one of the albums listed above. Also fails notability.

Strange as Angels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Actually it has been decided that tribute albums do not belong in a band's discography article, since they are not by the band itself (apart from probably being non-notable). See the MOS for discographies. indopug (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Usefulness for collectors isn't a criterion for notability. indopug (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), Speedy deleted as CSD G4, I'm just doing the housekeeping. Protonk (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High School Musical 4: College Years

edit
High School Musical 4: College Years (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article should be deleted, it has no sources other than a blog and blogs are not reliable. DCFan101 (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per the obvious and overwhelming consensus among those contributing to the discussion. A proposal to move this in to the Wikipedia namespace should be carried through the normal move decision making process, as I don't see a clear consensus for such a move at the moment. VanTucky 03:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in culture

edit
AfDs for this article:
Wikipedia in culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Glorified trivia page full of inconsequential mentions of Wikipedia in popular culture (such as Sideshow Bob's line in The Simpsons about "oh, I'll look it up on Wikipedia!"). While the article has sources, none of them discuss Wikipedia's effect on culture at all; they only cite the fact that Wikipedia was mentioned in/by X. Sceptre (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Nominator's statement is an argument to improve, not delete. If there aren't any sources added by the end of this AfD which would give the article depth beyond a mere list, I'll reconsider my !vote. But I think several of the entries do a good enough job explaining themselves as-is. FCYTravis FCYTravis (talk) 20:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this !vote, several editors have added improved sourcing and generally made the article into a definite keeper. FCYTravis (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the Wikipedia namespace (otherwise delete). Filled to the brim with self-references, original research, and laundry lists of dubious significance. It's an interesting read though, so maybe it should be tucked away elsewhere. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason WP:NAVEL is a guideline and not a policy is that articles about the effects wikipedia has on the rest of the world are perfectly legitimate for inclusion in any encyclopedia. This article, I would submit, is the very definition of an exception to that guideline. Also, since the article is primarily a structured, organized, and contextualized set of verified facts (mentions of wikipedia by notable sources placed in context) where is the OR? As for things of limited significance, we should be having the discussion of individual mentions on the talk page, not here. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original research aspect is inherent in Wikipedians interpreting cultural references to Wikipedia using their own "primary source" knowledge of the project. The only real analysis of Wikipedia's effect on culture that appears impartial and notable is the section on Truth in Numbers: The Wikipedia Story, which has its own article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to respectfully disagree with you here. This article is not, nor does it attempt to be, any kind of analysis of wikipedia on culture, it is an article documenting notable appearances of wikipedia in culture. An analysis as you are describing it would be OR unless it were based on sources (which appear elsewhere in this discussion, and could be easily included). As this article is an organized and structured collection of well referenced information, I have to disagree that there is any element of OR to it. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there is plenty of analysis and self-reference, just look at the section discussing the Colbert/Elephant fiasco. I disagree with your assertion that this article is organized or necessary. Reading over it, I find that it is largely unfocused, includes many individually insignificant tidbits and, save for the time-honored Wikipedia tradition of "in popular culture" articles, it lacks a raison d'être. Cultural references are not a self-sufficient basis for an article, otherwise we could have Granny Smith apples in popular culture or Farmer's Almanac in culture. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Granny smith apples might not be a sufficiently significant cultural icon to merit an "in popular culture" article, but amanita muscaria might well deserve one, since it appears in so many places and is so distinctive; in fact, its cultural significance section is quite extensive. Articles such as "portrayals of government in popular culture" or "portrayals of the man in popular culture" might well also deserve (or have) their own articles. I view it as an issue of conforming to WP:UNDUE. When a subject generates enough notable mentions in popular culture (or just culture in general) that those notable mentions cannot be properly treated in the main article without giving them undue weight, a sub-article is warranted. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we will continue to differ on this point. When creating a Wikipedia article on a popular subject, the author must inevitably decide how to handle that subject's cultural significance. The best case scenario would be to rely on secondary and tertiary sources for analysis and convey the general consensus of critics and the general public. The optimal way of handling brief mentions in cultural works would be to contextualize them within the main body of the article, where appropriate, or to ignore them, when they don't add any information or interpret the subject from a novel perspective. Unfortunately, here at Wikipedia, all the trimmings go to the sausage factory of "in popular culture" articles where they bloat and rot as passerbys add irrelevant bits and content editors politely avoid molding them into a useful, cogent inventory. So we have Wikipedia in culture, not because we require a narcissistic account of all the times someone has quipped about Wikipedia in a comic or tv show, but because it's sourced info that some editors just can't bear to let go. This phenomenon is detrimental to Wikipedia, unless you buy into the logic that we should forgo any pretense of working on an encyclopedia and embrace the popular view that this is the world's greatest dumping ground for useless info, conveniently referenced by Google and not taken seriously by any academic establishment. (OK, that last part was a bit off-topic, but you get the idea). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I see your point here. If the effect on culture (or cultural ramifications, such as the cultural effects christianity has had on the world, documented in numerous articles) have sufficient information and independent notability to generate a well-sourced, encyclopedic article, I have to respectfully disagree with you and submit that that is well within the scope of wikipedia. As to whether the article will be a constant battleground for wikipedia-fancruft... well, we're in perfect agreement there. I think the trick would be that our discussion would be most effective on the talk page of the article debating whether individual mentions of wikipedia (such as the simpson's ones or the penny arcade one) are notable and significant enough for article inclusion, rather than whether the article should exist/exist in namespace or not. HatlessAtless (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, other matters in in the article have been discussed in independent, non-trivial, reliable sources such as Uncyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my asking, but is Uncyclopedia regarded as a reliable source? Granted that I wholeheartedly approve of your supporting me, but that statement leaves me a hair confused. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncyclopedia? Please tell me that you were being facetious. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No no no. Obviously uncyclopedia is not a reliable source. The point being made is in regard to the claim that the only major topic in the article that has been discussed in independent reliable sources is Truth in Numbers. The point is that Uncyclopedia and its existence as a parody response to Wikipedia has been discussed in reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oh! Uncyclopedia as a phenomenon has been covered in reliable sources. Oops. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, it's not an indiscriminate list and can be sourced LegoTech·(t)·(c) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep First of all, there's no fundamental problem with trivia. The problem is poorly sourced trivia, and this is well-sourced. Second, I can easily give examples of articles which are not currently cited in Wikipedia in culture that are secondary, reliable sources that discuss precisely this. For example, here is Reuter's article. Other relevant articles include [2] which discusses how Wikipedia covers pop culture extensively. this one shows the demographics of people who read Wikipedia. All of these could easily be used in the article proper. Moreover, WP:ASR is a style guide, it in no way says we can't have articles that discuss Wikipedia. What it prohibits are things like on the Siegenthaler page saying and "this page was vandalized" as opposed to "Siegenthaler's Wikipedia page was vandalized." The original research claim holds no water since the mentions in question are mainly explicit mentions of the word "Wikipedia" and thus require no synthesis (unlike many trivia lists where one needs to get a joke or reference). JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Trivia is inherently unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia because of its dictionary definition: "unimportant matters" (M-W). Sceptre (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "trivia (n. pl.) : unimportant matters : trivial facts or details; also singular in construction : a quizzing game involving obscure facts." Check it if you don't believe me. Sceptre (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article isn't titled "Wikipedia's effect on culture" but "in culture", and it presents a solid, well-sourced overview of just that. Per FCYTravis, improvement might be in order, but no need for deletion.--JayJasper (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic "Wikipedia in culture" is not notable. Wikipedia is notable, but the topic Wikipedia in culture is not. I don't see any sources that discuss Wikipedia's effect on culture. Sceptre (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ya know, I really hate the whole "notable" meme. "Notable" is meaningless. The proper word is "encyclopedic." What is *encyclopedic?* This article is ostensibly a discussion of Wikipedia's appearances outside its own realm, and the ways in which other cultural entities have made use of Wikipedia in their own works.
    I see this as one of the most encyclopedic things that can be written about Wikipedia. We can gain immense knowledge of the way Wikipedia is perceived by the world, by looking at how the world's culture has made use of us. I mean, jeez, xkcd has had some really interesting and insightful comics pertaining to Wikipedia, and they tell us something about the value and the relationship that people have with this project. Seriously, you don't think it's interesting that xkcd pointed out that the humble {{fact}} template has become common lexicon? Can you honestly tell me that you haven't succumbed to The Problem with Wikipedia?
    Wikipedia has become a prominent entity in popular culture precisely because so many people in so many places around the Earth find it useful. An article which documents the ways in which people have discussed, riffed, parodied, celebrated and commented upon Wikipedia, is an article that gives our project a sense of history, a sense of place and a sense of worth. It is an article that tells part of Wikipedia's story, and our story deserves telling. FCYTravis (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep unless speedy keep can be justified. Wikipedia is notable. Plenty of the sources on this page are notable (in fact most of them are). The fact that Wikipedia has had an effect on the rest of the world is also notable. The issue of whether specific mentions are or are not notable is an issue for the maintainers of that article to debate on their talk page, not an issue to demand removal of this article. This article is encyclopedic, well sourced and notable. It also provides a useful outlet to avoid WP:NAVEL references in all of the many references to Wikipedia that crop up in the outside world. From the perspective of a paper encyclopedia, the effect wikipedia has on culture and cultural references to wikipedia make sense with or without it needing to be read on wikipedia at the time, which is why narcissistic self-references are normally avoided. This article is not that at all, and merits inclusion. I disagree with nom on all points; mentions are not inconsequential, and wikipedia's effect is defined in terms of its mentions in culture, such as the colbert report section, and the 'in context section'. HatlessAtless (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I've added more secondary sources including relevant articles from major newspapers such as the New York Times. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia space This topic deserves an article, but the article is just a list of trivia and OR. Moving it to Wikipedia space seems the best solution for keeping this material which isn't encyclopedic, but is highly relevant to Wikipedia itself. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others above who've put it better than I could have, especially JoshuaZ and HatlessAtlas. The list we have here is eminently useful, sourced, relevant, and discriminate. Where good content is too lengthy to reasonably fit into the article of a notable subject, a topical split like this is one way to resolve that. If Wikipedia were the only subject with an article like this, I'd worry about WP:NPOV, but looking at Category:In popular culture this is clearly far from alone. Consensus at the prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia in culture appears to remain relevant. One point, though, just to focus things: I think this is less about whether to keep/delete, and more about whether this page should be hosted in the main or Wikipedia namespace, as the page is obviously useful to us one way or another. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per overwhelming prior consensus that is unlikely to have changed. I find this nomination, and the nominator's other actions regarding this article disruptive. Despite an overwhelming keep in the last nomination, Sceptre wiped it out shortly thereafter with a redirect, and earlier today, attempted to wipe it out in the same manner, then initiated this AfD. I find such forceful attempts to delete articles despite clear evidence of the community's support for them an abuse of the deletion process and of the community's time. This kind of behavior is and antithetical to Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building. AfD's purpose is to get rid of articles that are widely agreed upon to be bad for the encyclopedia, not to take repeated potshots at articles you don't like. Maybe this isn't the right place to be leveling such personal criticism, but I still feel it's warranted. I don't like it when people try to get their way through just shoving, shoving, shoving.--Father Goose (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed noms trivia tag as prejudicial and inappropriate this morning. See the articles talk page for more detailed rationale. If the outcome of this AfD discussion leads to consensus that the article is nothing but indiscriminant trivia, I will have no objection to the tag being restored. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep X in culture does not necessary imply that the material is trivia. (and for that matter, appropriate articles dealing with trivial matters that are none the less notable are acceptable content for Wikipedia--if anything, they're our specialty--we are hardly the encyclopedia of highest quality for serious academic topics, but we probably are the best for popular culture. ) I am pretty much in agreement with Father Goose on the merits of this nomination. DGG (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Wikipedia:Press coverage, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in comics, Wikipedia:Wikipedia in webcomics, Wikipedia:Wikipedia on TV and radio, et al. --Stormie (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per clear consensus reached in earlier discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what others have said. Anton Mravcek (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the article is sourced, and the subject is encyclopedic, I see no legitimate reason to delete. We can't delete articles based on a single subject evaluation as "unimportant". --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia-space. Essentially, this article consists of documenting every mention of Wikipedia in popular culture (or at least the majority of such mentions), which strikes me as inappropriate content for an encyclopaedia article. It's mainly of interest to Wikipedians like ourselves, rather than the average reader; it also raises issues of self-reference and systemic bias, in that we don't have '...in popular culture' articles that are anywhere near as detailed as this one about other subjects. While a more tightly-focused article on Wikipedia's impact on culture (which is encyclopaedic) would be acceptable, this is not that article; to be blunt, it's not really an article at all. As such, in its current state - which boils down to listing every time someone, somewhere said the word 'Wikipedia' or made a comic about it - it is inappropriate, and should be moved from article-space. Terraxos (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 22:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Assassination (Film)

edit
The Assassination (Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:NF - future film that has not commenced principal photography. ukexpat (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:ATHLETE and also per all-delete votes. --JForget 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Reid

edit
AfDs for this article:
Chris Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article does not denote the players' notability and does not stand up to WP:BIO. I have done a couple of quick searches and nothing much more than what is in this article shows up. Currently this person seems to just be a college basketball player and does not look to be going into the professional arena anytime soon and has not done anything more notable in his time at school to keep this article. 132 19:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-notable as well as a possible conflict of interest. Image also deleted. —Dark talk 13:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hender

edit
Nicholas Hender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article seemingly created by the subject (account matches his stage name). Sources are his own web site and a biography he provided to the Australian Music Centre. An admittedly brief search turned up no third-party coverage. Dppowell (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 22:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-44

edit
E-44 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced oneliner about a mortar; nothing to indicate that this mortar is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirected to main article. Anyone can merge the content from the history to the main article should they please, as the content behind the redirect wasn't deleted. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zedar

edit
Zedar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of previously prodded article about a fictional character.[3] A Google search finds mentions of this character on several Wikipedia pages along with a couple of Fan fiction sites, but nothing that appears to qualify as a reliable source. Article also suffers from a secondary problem of being written almost entirely WP:INUNIVERSE and will require a complete rewrite to conform with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Delete as per WP:V unless sufficient independent sources to allow for a WP:NPOV article are provided. --Allen3 talk 19:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g11, advertising the audition dates, "visit our website", also nonnotable HS play. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Good, the Bad, The Grinch

edit
The Good, the Bad, The Grinch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete non notable high school play Mayalld (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TuxNES

edit
TuxNES (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish notability (WP:N) and does not cite any sources, let alone reliable ones (WP:RS). Discontinued software for seven years, so this is unlikely to ever change. The muramasa (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it had links/references outside of it's download page at sourceforge, or was more active, I might consider saying Keep, but it doesn't seem notable as is right now. Addionne (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merged (non-admin closure), Merged by nominator, housekeeping close. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahn Shi Il

edit
Ahn Shi Il (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources cited, no assertion of notability for this obscure term (but WP:PROD template removed so I'm AfDing this rather than speedying it). HrafnTalkStalk 18:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Concur Speedy merge: Then this AfD is no longer necessary. I only raised it because you had previously opposed merger on article-talk, but appeared to favour some sort of removal when I raised the subject on user talk. HrafnTalkStalk 05:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect, which will allow anyone interested to merge the content in the future. A redirect is for all intents and purposes the same as a redirect and delete, but simply allows for future use of the content in a "List of [...]" page where it will probably be appropriate for inclusion. Daniel (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackahuahua

edit
Jackahuahua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a non-notable crossbreed of dog, no citations, "and there are few places where it is sold" (per article)... Adolphus79 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I had already PRODed this, and the PROD was removed by the editor so I was going to AfD it in a bit anyway. ~~ [Jam][talk] 18:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The American Kennel Club lists 145 breeds of dog. I don't think WP should have an article on each possible cross. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe breed is gaining popularity. I added some external sites and a reference to an article in InTouch Magazine, in attempt to Wikify the page. While I agree having a list of every crossbreed seems like a lot, if they do have references in pop culture having an article for the breed on Wikipedia can only be helpful to the public 204.108.8.5 (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 0 G-news hits, and the only G-hits I saw were either blogs or advertising links... and as far as the references that you added, the 'article' in InTouch was a couple pictures and a very short caption, and the Jackahuahua.net website was only just put up (29.05.08)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found an article from The Sun, a British paper that also makes reference to the new cross breed and have included it in the article. So there are some news stories out there. 204.108.8.5 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hardly call "The Sun" a reliable source (but that is my opinion). ~~ [Jam][talk] 19:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these sources are nothing more than a photo with a short caption, not a 'news story'... my photo has been in several papers in my life, but that does not mean I am notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are at max two paragraphs long, but they do include quotations from breeders about their gaining popularity. While it may not be ready for its own individual page, a Chiahuahua Hybird page might be a good solution.204.108.8.5 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think that only the most common dog crossbreeds should have their own article, however this should certainly be added to the List of dog hybrids without an article link, and perhaps warrants a mention in the parent breed articles. Or if there are many chiahuahua crossbreeds, maybe a page similar to Poodle hybrid could be created instead of this one? Addionne (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several chiahuahua crossbreeds, so a Chiahuahua Hybrid page does sound like a good idea! 204.108.8.5 (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non notable crossbreed. DCEdwards1966 19:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I once had a Jack Russell/chihuahua mutt, and I'll concede that "Jackahuahua" is a cute name. This is about the intentional breeding of a purebred J.R. with a purebred Chihuahua, and as the article notes, it isn't very well known, and there are few places where it's sold. I don't think that this would be notable enough to justify its own article, but it rates a mention on the articles about the two breeds. Note that List of dog hybrids is limited to those few hybrids that do rate their own article, so there appears to be a standard to this. Mandsford (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), Closed per the withdrawal of the nomination by Husond, and the developing consensus that the major expansion of the article had rendered the article encyclopedic. S. Dean Jameson 04:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey School Report Card

edit
New Jersey School Report Card (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This has been around since 2006 (!) despite being blatantly unencyclopedic. I mean, not unless someone has been creating notability criteria for those paper stacks in your office that grow magically with reports like this. Húsönd 18:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm aware of the topic of the article. Ghit count in the particular situation is misleading. "New Jersey" "School report card" is a broad search term. "New Jersey school report card" is a bit more specific, and turns up 41K Ghits and 23 G-Nhits. Most of these are either Dependant(government-related/hosted) or unreliable(blogs, forums). The cases of independent, reliable sources (that are free to unregistered users) only mention it in passing. Instead, I believe the information relevant to the NJDoE should be added to that article, then a School Report Card article be created in similar fashion to this article: Gun laws in the United States (by state). Also, whatever we do with this article, we should do with Illinois School Report Card (wrether it be merge, delete, or keep(in which case it'd need to be expanded)). ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 00:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no requirement for sources to be free to unregistered users, or even available online, for them to be considered reliable.Jim Miller (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more limited query you provided missed articles such as [6], a New York Times article in which the official title is not used. The NYT article is a thorough discussion of that year's report card issuance. Also, Jim has a valid point. Per WP:V and WP:RS, there is no requirement that reliable, verifiable sources be available for free or even online at all. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I know. I'm just not willing to pay to read what the news article says. Several sources have been listed, so, assuming they're factual, notability isn't as much of an issue with me. Still, I'm sticking with my M & R view, based on conventions. What I mean is this: we don't have separate articles for [[<your state here> gun laws]]. In my mind, the reason for that is simple; this type of information is more useful when it can be compared to the same info from other states. It also presents the information in a more organized form:

More organized form
STATE REPORT CARD 
This is what a State School Report Card(SRC) is. This is what it does. These are the pros and cons of a state report card. This article organizes them by state: 

Alabama

This is what makes Alabama's SRP different from other states'. 

[Table of the Alabama's grades]

Alaska

Maybe Alaska doesn't have a SRC? 

Arkansas

This is what makes Arkansas' SRC different.

[Table of grades]

etc... 

etc...
I'm not suggesting we delete this information as useless garbage. I'm pointing out the best way to present the information in regards to the reader. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per above. --ZeWrestler Talk 01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New Jersey School Report card is a regular review of the progess and performance of individual schools and districts throughout the state performed and issued by the state Department of Education. It is one of the most referenced works of the state government by reliable sources. As a primary reference used by reliable sources, it's mentions are not trivial, and its WP:NOTE notability is well established. Te article needs some serious work, especially in referencing, but that is not a reason for deletion. Jim Miller (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how does that address the non-notability issue for this thing? Húsönd 15:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Deletion policy requires consideration of expansion or alternatives to deletion, including the consideration of merging into an existing article. I see equal justification for keeping the article, and I'm not alone, but is there any response to the alternative of a merge rather than delete? Alansohn (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not understand your complaint. Everybody has explored alternatives to deletion, but some do not find anything in this article that is worth saving, thus not calling for a merger. What's your point? Húsönd 16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are just as many who prefer keeping the material in this article, either on its own or merged elsewhere. Would you have deleted this information if it were in the article for the New Jersey Department of Education or is your preference for deletion based on its placement in a separate article? Would you object to a merge? Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No I wouldn't object. I don't think that the content of this article is particularly useful for an encyclopedia, but I guess it wouldn't harm somewhere else. I recommend deletion, but a merger would not represent a problem. Húsönd 17:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding notability, consider these publications which discuss or cite the NJSRC:
        • Disertation: Ronald Renaldi, "The New Jersey School Report Card: A case study of the initiation of a state-level accountability system for local public schools."; Order Number 9236892
        • Book: Priceton University Press: "Choosing Schools: Consumer Choice and the Quality of American Schools" p.70; ISBN 0691092834
        • Federal government report: National Education Goals Panel, "Strategies for Meeting High Standards: Quality Management and the Baldrige Criteria in Education" pp.34, 104; ISBN 142896536X
        • Book: Susan Laird Mody, "Cultural Identity in Kindergarten: A Study Of Asian Indian Children in New Jersey" pp. 50, 85-86; ISBN 0415972086
        • Book: Yaro and Hiss, "A Region at Risk: The Third Regional Plan for the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Metropolitan Area", pp. 42, 196; ISBN 1559634928
      • I think it is pretty clear that notability is demonstrated. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm impressed. Book-length treatment is usually the gold standard for reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's see if I get this straight. This article has been around for years, and now it suddenly becomes referenced by sources that cannot be verified online and which still do not reveal why is this subject notable for inclusion? Who's been reading those references? Shouldn't references be used to compile an article in the first place, not the other way around? Or did these sources just decide to drop by for coffee after all these years? Ludicrous. Húsönd 20:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually these sources were found via Google Books. Please AGF and don't jump to conclusions. I haven't been involved in editing this article yet. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • To clarify, I am trying to make the case for inclusion and expansion. Yes, the article needs work, but that isn't a reason to delete it, it is a reason to expand and work on it. I don't see how this is ludicrous. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • This has nothing to do with WP:AGF, this has to do with actual verifiability of sources and, still, notability (needless to say that not everything that is verifiable on this planet is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia). And it is ludicrous because any junk could be kept on Wikipedia if we were to just dig up some sources or mentions somewhere about it, but still fail to address crucial issues such as notability for inclusion. Those efforts may still have the best intentions, I'm not contesting that, but I think that in the end they bring more damage than benefit. Húsönd 21:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to see why this is at all relevant to the AfD discussion, as that is exactly what the Article Rescue Squadron is designed to do - try to bring AfD nominated articles up to standard during their AfD discussions. As to your above comment, I very often add sources to articles after they appear here. While I believe that this article was proposed in good faith due to lack of sources, it is not unheard of for some anxious editors to propose articles for deletion just to try to get other people to do the necessary cleanup. In the interest of full disclosure, I am the editor that added the references found by User:ChrisRuvolo, because they are appropriate. Jim Miller (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Demonstrates notability; and per Chrisruvolo and Alansohn above. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: For the interested, New Jersey's school report card system was apparently one of the topics of discussion of the national governor's association meeting in 1996, and the NGA published a pamplet about it. I got the article off LexisNexis, and a pay version is here, but I don't think there's a free copy. I've also added some quotes and discussion from a 1996 philadelphia enquirer feature piece (again found on LN) that was published about it. Vickser (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've completely rewritten the page, including a good number of WP:RS (including NYTimes ones which are online and free) and would encourage everyone to take another look. I found plenty of substantive articles about the subject. It turns out New Jersey's School Report card was the first program of its kind in the nation, which is some extra notability. After all the research, I'm going to go ahead and throw a vote out for Keep. This program was revolutionary, continues to this day, and has plenty of coverage. Vickser (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good job on the re-write, even if I don't agree on the format. Do you think it's been expanded five-fold? Might be a good nominee for DYK. Anyway, since the nom has withdrawn, someone might as well close this AfD. I don't think it's at all a good candidate for deletion. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea. It's been expanded fivefold on the 11th. The last version of the body of the text from the 10th had 144 words, current version has 966. I don't think it's okay to nominate things for DYK while there's still an ongoing afd, so I'll see if an uninvolved admin thinks this would be appropriate for an early close since the nominator withdrew his request. And if you have any format objections, please go ahead and fix! Vickser (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no prejudice to a sourced recreation which is substantially different to the deleted version and addresses the concerns below. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gökmen A. Noyan

edit
Gökmen A. Noyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete claimed to be one of the finest trumpetists - in whose opinion - but no sources showing that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belvedere Estate (New York)

edit
Belvedere Estate (New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. The Belvedere Estate is just a house. The article is now mainly about the talks and prayers of Rev. Moon with Unification Church members which took place there. An article on that would be fine. (I am a UC member BTW.) If the house itself was notable the article would talk about when it was built, by whom, etc. Right now it starts with its purchase by the UC in the 1970s. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Redirect/Merge (merge was already done on day of article listing) per consensus (non-admin closure).--Finalnight (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1998 demo tape

edit
1998 demo tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC, promo only releases (and demos) are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Into either Sum 41 or Half Hour of Power (since 3 out of 4 tracks are re-recorded for it and it shares the same album artwork. (by the way, what is it with the Deletionists recently? I've seen over 5 articles that i've been involved with get nominated for AfD's in the past 2 days.) - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 17:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've merged the data from 1998 demo tape into HHOP. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 17:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasp Factory Recordings

edit
Wasp Factory Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable label. No reliable sources, only acts seem to be non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further evidence: WP:MUSIC states that "A musician or ensemble is notable if it has had some sort of recognition by professional organizations" - met notability as per Young Music Professionals Award; "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable" - met notability for Tarentella Serpentine who did vocals for Sheep On Drugs; "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" - met notability for Cheltenham & Gloucester through Judder nightclub; etc. etc. etc. The article does need more sources, so perhaps change AFD to WP:VERIFY ? Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep - nomination shows unfortunately poor judgement on the part of the nominator, and appears to be part of a mass nomination after people objected to his nomination of DeathBoy. Appears to be a nomination from ignorance. I don't question his good faith, but I do question his judgement in these particular nominations - David Gerard (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Umm ... DeathBoy was nominated by tomasz. This was nominated by Ten Pound Hammer. Care to explain or retract your comment? --Bardin (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting per RyRy's[citation needed] concerns of notability. Good idea, RyRy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Several comments to keep by people aware of the label IRL and familiar with that corner of the music scene. Comments to delete by barrrack-room lawyers only interested in wiki power politics and sniping through the obscure corners of the rulebook. None of these editors appear to have any previous interest in or connection with the UK industrial scene. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like Throbbing Gristle and Cabaret Voltaire, so I do have previous interest in the UK Industrial Scene (although I can't speak for anyone else). We are not lawyers, or "snipping through obscure corners in the rulebook". We're using the set guidelines on Wikipedia, and WP:RS and WP:V are not obscure rules. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 19:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A change which I clearly stated I had done in my above comment and gave a clear, and I believe valid, reason for. Duffbeerforme (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 06:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
news:alt.gothic / news:uk.people.gothic is a robust primary source for showing the existence of the '90s net.goth movement and the place of Wasp Factory within this this. Google Groups is an adequate, but reliable, secondary archive of this. The fact that everyone on Usenet is insane doesn't change this. You wouldn't trust Usenet to tell you what day of the week it is, but studying Usenet from outside is perfectly reasonable as a way to observe a Usenet-hosted culture in its original environment. This is not only reliable, it's the most reliable way to do it. Access to the primary materials through a reliably objective secondary archive is always going to be better than secondary or tertiary commentary on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia relies most heavily on secondary sources; google groups (a forum) cannot be considered a reliable source per WP:RS. News outlets (BBC and NME, for example) would go a bit further toward establishing the claim of notability. Also, sometimes a notable act does not make its label notable - if the label were "at the forefront" of a movement, that should be documented at some reliable source, somewhere independent of the label itself. B.Wind (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google Groups isn't just a forum, it's also a reliable archive of Usenet. Usenet is a forum, but our intention here isn't to use the content of that forum as a source (as I pointed out, everyone on Usenet is insane), rather it's to document the existence on that forum of the pre-web net.goth movement of the '90s. Google Groups is an excellent and reliable source for doing so. Wasp Factory was a significant aspect of that community, both on-line and IRL. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I've replied to the previous comment... This article makes no substantive assertion of notability for the label (the fact that a good number of notable acts "have come and gone" from the label does not confer notability on Wasp Factory). In addition, more space is dedicated on the label's unsourced, undated, release list than discussing the workings, history, and business of the label - almost always a bad sign when trying to demonstrate the notability of a record label. Delete for lack of reliable sources in the article showing sufficient independent coverage demonstrating the assertions mentioned above. B.Wind (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable bands do not imply notable label. My corner Kwik-E-Mart sells such notable producuts as gasoline, Cheez-its and Pepsi, and yet still does not have an article of its own. HiDrNick! 11:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As it stands, the article is reading like an advertisement (i.e. npov), and there doesn't seem to be much information supporting the notability. While there is an interview and a thrid-party bio, it seems quite minimalistic concerning this group. There is a list of releases trying to show impact, but having a mostly red-linked list tends to look awkward under the notability aspect. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't redlinks until the tag-team deleted them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stevenage Council election, 2003

edit
Stevenage Council election, 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A table of the results of a local election. Does not seem to pass WP:N or to merit a separate article in view of WP:NOT#NEWS. No substantial secondary coverage of this election as such that I could find. Nsk92 (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are some precedents here but they don't look entirely convincing to me. Both Birmingham and Philadelphia are major cities, with population over a million people each. By comparison, Stevenage has population of 80,000. This seems rather small to me to merit a separate encyclopedia article about the full results of municipal elections for a given year. Information like that seems to more properly belong in some reference book, not an encyclopedia. If the article gave some kind of substantive information about the election campaign and the issues involved, I would probably feel different. But simply to give a table with the numerical results? I am also not entirely convinced by the notability argument. Even if we assume that the election was extensively covered by the local newspaper, The Comet, would that be enough to establish notability. In my experience we usually require evidence of significant wider national coverage for various political events in order for articles about them to be included. Nsk92 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly there are also the Norfolk County AFD which is for a smaller population (60,000 ish) and the Kettering one is for a very similar population. Also making a judgement based on population seems to go directly against WP:NOT#PAPER - if we can write a reasonable article on it there is no reason why we should not. WP:NOT#STATS requires that statistics such as election results provide sufficient context for a general reader and I fails to see how this article does not do that. I would also note the BBC nationally provides a page for each council and it's overall results. Despite this I would also point out that nowhere does any policy or guideline require that coverage be national or international and I have pointed to a source which will have significant coverage of this election offline. Basically I fail to see why this article needs deleting as there is enough coverage in reliable sources to write an article in a neutral point of view way without any original research which is what I thought our content policies and guidelines were designed to achieve. Davewild (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Does anybody really care? Dreamspy (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks as though an AFD should be opened grouping all the Stevenage council election pages together, as there are quite a few of them, each with similar content. -Verdatum (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks like a case of WP:NOT#STATS, it's just a bunch of result tables. If it actually described notable accounts of the election through reliable sources, then I'd be fine with it, but I don't think you'll find anything beyond local reports. -Verdatum (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have innumerable such pages of local election results and despite WP:Useful, WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS and all the rest it is useful and these tabulated results provide an encyclopaedic resource. The page is sourced and complies with WP:V which is the policy requirement. Further, there are now sources that meet WP:N. I see no convincing deletion argument. TerriersFan (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per TerriersFan. America69 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason to keep. Failing WP:N is a good reason to delete. It is not encyclopedic to keep a result of every town, county, prefecture, precinct, etc's voting results. That is an almanac. There are many things that I would find useful that do not meet encyclopedic muster, but that does not give me the right to start compiling endless pages of data. This data may be WP:V, but I think violates WP:N by being singly sourced (perhaps by multiple coverages), and covered for a very short time. I could see if there were a notable problem that came up (forgive me for using an American example, but for example Florida's narrow decision in 2000), the extended coverage would grant notability. Aside from that, I see no notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I am withdrawing my delete opinion, but will not add my voice to keep. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from the very first line of Wikipedia:Five pillars that defines wikipedia - "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs". Wikipedia is meant to cover things that appear in almanacs contrary to what you have said. WP:NOT#PAPER is also very relevant and I fail to see any reason why this needs to be deleted. Davewild (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect all to List of countries. This is an interim solution until someone can fulfill the suggestion at the bottom of this page regarding a list of country changes in a centralised ___location. At that point, I'd recommend retargetting the redirects to that page instead of the base "List of countries". Daniel (talk) 03:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Countries by year

edit
Countries by year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary list of really unnecessary lists. Lists of countries by year? They don't change that much at all, so the lists are all just copies of each other. Also seems to be a duplicate of Sovereign states by year and its individual lists.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all duplicate and unnecessary lists. They pretty much duplicate themselves and List of countries:

List of countries in 1999 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries in 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries in 2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries in 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries in 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries in 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries in 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries in 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries in 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of countries in 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Something Else yeah, that's a non-standard AFD statement! I don't know what I'm saying here exactly... not delete, not keep, not merge... I understand what the page authors are trying to convey here, and I've often wondered myself when and how countries come into and out of existence... I see value in the idea but shudder at the implementation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete List of countries that is pretty much the same in every article and provides no useful information. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Something Else I agree with PaulMcDonald - I think it would be interesting to see a list of countries and when they were founded and/or dissolved - but this is not the way to do it. Addionne (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Someway Else What criterion will be used to define a country? Countries like Taiwan, Israel, Burma, Myanmar, etc are all contested under different circumstances. Presenting this list runs the risk of being NPOV. HatlessAtless (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider a merge and then Delete, for reasons listed below. As the nominator points out, something else has already been done in the form of Sovereign states by year. This one is slightly different, adding as it does colonies and dependencies that aren't sovereign (and which definitely aren't "countries"). As with the state leaders by year project, the sovereign states project takes into account the political changes of each year, and has criteria dividing between states recognized by the United Nations, and those that aren't recognized by the UN. It would be up to the project managers (via the talk page) to decide whether they want to add more entities. Mandsford (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I'm the basically the only editor of these pages. While I like these pages and would like to see more of them, I'm certainly incapable of writing them all on my own, and it doesn't really look like anyone else is that interested. So I vote to Merge the dependent territory information into Sovereign States by Year and then delete the lists. They were fun to work on, but they don't really seem to be working out. Also, I'm intrigued by the Do Something Else votes. Does anyone have any ideas on how they'd like to see it done? If you do, it'd be great if you could leave some comments here or on my talk page. Thanks. Orange Tuesday (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to one article that describes changes in countries by year but i can;t figure ot what to call it.--Serviam (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Skomorokh 19:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Tax

edit
Paradise Tax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a neologism that has not gained wide usage. A Google search returns few examples of the phrase being used. Lincolnite (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This term is very popular in Hawaii (as mentioned) and is even used in local Newspapers, and in a few books about higher prices in hawaii, I think everyone from hawaii knows this term. On google I found quite a couple artikels, to support that this term exist. [[8]] Superwolfi (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be a notable enough concept/expression. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Skomorokh 10:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tauranga Eastern Motorway

edit
Tauranga Eastern Motorway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable proposed motorway. Construction not even expected to begin until maybe 2009, or maybe not till 2019[9]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When it was created, it was WP:COPYVIO. Beyond rewording to get around that, creator has done nothing. Plenty of time to add in those other sources or at least still be active. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy with real life. It is a signficant project for the region. You can not expect articles on a evoling project to be prefect and comprehensive at creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardLJohnston (talk • contribs) 09:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Kri Yoga

edit
Chi Kri Yoga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable yoga derivative. Fails the general notability guideline, with the only info I can find being 1) their website and 2) this page. Ironholds 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was deleted. Feel free to recreate when the album comes out/multiple reliable sources adequately satisfy notability. —Dark talk 13:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T-pain is dead (T-Pain Album)

edit
T-pain is dead (T-Pain Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Source listed is an interview with the artist that contains two sentences about this album. TN‑X-Man 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winger84 (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, artist statements are hardly ever reliable. They have very little say in their A&R anymore, as opposed to ten years ago. --Winger84 (talk) 21:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand where you're coming from, but let's let this AfD finish up first. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 22:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said,there have been 2 previous versions of this page that were redirected due to non-notablity. Big T.V. Fan (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Downes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Jones (footballer)

edit
Jamie Jones (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hasn't played in a fully professional league and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient references in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Article can be easily re-created if (when?) it becomes demonstrably notable. Dweller (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gatehouse Gazette

edit
Gatehouse Gazette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Online publication, first issue less than a week old. No reliable secondary sources; the best we have is a mention on a Polish web site, no more than a list entry without any background information. Fails any applicable notability guideline I can think of. Google hits less than thirty, not all of which refer to this publication. Huon (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in response to OBM: I'm certain that a lot more people would cooperate to the article, were it not that we are not allowed to edit until the matter of it's possible deletion (which I certainly hope won't happen) is resolved. So that comment is really not all that valid. hildekitten

  • Kitten, in response to your response, I'm not entirely sure what you mean: there is and never has been any block or restriction on editing this article. Nevertheless, it certainly doesn't affect my main point regarding sources. OBM | blah blah blah 14:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of comments. First of all, the deletion tag is no ban on editing. Quite the contrary, if the issues raised can be solved via editing (for example by adding reliable sources to show notability), please go ahead and do so. Secondly, the sources added by Ottens are vastly insufficient. The aircraft carrier article by J.D. Roger doesn't mention the Gatehouse Gazette. It might be a source on carriers (though it'd probably still be considered unreliable), a source on the Gazette it's not. The Delphinius Tucker link mentions the Gatehouse Gazette, but it has severe shortcomings as a reliable source: It looks like a personal website, which practically automatically makes it unreliable by Wikipedia's standards. Furthermore, the author is himself a writer in the Gatehouse Gazette (and his website prominently mentions Mr Ottens, the Gazette publisher), so it's not quite independent. Finally, Steampunk Magazine also has a problem with sources, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep this article. I'll look for sources for that magazine, and if none can be found, I'll nominate it for deletion, too. Huon (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia's "rules" on sources state very clearly that they are guidelines, and while I acknowledge that the given sources are by no means perfect, they are sources still while there are literally dozens of un-sourced articles not even being considered for deletion. I know that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no argument to keep this, however I hope that the effort we as contributors of the Gazette undertake to make this article up to wikipedia's standards is considered and appreciated nonetheless. I wish to note then, that there are few reliable, third-party sources out there, outside of the mentionings of the Gazette on livejournals, blogs, and message boards, because its first issue was released a mere two weeks ago. With time, and the release of our second issue coming september, I trust there shall be wider coverage about the Gazette, producing further sources to verify the notability of this article. For now, I ask that you base your judgement about this article and indeed the Gazette on its merits, for its publication is, I think, significant to the development of steampunk as a subculture, as well the genre of dieselpunk. Ottens (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Don't you think there is a COI here, as you contribute to the magazine (and are used as a reference)?
  • The Gazette may become important, but there is nothing to say it is already. Delete or Userfy with option to recreate if it gains coverage in the future. The quality of the subject has no bearing on wether it merits an articleYobmod (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). WP:PROBLEMS with article continent are irrelevant to the suitability for inclusion of topics.Skomorokh 19:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Channelflip

edit
Channelflip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined the speedy on this one due to the links provided that show some third-party coverage. It's becoming clear that this is a self-made article, however, as I removed a lot of promotional stuff - "our company", a list of employees, etc. As I try to clean it up, I'm having doubts about the notability and the spaminess of the article. Tan | 39 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page was deleted so I rewrote the entire thing, there is very little text on the page so it's hardly promotional at all. I don't work for the company either, I just watch there shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantBell (talk • contribs) 14:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage from The Times, The Independent, and Wired is pretty solid. In addition to the WP:RS, a google search shows there's plenty of coverage in unreliable sources, which while not useable in wikipedia, does help push it over the edge for me in terms of notability. Vickser (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing promotional about the site on the wiki entry, and everything on the page can be gathered from there site. The statistics I did reference but that got removed for some stupid reason !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrantBell (talk • contribs) 19:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNA INCOME

edit
TNA INCOME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Exact replica of TNA Wrestlers Payroll and TNA payroll StaticGull  Talk  14:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TNA payroll

edit
TNA payroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete, exact replica of Tna Wrestlers Payroll StaticGull  Talk  14:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrative closure). No consensus to delete as the article has reliable sources and is indeed notable. This article was nominated for deletion not to long from it's creation. From there, the article did expand and reliable sources were found which proved it was notable. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Antifascist Front of Macedonia

edit
AfDs for this article:
Women's Antifascist Front of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete non notable organisation Mayalld (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is obviously not internationally known, but it is very notable in all of former Yugoslavia. For example, I doubt I know every separatist group in Israel which have an article on Wikipedia. Here's an article on the subject on Serbian Wikipedia link. Köbra Könverse 14:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tna Wrestlers Payroll

edit
Tna Wrestlers Payroll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:IINFO StaticGull  Talk  14:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe – Democracy – Esperanto

edit
Europe – Democracy – Esperanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only sources available are the party's own website and the Esperanto-language website of someone listed on that same site as a party candidate. Article says it's based on the articles on de.wiki and eo.wiki but the eo.wiki article is itself unsourced (as are all other language versions) and the de.wiki article has been deleted. Google search reveals no non-trivial sources beyond what I take to be straight translations of the eo.wiki article. Thus I believe this party fails notability. Pfainuk talk 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Maybe it can be mentioned in the Esperanto article. A political party that gets 1/4 of one percent of the vote sounds more like a lobby group to me. Mandsford (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep National political parties tend to be notable. I've found some reliable source coverage, but most is in french and behind the pay screen. In terms of free articles, Les Échos has an (albeit short) article entirely about the EDE [14] and a passing mention of them in another [15]. There are small but substantive mentions of the party in Le Figaro and Le Monde [16] I was able to get off Lexis Nexis which talk about the party as an example of all the peculiar parties in the 2004 election. It's also worth noting that the article seems mostly to be a translation of the one on French Wikipedia, where it's existed since 2004. Vickser (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether a national political party is notable depends, IMO, on the coverage the political party has received. If there are sources, by all means update the article to reflect them - in that case this process will do some good to the article and if it becomes clear to me that the party is notable I will withdraw the nomination per WP:AFD. But the only election they have fought (so far as I can see) was the 2004 European election in France, where there were (according to your second article) 168 lists of candidates split between 8 constituencies - an average of 21 parties per constituency. Many, I would suggest, are not notable.
    • Of your sources, I can't get at Le Monde without paying, so I can't comment on it. The second Les Echos is a passing mention as you say. The first - well, almost all of what it says about the party is quoted from the party itself - to the extent that I don't think we can reasonably call it a secondary source. Similarly this source from Ouest-France that I found after this nomination. Finally, the fr.wiki article is all very well, but the only source it gives is for vote count in the 2004 election, so I don't see that it establishes notability either. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone ahead and edited in the sources and would encourage you all to take a look. Pretty much from my reading of them, the EDE became a poster child of ridiculous parties running in the election. You're right that the Les Echos article does seem a bit biased. Looking around the archives of the site it seems they published party platforms for some of the groups running in the election, and EDE was selected as that. To clarify, I don't think being on french wikipedia is necessarily a definitive "this is notable" thing, but I do think that notability is independent of language, and its longstanding existance there makes me more inclined to believe it is likely to be notable. If people do still believe it's not worthy of a separate article, I'd probably encourage a redirect and section in Esperanto. In the Le Figaro article it mentions the party as one of only 13 that will be present in almost all constinuancies. Vickser (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surely a political party which gets 0.25% of the vote is the exemplar of un-notability? This is the kind of thing which might make a footnote on a article about Esperanto. A good chunk of the Google results on this group are from Wikipedia and mirrors. Surely being listed in Wikipedia can't count as notability for inclusion in Wikipedia! Blue-Haired Lawyer 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For google you're better off searching "Europe Démocratie Espéranto" instead of the English translation. That got me 3,620 hits from a whole bunch of different sites. Not enough that it proves notability off google alone, but enough that google doesn't dismiss the possibility of notability. Vickser (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Redirect at will.  Sandstein  19:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck you money

edit
Fuck you money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although sources are given to verify the subject's notability, it still seems like a nonsense-article to me. StaticGull  Talk  13:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 22:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Wilson

edit
Candice Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actress who has only had, as article states, "bit parts and extra roles". Promotional page which fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - some notability claimed but not backed up with sources. While the article suggests she had a principal role in a film, IMDB suggests only a minor role. A lead role in an off-Broadway play is suggested, as well as music production work, but I can't find any reliable sources for these.--Michig (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete -no reference. Chikwangwa (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)!vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Leonard(Bloom) 04:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Brown

edit
Maggie Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A nice looking woman, but not notable enough for encyclopedic content, especially by comparison with say Emme or Crystal Renn. Suggest merge into plus-size model somewhere if deemed valid by discussion over at that article 3RingCircus (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midpoint (band)

edit
Midpoint_(band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This page does not seem to meet any guidelines, the band does not have noteable members, does not have releases on noteable labels, etc. Hoponpop69 (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was close per WP:SNOW, silly rambling.  Sandstein  19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myths about eugenics

edit
Myths about eugenics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Aside from promoting an agenda, I see no reason why this article should exist. The relevant, sourced facts belong in the Eugenics article, and what constitutes a "myth" in this context is highly subjective anyway. Mycroft7 (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete no referencesChikwangwa (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)!vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close (non-admin closure), redirect that shouldn't be here. I've nominated it for speedy deletion as implausible anyway. AnturiaethwrTalk 14:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OAT

edit
OAT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonfitz (talk • contribs) 2008/07/02 09:31:34
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Stephens

edit
Stephanie Stephens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If we accept the crime notability that is currently being debated, this fails; if we consider it with common sense and the current notability guidelines then this is, although horrible, not a particularly notable crime, and therefore criminal. Ironholds 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; not of encyclopedic notability. Yes, it got headlines for a while, and was lurid, but is not really of any lasting significance. --MCB (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MCB. Wikipedia is not a place to list of every murderer, but an encyclopedia. To be kept the murderer should be either notable for some other event or the murder(s) of some significant level of notoriety. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete No clear evidence of particular or enduring notability beyond the time and locality affected, although there's enough there to hint that this may be the case. Happy to reverse this opinion if additional RS are added to the article to prove the point for genuine notability. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was redirect as already done. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terraced dynamics

edit
Terraced_dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

I included the information from this article in the article on Dynamics (music) and put an afd tag at the top of the article. However, nothing seems to happen, and it occurs to me that this is because I didn't create a discussion page for the deletion. Well, now I have done that as well.

The article Terraced dynamics was only one sentence long (actually, there is a second sentence, that pretty much repeats the first sentence). I included the information in the History section of the article on Dynamics, and elaborated a bit on the topic.

Terraced dynamics is referenced by a wikilink in the article Chamber music. This is, I believe, the only wikilink to the article. I will update it as soon as the article is deleted. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge. PhilKnight (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walsingham Public School

edit
Walsingham Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested proposed deletion. No reliable sources cited to establish notability of this defunct elementary school. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand If people have more information in print or newspaper form, they should be free to source it to the school. People should also expand the article by using the references in print or newspaper form. GVnayR (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's funny actually, I tagged this back in February as not having any information on notability, and you removed that tag without adding any such material. Now you are saying, if I understand correctly, that there must be some references establishing notability if only the right editor to find them would come along. As the creator of this article and a whole other raft of articles about defunct schools in Norfolk County, I would have thought you would be the one who could find such sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant to say is that people can look up old references in newspaper and printed material as well as look up information on other search engines (Yahoo, Dogpile, Alexa, Metacrawler are some good examples). Don't just use Google all the time because there's great stuff on other search engines. While I have created most of the Norfolk County defunct school articles myself, other Wikipedians with knowledge of the local should join in, find information, and cite it to printed references related to local history. It doesn't have to be a book; an article in the Simcoe Reformer will suffice. GVnayR (talk) 03:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I assume you have searched all these great resources you speak of, did you come up with any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources? Beeblbrox (talk) 03:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elementary schools are not regarded as worth a stand alone article. This has been long standing consensus - there is a current notability proposal which deals with this: Wikipedia:Notability (schools). People have usually referred to WP:NOTDIRECTORY as the nearest policy on this - that Wikipedia is not a directory of the local infrastructure. Tempting though it is to record every school in a region, the individual elements (each school) that make up that body of information is by wide and long-standing consensus considered not to be worth detailing in a stand alone article. The essay Wikipedia:Places of local interest is highly respected and provides excellent advice on how to deal with places of local interest, such as schools. Essentially, schools should be dealt with in the parent article on the local area. I have looked through Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario, and while most of the schools in that cat are simple single sentences, one or two have a body of information that is worth keeping - I particularly liked Nixon Public School (even if a lot of the information needs to be cut - while it's amusing to read that "In the winter time, students used to make snow forts, sing Christmas carols, and go tobogganing on the hills of snow that would develop on the school yard." that is not unique to that school - children play with the snow and sing carols in many schools!). My proposal is that Walsingham Public School and all the schools contained in Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario are redirected and merged into Grand Erie District School Board, which according to Norfolk_County,_Ontario#Education is the local school authority. The result of this is that:
1) all the information would be retained without any further AfD fights (and all the schools within Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario are open to AfD nominations which they would almost certainly lose);
2) all the information would be placed in the appropriate context for comparative study;
3) the parent article is not open for AfD nomination as it a regional school authority - such authorities are generally considered by consensus to be worth keeping, though it needs some reliable sources;
4) and when all the schools are gathered in one place they are viewed more often and more people will then add information - so all the schools benefit.
At the same time, Norfolk_County,_Ontario#Education should be rewritten to give an overview of the education system in Norfolk County, rather than merely a list of schools, and a link provided to [Grand Erie District School Board]] so that readers who wish to go deeper into the education in that area can find information on each school. By redirecting, a search for Walsingham Public School will take the reader direct to that school's information within the parent article. Nothing is lost and everything is gained. I would be quite willing to do the work needed. SilkTork *YES! 07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been thinking about this for a few days. Now I agree it would be better if the defunct Norfolk County school articles were consolidated into the parent article for comparison. However, the information from all of the defunct school articles should be merged into the Grand Erie District School Board article verbatim and the parent article should then be semi-protected. As for right now, I officially change my vote to redirect and merge. GVnayR (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I hate to start trouble when we seem so close to consensus here, but don't you think it's a little extreme to insist that every word be copied verbatim and protected? You may want to re-familiarize yourself with WP:OWN. As pointed out above, there are a lot of crufty details and original research in some of these articles. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • response to comment You're right, Beeblbrox. Maybe we should forget about protecting the parent article and think about omitting the following statement from Nixon Public School's part in this new enlarged parent article: "In the winter time, students used to make snow forts, sing Christmas carols, and go tobogganing on the hills of snow that would develop on the school yard." when we merge all the defunct Norfolk Public School information into the parent article. Otherwise, I still believe that every other word and sentence of information should copied verbatim. And don't put and AfD message on every elementary school article in Norfolk County. Add a merge message instead and people will get the point much more clearly. GVnayR (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a reasonable point. I don't have any objections to a Merge and Redirect and it has the added benefit of making people less likely to recreate solo articles. Vickser (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mangojuicetalk 17:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Walter Ogilvy

edit
Walter Ogilvy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a cut and past job from The Scots Peerage: Founded on Wood's Edition of Sir Robert Douglas's Peerage of Scotland. While the book is in the public ___domain, this paragraph he has pasted into an article provides little context and does little to establish notability. AniMate 14:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rewrite. He's obviously some sort of British noble. Granted, it all looks like gibberish, but that's because I'm American and don't understand this sort of thing. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some sort of Scottish Lord. from the source document. Dlohcierekim 14:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most of the people in that book are "some sort of Scottish lord". but that doesn't necessarily make them notable. AniMate 20:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can one be sure? I know very little of such matters. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to delete per rationale of nominator and per info from/rationale from Choess. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Void (band)

edit
The Void (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced autobiography of a band who haven't released anything yet. Fails WP:BAND, with no third-party coverage. PROD template was removed without discussion or addressing these concerns. Delete Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hambycomb

edit
Hambycomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable dictionary definition, also a neologism. TN‑X-Man 13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"L337 5p34k" or "text talk" are slowly being accepted as a form of grammar even though the words are in essence non-words. LOL is not a word, yet wiki has an article devoted to it as linked above.

Hambycomb is a new word in use and to be fair, surely the point of a site like wikipedia is to provide a free range of information to whatever the case may be, Hambycomb is not in a dictionary and its doubtful that it ever will be, it is nether-the-less a word that would warrent an explanation since it is getting to be used more commonly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodfred (talk • contribs) I am transcluding this as an edit made by the author of the article. S/he accidentally removed the rest of the debate. TN‑X-Man 18:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sorry, but I disagree. Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:N) don't seem to indicate that this is the place for this article. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic; barely even a neologism, since the article claims it has no definition. The argument that every word was once a neologism fails; notability is not speculative toward the future. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neologisms - No set definition does not mean it is not valid. Most poetry/art that is listed on wiki merely states someones opinion, therefore not having a set definition of purpose. The arguement does not fail, and notability most certainly DOES speculate towards the future, consider backranims for 1 example of words transgressing their original purpose to suit another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodfred (talk • contribs)
  • Delete absolute and total garbage/vanity. Also please block the sockpuppet farm. JuJube (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I agree with Thegoodfred, this is not an example as it has no connection to literature or any other work. I more agree with JuJube: It look more like self-promotion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolute and total garbage? thats hardly a convincing arguement, I sincerely hope s/he isn't a wiki administrator. This is not self promotion and if that was the case i'd gladly remove my name from the document if it makes you happy. At no point have I claimed to have founded this word, as noted this word has been attempted to be added to wikipedia twice (seperately) already. This word has several connections already within the MMORPG and FPS online gaming culture.Thegoodfred (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for making a good case for this article to not only be deleted but salted. The fact that FPS clan kiddos think something is important is a pretty clear indicator that it's not. JuJube (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I use this word frequntly, as does my FPS/RTS gaming clan. Now i'm never to quick on gaming terms as and when they come about so when i heard this i had no idea so decided to search for its meaning. I couldnt find it on the usual "1337 sp34k" sites so googled it and eventually came across this wiki entry. New to the world of wiki so shocked at how you can all get your knickers in a twist over the inclusion of htis word, but surely if i know of it, and searched for its meaning no less, then it deserves/requires an entry into this site so other gamer slike myself can find its meaning/origin? Neologisms/unencyclopedic/absolute and total garbage/vanity?? please, you sound like abunch of old fish wives.Kapustinyar (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)— Kapustinyar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • And you sound like a pathetic kid. JuJube (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There we are having a friendly debate then this JuJube comes along and starts being insulting. There is no point degrading this into a 'slagging' match because I am trying to make a valid point here... and btw JuJube Kapustinyar said FPS/RTS I said MMORPG and FPS... I don't think anyone has claimed its exclusively FPS. Thegoodfred (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I would agree with TheGoodFred and Kapustinyar. I play numerous online games, including FPS/RTS/MMORPG and this word is being thrown around more and more. I searched for a couple of weeks on different search engines and found nothing until this article appeared. This word is being used, and with more regularity. So surely it deserves an explantion somewhere. I can think of no better place then on Wiki. Now i don't know what JuJube's problem is, but you do seem to be making this a bit personal. Also JuJube could you please keep the insults to yourself as they are not constructive in this discussion. Otherwise I will contact the site admin.Viperuk98 (talk)— Viperuk98 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - I think there is a misunderstanding here. Whether the word is in use or not is irrelevant. The mitigating circumstance is that Wikipedia is not here about facts or truth, but rather about what can be verified. There has been no demonstration that this can be verified. If WP:V cannot be met, the article does not belong. LonelyBeacon (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, if I go onto the website with the game to verify its original false existance and provide a picture on the listing, that classes it as evidence and proof and ergo permissable as an item. It will be done! Thegoodfred (talk)
Comment - Also, the word needs coverage in third-party reliable sources. Proof that the word was invented is not enough by itself. TN‑X-Man 13:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at your leisure. Thegoodfred (talk)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Skomorokh 19:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Chilean

edit
Spanish Chilean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another made-up ethnicity. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hamid Al Zaidi

edit
Abdul Hamid Al Zaidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about a person of questionable notability. 449 Ghits, may be autobiographical. JuJube (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 20:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Hetherington case

edit
AfDs for this article:
William Hetherington case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is about a man who claims to have been wrongfully convicted of spousal rape and sentenced to an inordinate amount of prison time for it. I've searched online, but the only thing that looks like a reliable source is an account that was already the only source for the entire article (there are two references, but they're to different pages of the same document); everything else is blogs or advocacy (spelling?) groups. I know it's not a good enough reason for deletion itself, but I should note that the Orphanage has tried to de-orphan this article, and there's nothing to which to link it. The article was previously kept in AFD over New Years' 2005/2006: the four "keep" or "do not delete" votes were all either "it's helpful" or "cleanup and expand", with no valid reasons for keeping even provided. Overall, I nominate for deletion because, as the nom in the previous discussion said, the case seems unnotable and the article seems written to push an agenda. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rex, you possibly meant 'per John Z'. PhilKnight (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There does appear to be a fairly strong case for merging here, although at this point I would prefer discussion on that matter to continue on the talk page (or that of the intended target). Shereth 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mousesports

edit
Mousesports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable organization. no coverage in reliable third party sources per googlenews search. only source is the organizations own web site. article appears to be for self promotional/vanity reasons -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary for the nominator to comment in the fashion above. It's assumed that the nominator supports deletion of the article. (For future reference.) MuZemike (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google News Results- your statement is obviously blatant and unverified. Mousesports has numerous sponsors and partners and cannot be considered to be lacking attention worthy of Wikipedia. DarthBotto talk•cont 19:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with Izno on this subject and I would like to voice my own opinion on this matter and the point of view that I see it. Mousesports has been in existance since 2002 and has gained notoriety in the subject of eSports matches. This page is a valuable asset for the G7 Teams as are the other pages on G7 teams that The Red Pen of Doom seems to have failed to notice. This page has been updated with information taken from its website and the Nihilum website, both eSport giants. I cannot edit this page in the fashion of its gaming achievements, in accordance to the fact that the website it owns is almost entirely in the German language. Also, because TheRedPenOfDoom doubts the authenticity of this page and the fact that the user cannot derive information about its background shows that the user does not have the suitable knowledge to judge this page, as written articles for deletion.
Besides the point, this user has had an entire 63 complaints from other users regarding lacking information, vandalism and biased opinionation. When I asked the administrators to unlock the deleted Nihilum page and create a simple re-direction for the WoW guild/eSports organization, they complied and looked over the Mousesports page. They admitted it was not perfect but allowed it to stay so that I could clean it up, which I have been doing. I find this deletion request ridiculous, because this page has been around for years and the administrators have been watching it. Sure, it may have been on the WikiProject Pro Gaming list, but that was with the purpose to better the page, not delete it! Also, I put that up for others with a better understanding of German to assist me. That is my full opinion on the matter of deleting the Mousesports page. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment' if you can find reliable, third party, secondary sources and add them to the article to verify your claims of notability, I will withdraw the nomination. Currently, the article still fails Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 13:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N/A

edit
AfDs for this article:
N/A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article seems to be a list of definitions, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the article should either be moved to Wiktionary via the transwiki process, or deleted. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 09:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT. And wiktionary already has this info.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even author wants it deleted. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InterModule

edit
InterModule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seens to be a non-notable sourceforge project; fails WP:NOTABILITY. Ironholds 11:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the WP:NOTABILITY guideline does this article fail? I'd like to improve it, although improving it doesn't really help notability all that much, but don't delete it yet.. (I forgot how to put the holdon template to stop deletion). 'Coz I just wanna fix it before it goes... *weep* Juggernaut0102 (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.". Ironholds 11:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only a kid... what exactly does that mean..? (sorry for such a dumb question) Juggernaut0102 (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to have recieved some kind of media coverage, i.e articles in newspapers, awards, so on so forth. Ironholds 11:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that it'll have to stay deleted until some significant media coverage arrives, and only then can I create the page on it? Juggernaut0102 (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most likely yes. If you feel it has a chance of surviving the articles for deletion process, you can leave the page where it is. If you feel like saving some time, on the other hand, because I honestly dont think it will pass, just add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Ironholds 11:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'll last till then... Please leave it - it might get some coverage soon, though it'll be quite hard because it is maintained by an individual - me. Juggernaut0102 (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but I can just about guarantee it won't pass. If you know it has no independent coverage, why bother wasting time? Ironholds 11:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only doing this not for advertising: but to tell people a bit about my project. I'M NOT ADVERTISING, so don't get the wrong idea.. hehehe Juggernaut0102 (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"to tell people a bit about my project" Sorry, but that's advertising :) --Cybercobra (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't say you were, but it's a non-notable project. I can say with certainty that it will be deleted; keeping it at AfD, while your choice, just wastes people's time. Ironholds 11:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Sexxx

edit
Lego Sexxx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable band. "Fourth wave of ska" is pie in the sky. Prod removed by anon without significant alteration. tomasz. 10:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G3 criteria. Note the article was deleted before this AFD was closed. Non admin closure. Steve Crossin (contact) 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velocity Championship Wrestling (VCW)

edit
Velocity Championship Wrestling (VCW) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

From what I can tell this is a Game Fed and clearly not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I was forced to discount almost all "keep" opinions. Mostly, they were appeals to usefulness or interest – or, in the case of Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, bland boilerplate that seems to become less meaningful each time I see it at AfD. But with the exception of JoshuaZ, the "keep" proponents did not address the policy-based issues raised here: Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is interesting or useful to somebody, and our well-established inclusion criteria require significant coverage by independent reliable sources. This means the article is deleted (an editorial redirect may be created) until it is recreated based on sources such as those cited by JoshuaZ.  Sandstein  19:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khorne

edit
Khorne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not cite any reliable sources which attest to the notability of the subject matter, one of the khaos gods that influences some of the in-universe game mechanics included in any of their numerous codexes and Games Workshop-sanctioned expansions. As an individual item or as a collection with his other chaos gods, none of these items have any real world notability, nor have any of my attempts to find sources to the contrary borne fruit. The notability of this topic cannot be verified by reliable sources, and should deleted as has been done in the past. In addition, Khorne is already discussed in sufficient detail in a more suitable umbrella article. --Allemandtando (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I swear that I read some metal mag in the 80s which devoted some time to exploring the subject, but in general the pantheons of random fantasy universes are sourced entirely to their creators and have no notability outwith getting Bolt Thrower songs named after them. Consolidation to a single article will reduce WP's fancruft burden and act as an incubator if anyone ever does find reliable secondary sources which cover them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bolthammer thing is mentioned in one of the other articles on this subject (I'm struggling to remember which one because many of the warhammer articles repeat the same thing across 10 or 20 articles). --Allemandtando (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me make my comment more clear. I stumbled across the horde of Games Workshop stuff on Wikipedia accidentaly recently, not having played Games Workshop in 15 years. On looking at several articles, it rapidly became clear to me that the vast majority of them have no real world significance and no independent sources. Without these, there are no grounds for keeping around 90% of the articles involved, although given their probable popularity as search terms, a redirect might be more useful than a delete.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, nobody is proposing that these not be left as redirects. This is pretty standard for AfDs where the title is a valid reference to a parent subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Are there any independent sources for the Hobbit entry? Delete that? No. This is still an important entry that needs to stay. If it is to be deleted, then there are a lot more that need to be deleted as well that I think also add value to WP. 14:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RenegadeMinds (talk • contribs)
There are currently 6 independent reliable sources in the hobbit article. Are you really claiming that it would be difficult to find 100s of others to go in that article? really? --Allemandtando (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A few weeks ago, I looked up Warhammer 40K on wikipedia after stumbling across various references to it elsewhere over time. I spent several pleasurable and informative hours reading through the various Wikipedia entries on the topic, learning quite a bit about the subject. A few days ago, google directed me back to the Khorne page when I searched for a specific phrase ("Blood for the blood god") that I've been seeing around. I was shocked to discover someone had blanked and redirected the page to the main 40K article. This makes no sense to me. By all rights, long articles like the main one should be broken down into smaller, more specific and in depth articles. Instead, here, someone is advocating doing the exact opposite - deleting information and cramming whatever is left into what's already a long article. Is this the future of Wikipedia? Less information in fewer, harder to read entries? If so, this will kill a lot of the value and usefulness of this website. I'm not a registered editor, just one of the millions of random people who use Wikipedia as a first line reference and a learning tool. I'm your target audience. I hope my vote counts for something. 24.42.68.128 (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC) — 24.42.68.128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - This is completely unnecessary without coverage in third party reliable sources. TTN (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No citations to indicate significant coverage by multiple third-party sources. --EEMIV (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and probably combine with other similar ones to make a combination article. The assertion in the nomination that this content is unsuitable even as a combination article shows the determination to remove content which is certainly relevant to the subject.DGG (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Yet you, like Le Grand Roi, assert notability with absolutely no evidence of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and combine. It's fluff but it's useful to many people, and interesting to many others. Just because a few don't like/understand it doesn't mean it should be deleted. Besides, it IS linked to something in the real world anyway; a game. Therefore, following the course of logic presented, shouldn't the entires surrounding the universes of MGS, Metroid Prime, Halo, and many other lengthy fictional universes be up for deletion or stripping to their bare bones as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.232.197 (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes, yes they should. --Allemandtando (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major figures in major games are suitable as subarticles. I assume this game is important enough, but I do not have any knowledge on that point. Conceivably merge to a list of characters without loss of content. Notability for a spinoff article need be only that of the main topic, and references from primary sources are adequate for fictional content. DGG (talk) 07:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep There are in fact many reliable sources that discuss this character. See for example [22]. There's also an article about Khorne in some detail from the September-October 20006 Computer Games Magazine which is unfortunately not online. If I'm not mistaken all the chaos gods including Khorne are discussed in the book "Nerds: Who They Are and Why We Need More of Them" by David Anderegg which is a real, honest-to-goodness independent dead-tree sources. There are apparently other non-online sources as well. The sources exist which are enough to justify keeping. That said, I don't see any serious problem with merging this to some larger article about all the chaos gods. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
which can be found at Chaos_(Warhammer) --Allemandtando (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In such cases, we would merge and redirect without deleting. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 12:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Bonavita

edit
Jenna Bonavita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable individual, no assertion of notability & no sources. Jenna Bonavita Taekwondo -wikipedia gets 481, "Jenna Bonavita" musician -wikipedia gets 91 Nate1481(t/c) 08:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have wikified the article and cited some sources. It was so easy to find sources that I am now doubly sure of her notability. Plasticup T/C 12:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure how notable SAMIA is, and sadly their website section on their awards doesn't work, so that doesn't help. I've never heard of them, but then in the UK I wouldn't expect to necessarily! Ged UK (talk) 14:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 12:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RAW (animanga)

edit
RAW (animanga) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod (original reason was "non-notable, covered in other articles, small, almost like a how-to article"). Article reads as a dictionary definition with no inbound links. Shiroi Hane (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Shiroi Hane (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neologism --Ged UK (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Raw is a necessary definition - once you have scanlation or fansub you must have a term for the unedited original. --Gwern (contribs) 19:54 8 July 2008 (GMT)
    Comment. Translation has been around a lot longer than anime and manga, and there already is a definition - Source text. The Harry Potter books have been translated into many languages, officially and unofficially, but I don't see anyone calling the original English version the "RAW". Shiroi Hane (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Source text does not account for the digital component. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It might be a necessary definition, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't see any way this article can expand beyond a definition, unless it was just information redundant to fansubbing. No clue what the all caps is for, it's only called "RAW" so you take notice and don't download the wrong thing... -Verdatum (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dictionary definition. No possibility of expansion. Doceirias (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is born from fundamental misunderstandings that suggest (much like the total lack of sources) that the creator shouldn't have made the article in the first place. This term is not unique to anime/manga translation, nor does it have any relation to it - I believe it's a term related to digital video editing (referring to raw, uncompressed video data, prior to being edited and refined into a form appropriate for release), and was simply adopted by the fansubbers (who have to reencode the video files and thus would know enough to know jargon like that) to refer to the equivalent step in their own process, and the scanlators adopted it from the fansubbers, and then the community picked up the term. As such, an article titled "RAW (animanga)" is a mistake from the beginning, because it should be "RAW (digital media)" or something like that...and in that case the creation of such an article should be left to people who actually know a thing or two about digital media, rather than people like the article creator (who apparently thinks fansubbers invented that use of the word) or me (who knows just enough to pretend he knows what he's talking about). 65.33.206.108 (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep, Rename to RAW (digital media), and expand - The scope of the article is very narrow right now. However judging by the number of google hits (+444,000 "RAW Anime"[24] and +470,000 "RAW manga [25]) it's fair to say the term is commonly use specifically to denote unmodified source material. RAW as it related to digital media can also mean, comics books, movies, television, or any other digital item that are unmodified or untranslated. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - dictionary definition. PhilKnight (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion didn't generate much, but rather than relisting I decided to go sifting through sources to see if I could find anything. The book link provided below doesn't bring up the subject by search, but it'll still entirely possible there is more than a passing mention in it, however: two library catalog searches, web searches, and ProQuest newspaper archives search failed to bring up any sources at all, let alone ones that confirm notability. If the character is indeed notable for several appearances, I suggest a very abbreviated paragraph or such in a 'list of'. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Mink

edit
Minerva Mink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Just a minor character in Animaniacs. Has also been tagged as uncited for other six months. Buc (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was she though? Buc (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
She did have her own segment in a few episodes. It seems like she is discussed on a couple pages in this book, but I haven't been able to find anything else. Zagalejo^^^ 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Skomorokh 19:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuevo Estadio Azul

edit
Nuevo Estadio Azul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has no references, is uncategorized, the grammar is confusing, and using words such as the machine and blue cross, what are those words suppose to mean for this article? Erik93 (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VCENotes

edit
VCENotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business vacation

edit
Business vacation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable neologism Ged UK (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bduke (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Notable Native Americans of the United States

edit
List of Notable Native Americans of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not an appropriate page for Wikipedia. There is no criteria for "notable" Native Americans. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are notability criteria for people generally though, that should be able to be applied to this. Whether some of these people are or aren't notable I don't know, but it's not relevant to this discussion. I think this is a perfectly good list for Wikipedia. We have lists of notable people in other 'groups', why not native americans? --Ged UK (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are Wikipedia criteria for notability. There is not another objective criteria. It's inherently POV. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: , and we definitely have criteria for notable people. WP:PEOPLE. Plasticup T/C 12:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP It is appropriate for Wikipedia, also the word "notable" is criteria. There are millions of other lists. This list was created to shorten page length on the Native American of the United States. It is very specific, and not one that is already made.Swampfire (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a good and worthwhile list. I have no opinion of the people presently on the list, but at worst that's an "edit for content" issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The page uses this page as a "reference", and then proceeds to copy it name for name - in exact order. This is called plagarism. If you're going to use this as a "source", and then have an argument for the pages existence that it was created to shorten the length of the Native Americans in the US page, then I don't see why we couldn't simply list this external link at the bottom of that page. Wikipedia is not a mirror, and this page mirrors that of the above link, which makes it a potential legal problem if the publisher of said page learns that we are copying his stuff word-for-word. Before anyone tries to disclaim this on the grounds that you cannot copyright a person's name, you can copyright the presentation of said names and if you look at this page and that link they are identical (which includes the description of each of the people). Not even rearranging the names would change the fact that they were clearly stolen from this other website. Wikipedia should use sources to back up their claims, not duplicate the source information in its entirety.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Then it's a speedy under G13, though i'm not sure how you can list them alphabetically without having the same list. Ged UK (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is true, but there is a difference between having some of the same names in alphabetical order, and have only the names on the link listed above AND having the exact descriptions of each of the people listed that the link above uses. This page makes no attempt to find any other "notable" Native Americans, only list the ones that link has. Regardless, this page isn't a list of notable Native Americans, it's a list of what that link above deems to be notable Native Americans. I see a couple of ones that aren't on that list, but if you look at probably 95% of the rest of them, they match up identical with the webpage. No matter how you slice it, it's a mirror.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just so any of you know BIGNOLE only came here to say anything against what I say, because he was warned yesterday for violating WP:NPA he appears to be trolling my contribs and following me. Also the list was was started on Wikipedia with a few names on the Native Americans of the United States page. Then once it had more added to it. Lists were found and cited. But once names where in Alpahabetical order another list was found to help, and was cited, so no there is not plagarism. Plagarism is if you try to take the work of others WITHOUT citing them. If you continue to try and follow me and make personal attacks as you just did again. I will be forced to turn you in and have you blocked.Swampfire (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even need to justify your accusation of "trolling my contribs" with a well versed retort - simply know that I didn't stumble across this page through your edits. As far as plagarism goes, the evidence that I showed above speaks for itself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice the first comment he made seems to be more of an attack against me since I created the page, Than anything else. And as far as not making an effort to try and add to it. Is not the point as the original list was started with just a few names. Then instead of search all of Wiki one page at a time. A FEW lists outside of here were found and combined and to the names that were ALREADY on the list here and 2 of them were CITED. I guess you don't understand plagarism. Because the main thing of plagarism is that you try to make the work appear to be your own. Which was never done. You need to understand a word before you follow me around and further violate WP:NPA as you have. Just accept the warnings you got yesterday and move on.Swampfire (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay sometimes good lists start as a copy of another list. That doesn't make it a copy vio necessarily, because it isn't a "unique arrangement" of words and ideas -- alpha list is okay. And, as people collaborate, it will grow (and possibly shrink). I'm fine with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bignole and Ged UK, I'm afraid that you are both mistaken. If you look closely at the two lists they are actually quite different. There are many names on each list that do not appear on the other. The descriptions appear to be plagarized, but not the names themselves. The article should be fixed, not deleted. I am sticking with my Keep. Plasticup T/C 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment I still think it's a keep. If I thought it was a speedy I'd have tagged it as so, I was just pointing out the speedy option. If the bulk of it is the same, the Coren Bot will pick it up and tag it. As far as I'm concerend, it's a good list that needs some work on it, but a definite keep. --Ged UK (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we're using WP:PEOPLE as the criteria for "notable Native Americans", then two of the people on this list don't have articles - which one would assume to mean that they aren't notable Native Americans (James Logan and William Clyde Thompson). Logan is on the webpage linked above, Thompson is on neither that page, nor the other "source" that is listed on this article. I'm not sure why he is listed since there is nothing to suggest that he is "notable". If you remove all the plagarized descriptions then you're left with a list of names. If we are using PEOPLE as the basis for notability then that means that all of these Native Americans should have an article. If they have an article then that means they are categorized. If they are categorized then that means they are listed in alphabetical order and that makes this page redundant to the category that lists all of them already. One more reason to delete the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment So you're saying that because two people on the list don't have articles, they aren't notable? That's nonsensical logic. Far more likely is no-one's written the article yet. If you don't think they're notable, fine, take them out of the list, but it's hardly a reason to delete the entire article. Ged UK (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not flawed, I'm merely pointing out the logic that PEOPLE is the notability criteria for this page. If that's the case, then everyone on this list must meet the standards set forth by PEOPLE. Since two of the names appear to fail said criteria deductive logic would assume that they aren't notable. I have no idea, I'm simply stating how it is presented. Regardless, this page is still redundant to the category that lists all these people already (minus two of them apparently, since they don't have a page...but you can technically categorize non-pages as well so that could be easily fixed).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Plasticup, plagarisim is when you take someones words and try to pass them off as your own. Sure the desription is the same on most, but that is why references are cited. If you cite a reference the you are not trying to pass something off as your own. Otherwise 75% of wiki is plagarism, and also in response to BIGNOLE saying 2 of them dont have articles on here. Yes that is true but even in comments it was mentioned. That does not meaan they arent notable, it just means they dont have articles yet. So can those 2 names be deleted, Yes, that's not a problem. But you need to understand the word plagarism before you use it. BIGNOLE said a word he doesn't understand in reference to this page. The desriptions aren;t plagarized they are referenced.Swampfire (talk) 15:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • But your assumption is because two people on the list don't have articles, they aren't notable. Which presumably means you think Wikipedia is complete. Which it clearly isn't. Ged UK (talk) 15:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Commment Lists are different from categories. One of the advantages of having a Wikipedia list is that you can have items on the list (in this case, names of notable Native Americans) worthy of being listed but not necessarily notable enough to have an article written--or, no one has written that article yet. Otherwise, it would just be a category. Wikipedia is far from complete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GED UK and PAUL, this user never seems to understand when he is wrong, which led to his warnings yesterday for violating WP:NPA as well as why he followed me here today, and attacked me here. I have tried to get help to stop him, but they haven't blocked him yetSwampfire (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swamp, you do realize that you are the only one concerned on this page with my "personal attacks" (which were more of me being uncivil than personally attacking you). Please stop distracting this AfD with our personal communications with each other. This is not the place. If you believe that I'm "attacking" you then please take it to WP:RfC or another similar noticeboard.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • William Clyde Thompson was a Texas Choctaw leader and James Logan was a famous Mingo Indian and ally of the English colonials. Both are notable, but don't have articles. I will create them now if it makes people more comfortable. Plasticup T/C 15:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is only true if those without articles can be shown to be notable by themselves. It could be that they are notable, but, as you said, either no one has had a chance to write an article about them or there just isn't enough information on them. Regardless, a single webpage that lists their name does not make them "notable but without a page of their own". What makes those without articles notable? If nothing, then what makes this list necessary to have? --(edit conflict) - If you create their articles then it just brings me back to the point that the list is unnecessary since they are all categorized. Since anyone on the list will have to show notability in their own right just to be listed, then what is the point of having the list?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment do you disagree with all lists? Then please direct your comments to Wikipedia:Lists. Do you disagree with this list? Doesn't seem like you're making that argument. Bignole, what say you run over to the lists page and brush up on a lot of the work done so far on lists in the world of Wikipedia, then come back. I'd appreciate it and take it as a personal favor... if you're ever in KC I'll buy you a slab of ribs!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with ALL lists, I think many are quite useful (I've worked on quite a few and gotten some to FL status). I disagree with lists based around the idea of "notability" (i.e. List of notable directors, or List of notable people). What deems these people more notable than the rest? A simple webpage that has their name? The fact that they have a page of their own? If we're listing everyone that falls into the subcategory of the list (e.g. Native Americans, Directors, etc) then this list becomes indiscriminate. If the list is based on one of the notability criteria then the list is redundant to a category that already lists all of these individuals - a category that can also list non-page indididuals in an effort to provide a window for users to come by and create those articles. Unless the list is full of prose (reliably sourced) explaining why all of these people are "notable" and should be in a "list of notables" then I don't see a reason to actually have a bare list of names.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you plasticup, BIGNOLE just never seems to get it. Eveven here he is the only delete among about 6 keeps and yet he still thinks he is right. And will probably violated WP:NPA again. I noticed once his arguement is shot down in flames he does that. Which as I said is the reason he is here todaySwampfire (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also just incase anyone doesnt believe me about him following me. Check out his contribs. He has never had anything to do with this list of Native Americans. And yet his first post TODAY after being offline for 10 hours was here. You see the person that put this up for deletion, placed a link in my talk page. So Once he signed in it is obvious he went directly to my talk page, then came straight here, to start an new arguement after he was warned yesterday for violating WP:NPA against me. I was alos one of the ones to warn him as well as an admin that warned him. But the evidence is there if you look. Here it is [26] just look at the 14:31 edit and the last previous one was 4:27. He says this isn't about me, but his personal attack in his first comment says it all.Swampfire (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that we do/don't believe you/him. This just isn't the place for it. Plasticup T/C 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly, he only came here to argue against me, especially since I created the page. I have left message on the admins page that warned him yesterday. But you can oviously tell he looked at my talkpage today right after logging in, and saw where the link to this was placed there, and came immediately here to start his things. Because this was his first obviously post. And he thought he would throw the word plagarism around, which is not true. Plagarism is if you take somes words and try to pass them off as your own. The references used to help with the list has always been there. So I NEVER tried to pass anything off as my own. In fact if i had tried to do that, then it would of been classified as original reasearch. But plagarism in general is not about using someone elses words, it is about passing them off as your own.Swampfire (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And my point is that you are still talking about it. The AfD should be debated on its merits, and the bad blood between you and Bignole should be sorted out elsewhere. Let's not mention stalking, WP:NPA, or any of that again and just move on with the AfD debate. Plasticup T/C 16:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly, I was just letting you know. That no matter what you say, he will not give in, he will merely change his arguement.Swampfire (talk) 16:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list in itself is very different than the the ones of the indigenous people to the Americas or of Native Americans. As those are all inclusive of Canada, United Sates, Mexico, Central America, South America an so on. This was created to concentrate specifically on the United Sates.Swampfire (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is useful and should not be deleted. However, some people might think that "Native American" means all Americans who are native to the country and not only American Indians so maybe another title is better. TrinityExchange (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term Native American vs American indian has been debated for a while. There is an article on wiki about it as well. This page was created as a companion page to Native Americans of the United States where this discussion has also taken place, with it being left as Native American. Mainly because the term American Indian excludes Alaska Native and pacific islanders.Swampfire (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No issues have been mentioned with this article that cannot be sorted out with some editing. Subject is clearly notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no problem in the U.S. with being called Native American. If you go to the Native Americans of the United States talk page you will see this discussion there along with links to other pages on here. And links to other sites including the Native American Journalists Association where they state in all media there are only two acceptable general terms for all the tribes "Native American" or "American Indian". But the actual prefered term when referring to an individual tribe is by the tribe name. Also yes I am Powhatan Indian(Algonquian). As well as Creek Indian.Swampfire (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Regardless of the source of current content, if there are already more than a few WP articles on Native Americans of the United States (each article must be notable in its own right), then this list just merely Listifys that collection of articles. To challenge this list on notability grounds doesn't make sense, whereas challenging an individual entry on notability or other grounds may be appropriate.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as per precedent of many other lists of notable people. Vizjim (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones are those? seresin ( ¡? ) 20:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first trillion or so can be found by following this link. 213.7.96.229 (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and don't look at the List of posthumously-born notable people - I guess that'd really wind you up! 213.7.96.229 (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As of now 8 keeps (Ged UK, Plasticup T/C, Swampfire, Paul McDonald, TrinityExchange, DJ Clayworth, Mike Cline, Vizjim), 1 delete (Bignole), 1 that has no problem with this list (LonelyBeacon), and 1 that posed a question of merge (maclean) Swampfire (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also if the only beef is the word "notable" then that word can be removed renaming ther page List of Native Americans of the United States. As stated by all those that say keep. You don't delete the whole thing because of one word. Remove the word or replace it with a word that you think is better suited as long as it is agreed upon.Swampfire (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers are not the only thing that matter. Policy must also be considered. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:NOT#MIRROR, and WP:POV have been raised about the concerns that there is no criteria for what makes these people "notable" (Wikipedia's definition of notable people is not a valid criterion), the terminology "Native American", the fact that it mirrors another site almost exactly, and that it's POV without objective criteria. Most of the keeps are: precedent, which does not exist on Wikipedia, Other crap exists, "It's a good and worthwhile list", which has no actual reasoning put forth, and It's useful. Removing the word from the title will not solve the problem. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a mirror. The list was started as a small list on Native Americans of the United States then was improved, and used several lists as reference all of which were cited In fact one editor in here even pointed out all the differences. Also if you think there should be criteria as to how they are "notable" Why not help fix what you deem a problem? Also the term "Native American" is not an issue. I can point you to plenty of articles on here stating "Native American" in the title. Including an article on here that the entire article is about which one to use.Swampfire (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seresin, if you're going to quote Other crap exists, you might want to check the bit at the top of that page, where it says "This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. You may follow it or not, at your discretion. It should be read in conjunction with Wikipedia:Deletion policy." 213.7.96.229 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDIR supports this list, since what it guards against is directory-like lists (e.g. “every member of the Cherokee”). In other words, notability should always be a factor. WP:NOTMIRROR equally supports this list, since it makes a specific exception for lists of this nature (point 2). WP:POV is irrelevant - notability is a well-established method for selecting lists (so, yes, Wikipedia notability guidelines matter). Vizjim (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vizjim has pointed out things that actually support instead of going against this page. Also the list does have criteria for notability. The list is also a current work in progress the same as ALL Wikipedia. It is worked on everyday.Swampfire (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time this discussion be closed with the page being left as is. Overwhelming majority states KEEP with reasons given. along with the fact that the page is constantly being improved.Swampfire (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think it's been collated as an arbitrary "super awesome cool Native Americans of the United States", but rather as a list of Native Americans of the US who are notable in terms of "within the scope of wikipedia". I do think "Notable" should be removed from the title, and I think you can do so without causing a shift in the contents or spirit of the list. It's a discrete list that covers encyclopedic content and has a clear purpose for anyone researching native americans. Vickser (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I will add my voice to keep. The issue of notability of the people being listed is really not an issue. The only thing (I'm repeating myself), and this would go for any list of an ethnic group, please be sure to be clear early on what the criteria for inclusion are (not in terms of notability, but in terms of being listed as "Native American". I know that can be a sensitive area for any group, but I think it is important to avoid having a runaway list. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I see nothing wrong in principle with having a page such as this, except that it is an unnecessary list. The value (and probably only value) of lists of this kind is that they identify (by redlinks) articles that are needed. However this list has none. Categories are a much more satisfacotry navigation tool. Accordingly, a check should be made that all articles are in an appropriate "native American" category. Then delete. I make this comment for structural reasons, and without haveing investigated how the articles are in fact categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The value of lists like this is for learning. The reason there are lists or categories on here is to help point you to other people of interest that you may have never heard of, and you could possibly learn something. On Wikipedia both lists and categories act as and INDEX page. Swampfire (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See WP:CLN for the guideline that expands SF's comments. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:L This also expands my comment as well as supports this embedded list, and so does this WP:EMBED Swampfire (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 12:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rothfuss

edit
Chris Rothfuss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

University teacher and political candidate with no claim to notability either by WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. Ros0709 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Read WP:BIO#Politicians - candidates, as candidates, aren't notable . There are good reasons for that line - (a) otherwise we would end up with an article for everyone who had ever stood in an election, and (b) we need to discourage the use of WP for self-promotion. JohnCD (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm evidently not being clear either. (Do I detect the unspoken words " ... to the meanest intelligence" floating in the air?). You say, he's got all these press cuttings and that satisfies WP:BIO. I say, if that were good enough WP:POLITICIAN would be meaningless and unnecessary, because every candidate will have a sheaf of press cuttings because of his candidacy. The point of WP:POLITICIAN, as a clarifying section within WP:BIO, is to say that for political candidates some notability, i.e. references, apart from their candidacy is required.
We're not going to convince each other - let's agree to differ and leave it to the closing admin to decide whose argument he prefers. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and thanks for being civil throughout. Plasticup T/C 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep could use some cleanup, but I see enough for notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per JohnCD unelected candidate, not notable for anything other than being one of several canidates. If he remains unelected, in ten, 50, 100, years time, how will this biography be encyclopedic knowledge? Note also the article has coatrack overtones --5 of 9 sources, and 2 or the 5 sentences that comprise the lead-- are devoted to rubbishing one of the other candidates. Pete.Hurd (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument is that he is not notable except for that one thing that makes him notable. Neal Armstrong isn't notable except that he was a notable astronaught. Tom Brady isn't notable except that he is a notable (American) football player. Chris Rothfuss isn't notable except that he is a notable political candidate. Some political candidates are not notable, but Chris Rothfuss is. Plasticup T/C 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's not a notable policician, he's a candidate to become a politician, maybe he'll become a notable politician. Right now he's just another American of transient news interest, that's not notability. (WP:NOT#NEWS) Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He meets WP:BIO#Basic_criteria. He "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Everything else is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether he withdraws from the race tomorrow and leads a life of total obscurity - he has established his notability under WP:BIO, which superceeds WP:POLITICIAN. Are you arguing that he does not satisfy WP:BIO? If you could state your argument in terms of existing wikipedia policies we might be able to find some common ground. Plasticup T/C 17:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, I'm arguing that (IMHO) coverage in news sources, such as he has received, is not the sort of secondary sources meant in the nutshell summary of WP:N; "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" (emph. mine). What I'm suggesting is along the lines of WP:NOT#NEWS when it says "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." that this individual is not of eternal encyclopedic notability, even though the election as a whole may be. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also note WP:ONEVENT. If all that he is notable for is this election that doesn't justify the existence of the biography, rather he could be mentioned in the article for the election itself (assuming it is notable; right now I would guess it would probably fall foul of WP:NOT#NEWS but mught be considered notable in retrospect).
              • Americans love their little governmental elections. Just a couple months ago a friend of mine presented his senior thesis on some obscure dinky little election in West Virginia the 1920s. I have no doubt that 50 years from now someone will write something about this election. If you want to get into WP:NOT#NEWS we can, but governmental elections tend to persist in the local consciousness for a very long time. WP:ONEVENT is very similar in that it does not necessitate deletion. It says "consideration needs to be given to the need to create a standalone article on the person". I think that between my chat with you and the one above with JohnCD we have quoted just about every Wikipedia policy related to deletion, and they all seem to say "at some point it just becomes subjective"... so I refer you to Bearian's succinct comment below: "He's the leading majority party candidate for a US Senate seat". Plasticup T/C 18:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Americans love their little governmental elections", yeah, I suspect that if this were a candidate (or is it the leading candidate to become the nominee for the candidate?) in an analogous election in say France or Canada, that we wouldn't be having this debate, it would be a speedy. 18:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. He's the leading majority party candidate for a US Senate seat. Even if he loses, he's an historic person. Plenty of secondary, independent sources, as noted in the article, attest to his notability as a politician, but not as a professor (non-tenure-track). Bearian (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the other side's argument ... you folks decide. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He may or may not get sufficient press coverage in the future, but he certainly has not gotten it so far. As I said, there are only 2 hits in GoogleNews[28]. Nsk92 (talk) 11:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to invoke common sense here. A relative lack of press coverage during the doldrums of the election cycle doesn't mean that this election won't be of interest across an entire state of the union. A US Senator is not an unimportant post, and undoubtedly some people in Wyoming will want to know about their options. RayAYang (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "people in Wyoming will want to know about their options" wikipedia is not a voter's guide. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. Wikipedia is not for advocacy which is essentially what WP:SOAP says. Wikipedia is almost certainly a valued reference for straightforward information about large events of note (large elections that may determine the fate of the nation are of note, as are the candidates running in them) from a neutral point of view. RayAYang (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the election is notable, then the article ought to be on that. Having a "biography" which is a coatrack election pamphlet is advocacy. He's not the Democratic candidate, there are others in the running, we (rightly) don't have articles on them, so WP is very far from an unbiased source of information for the voters of Wyoming. If it's the election that's notable then that's what the article ought to be about. That's the essence of WP:POLITICIAN (and WP:NOT#NEWS). If this election were in my country, this guy wouldn't be considered notable, but it's the USA, so... Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "people in Wyoming will want to know about their options" - if Wikipedia is the only way the people of Wyoming can find out about this candidate, that's a startling admission of how non-notable he is! JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion, default to keep.  Sandstein  19:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of riots and civil unrest in Calgary, Alberta

edit
Timeline of riots and civil unrest in Calgary, Alberta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be an inherently arbitrary collection of historical fragments that have little connection to each other, except they happened in Calgary. A timeline of unrest would make sense, if you pick a place/time-period where there's a sequence of related events. Rob (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the creator of the article. There is clearly a thematic trend that is made obvious by the events included and the ___location in which they occurred. The theme: riots and civil unrest. The place: Calgary. The time period: The existence of the city (if only Calgarians would have risen in unrest more recently!) The premise for this AfD makes little sense to me; could you please explain it differently Rob? • Freechild'sup? 05:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you include only "threat to government's ability to govern", it would be about one item. If you include all "unrest", this list could be endless; for instance the initial anti-Iraq protests, or the WPC 2000, or various others. You've got a peaceful event with 40 people in the list. Events with 40+ people happen all the time, anywhere. Being in the same place doesn't connect things. I understand something like Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since each event sets the stage for the next one. The "unrest" events in Calgary are largely independent of one another. I would be fine with breaking off a History of Calgary from Calgary, and including some stuff from this list. It seems this list was made to justify the soapbox statement "Many of the events portray widespread public sentiment about racism, classism and other forms of discrimination". --Rob (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that you will refrain from personal attacks and redact your statement above about my "soapbox statement." I have not challenged the veracity of your intent with this AfD; I expect that you will be civil and not challenge mine. I added the citation that I'd originally intended to include to support the "soapbox statement" you took issue with; I merely forgot to originally. I hope that that will satisfy your demeaning approach to attracting attention to your issue(s) with this article. Additionally, there is no information on the "history of Calgary" in the Calgary article to speak of. • Freechild'sup? 06:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A personal attack is when somebody attacks the writer not the content. I attacked the content. It's up to you to not take criticisms of content personally. You cite an obscure marginal source, "Clue! Magazine", which at best is a source of opinion, not fact. If you use their opinion, you must show a full range of others. But you put their claim in the body in the body of the article, as though it were an objective fact. If we do show opinion, then we must show a full range of opinion, without pretending minority views are majority views, per WP:NPOV (let alone fact). Calgary is a major city, with coverage in major publications like the NY Times or the Economist, so why are we scouring the depths of obscurity to find a particular POV? --Rob (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Calgary isn't a city with a wide history of civil unrest, and I look at this list and I see several NN examples of strikes (not riots, not violence, just strikes), and there's a 70-year gap between two events. The Aryan Nations thing earlier this year was a non-starter and to be honest is pennyweight compared to the level of gang violence in this city. Where are all the hockey riots? The 2002 G8 protests? The criteria is too fast and loose and too many examples that do not fulfil the mandate set by the title to make this viable. To be specific, the only two events listed that in any way fit this list are the Chinese smallpox and anti-German riot; they can be covered in a paragraph in the main article. 23skidoo (talk) 12:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note The attribution of each item in this article demonstrates notability through reliable sources that are verifiable. Let's stick to the facts. Regarding the breadth of events included here, the criterion is not whether they were violent; it is whether they constituted civil unrest. As for your judgment of the Aryan Nations "thing", see the first line of this note. As for missing entries, add them. • Freechild'sup? 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Rename to "List of riots and civil unrest in Calgary" - this title wouldn't imply that it has been one long stream of civil unrest. As a collection of well-sourced facts it is useful for notable civic history. I think it is the timeline aspect which annoys most editors here, so just make it a list. --Padraic 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support a merge per Bearcat. --Padraic 15:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Canada-wide timeline of riots and civil unrest might make sense. Individual cities, however, simply don't need their own separate lists — there's nothing uniquely encyclopedic about the history of civil disobedience in Calgary that would merit a separate standalone article. Delete or merge into a Canada-wide list. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply What is unique about these events is that they all occurred in Calgary. A Canada-wide list will be too long of a list, with Vancouver alone accounting for at least 60 different events. In developing this article I did not know about the hockey-related riots in Calgary; adding that/ose to the list will expand it further, and as other events are identified they can be added by other editors. The point is that the topic of this article is clearly notable and has been cited in depth; to take this article down would undermine the validity of many WP guidelines and rules, including WP:RS and WP:N, and reinforce the nastiness of WP:UGH. Besides, you can't merge an article to one that doesn't exist. • Freechild'sup? 04:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is why the fact that all of these events occurred in Calgary is, in and of itself, significant enough to merit a distinct article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; to justify this list there needs to be an actual reason why it would be encyclopedically significant that these events took place specifically in Calgary. There needs to be a reason, beyond pure geography, to view riots in Calgary and riots in Saskatoon or Montreal or Fredericton as distinctly encyclopedic sets of phenomena. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note For those who suggest that Calgary isn't worthy of this article, please read the guideline entitled WP:ALLORNOTHING. • Freechild'sup? 04:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's ok for a category to be a mishmash of items, loosely related and incomplete. An article should not be such an arbitrary collection. Consistent with WP:ALLORNOTHING's intent: while I support deletion of this "List of riot"-type article, I don't support deletion of all others, and would welcome new ones, under the appropriate circumstances. For instance, one on Jerusalem would be quite interesting to me; as riots and civil unrest there are interconnected, with one event leading to or effecting a subsequent one, and constantly being re-reference over time. The events in Calgary, though, are largely isolated events, barely remembered, and little known outside of Calgary. --Rob (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The Wikipedia rule about notability says nothing about an individual editor's memory, nor the collective memory of a city; rather, it requires reliable sources and notability. The citations I have added include a primary source and two secondary sources, per WP:PSTS. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." There are numerous exceptional sources included; please review them for further information. • Freechild'sup? 05:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still haven't supported the soapbox statement "A variety of events throughout the history of Calgary portray widespread public sentiment towards and government acknowledgment of racism, classism and other forms of discrimination.". You have sources to show individual events happened. But you don't have sources to join them to together, and interpret their collective meaning. --Rob (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my laboring to answer your lack of desire to reach consensus you still are not contented; yet I firmly believe I have answered your criticism. Continuous hostility and the absence of good faith does little to further the development of WP. Will you join me in mediation so we can settle our differences with the assistance of a third party? I will accept their judgment; however, there is nothing further I can do to rectify your insatiability. Note to other editors Thivierr/Rob has been carrying on an aggressive campaign against the sources in the article to disprove their reliability, particularly in regard to one statement s/he has interpreted differently than me. For more information see the talk page. • Freechild'sup? 06:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are actually reliable for what they actually say. The problem is, in one case, you falsely say they say something they don't. If you made a claim consistent with the source, there wouldn't have been a dispute. It seems the whole purpose of this article, is you wanted to put forward a certain soap box point of view. If you keep those sources, then we'll have to edit to text to actually reflect what the sources say (ideally through quotation), and of course, give proper attribution. But, first, let's see if the article is kept as a stand-alone article. --Rob (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note regarding "timeline" versus "list": This is probably best called a chronology, or chronicle. However, I chose timeline because of the popular usage of the term throughout WP, particularly for the sequencing of events according to their dates. This is not a mere list, as all of the events are portrayed in a linear fashion. If you look at the List of riots you will see how the format in this article is appropriately named a timeline versus a list. • Freechild'sup? 23:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The word systemic means nothing about individuals, per se, but rather their actions within a larger whole. Whether the nominating author or the above IP took it personally is inconsequential to the argument; the simple point of the matter is I am beginning to identify a repeated pattern of editors attacking articles representing points of diversity in Western North American cities, which in this case includes Calgary, such as the AfD here. What needs to be established and reiterated here is that WP relies on verifiability, Notability and reliable sources; the question of whether or not an article needs to exist is largely settled when those issues are addressed. Note to Thivierr: I struck my commentary above regarding what I believe your intentions to be; however, I sourced it from here. • Freechild'sup? 04:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you saying about where you "sourced" it? You linked to a comment on my talk page, by another editor, who mistakenly thought I made this article, and wanted an explanation. What's your point? Anyways, when you see a pattern of AFDs, it's probably because, like most of us, you have a pattern of article creation. We are all more likely to notice nominations of articles we personally made or substanntially edited. Also, I suggest, that in general, POV forks are generally more likely to be AFD'd or merged, regardless of what point of view they advance. Had you made a History of Calgary with an included timeline, showing riots, unrest, and other major events, I doubt there would have been an AFD. Instead of making an article for each point of view on topic, its best to cover all major points of view in a common article. If you want to see other point of views treated the same way, make Timeline of charitable events in Calgary, and watch it get AFD'd or merged just as quickly. --Rob (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see nothing significant about these events in Calgary's history. Unless some of these events start becoming so notable they warrant their own pages there is no reason to create some arbitrary list. As for Bearian's argumet WP:ILIKEIT isn't much of an argument and isn't a terribly compelling reason to keep it. The author has failed to show why civil unrest in Calgary is such a notable topic.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Proof of the point-of-view agenda is shown in the expanding lead. It states as fact, not just opinion that "Recent events have seen the City of Calgary grow less tolerant of civil unrest and protest...". Now, if this opinionated statement were added to the Calgary article, numerous editors would insist it bee attributed properly (in the body), and opposing viewpoints shown. But, as a POV fork, which few people monitor, it's dominated by a single owner editor, who cherry-picks opinions, which he misrepresents as objective facts. It would be nice if some of those supporting keeping this article, would contribute to the overal neutrality of the article, particularly the lead. --Rob (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: If it is a simple matter of attribution, I have included the author's name in the text of the article in order to appease your concern. However, your continuing pattern of personal attacks demonstrate an intolerance for the topic and the editor of the article, rather than the substance of the article. I am not on trial here; please stay focused on the article. If you must continue attacking me and my editing, keep it to my talk page as you have in the past. Thank you. • Freechild'sup? 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete as blatant advertising. Deleted prior to clousre. Non administrative closure. Steve Crossin (contact) 12:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TM Tecnomatic

edit
TM Tecnomatic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

TM Tecnomatic does not appear to satisfy the primary criterion for notability of a company as specified in WP:COMPANY. The Wiki article TM Tecnomatic cites no references or sources. Much of it reads like an advertisement. Dolphin51 (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree the article is practically an advertisement in the products section.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 04:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:Alison, G12 copyright infringement, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magellan (book)

edit
Magellan (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clearly fails WP:NB ukexpat (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This web page provides full details of the most comprehensive and prominent book concerning Magellan. The book completely fulfills criteria 5 of WP:NB : "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." The authors include (1) Antonio Pigafetta, who was aboard Magellan's ship, and who for years has had his own Wikipedia article, (2) Francisco Albo who was aboard Magellan's ship and who for years has been inluded in the Magellan article, (3) Gaspar Correa, the most famous Portuguese historian, who was a contemporary of the events, and whose books are used as the original source of most 15th and 16th century Portuguese history. --Jan Van Leer (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. I'd even go as far as to say Speedy Keep Alberon (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Copyvio in its entirety of viartis.net/publishers/magellan.htm (I can't include the full URL here, as the site is blacklisted). In addition, the book is apparently yet to be published and has attracted no notice whatever, and I wouldn't be surprised if the article weren't the work of a sockpuppet of the community-banned General Tojo (aka Keith Bridgeman, one of the editors of the book), whose long-term abuse page may be relevant here. Deor (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was G3 speedy delete, obvious hoax. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 13:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Joesph

edit
Don Joesph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article may be a hoax. David873 (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was easily the most difficult AFD I have ever closed. My thoughts are below:

  • From a strict !vote-counting perspective, there were 41 editors who favoured the article's deletion, compared with 35 who favoured its retention. This very much appears to be in "no consensus" territory, assuming roughly equal strength of arguments.
  • From there I started by searching for arguments on either side that were not rooted in policy - not merely those that I felt misunderstood policy or interpreted it selectively, not those that didn't go beyong citing somebody else's argument, but those that did not make a coherent, policy-based argument at all. These were the ones that I found on the keep side: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. These are the ones I found on the delete side:[38], [39]. I want to emphasize that my aim wasn't to come up with a new set of numbers that would allow me to close as something other than "no consensus". Instead, I wanted to gauge to what extent participants on each side of the debate were approaching this analytically - applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the article in question - and to what extent they were voting out of the considerable passion that this article seems to provoke. This is not to say that all of the people linked above were voting without regarding Wikipedia policies or that all of the people not quoted above came in with no preconceived notions; I say only that, on average, the keep voters seemed more likely to refrain from policy-based analysis.
  • Alarmed by the great disparity between the "keep" and "delete" votes that I had culled, I went back through the delete votes with a deliberately broadened definition of "no policy-based rationale". I decided then to also pull these !votes: [40], [41]. This was to adjust for any unconscious bias on my part (as far as I know, I have no strong opinions on the subject matter covered by this article).
  • I decided next to address the issue of canvassing. As User:Jehochman, the user who raised the canvassing allegations, pointed out, three of the four characteristics of inappropriate canvassing (per WP:CANVASS) were not met. The only question at issue was whether "Excessive cross-posting" occurred. I am inclined to believe that it did not, though this is a subjective judgment. However, on the subject of excessive cross-posting, WP:CANVASS says "Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive." In short, even if canvassing occurred here, the problem was not one of calling into question the legitimacy of any of the AFD votes, but merely of talk page spamming. No remedy for talk page spamming could be applicable to the closure of this AFD, in my view.
  • So far, I have dealt only with the average quality of argument raised by each side. I wanted now to deal with the highest quality arguments raised by each side. The core contention of the delete side is, as I understand it, that a large number of disparate uses of the word "apartheid" in reliable sources do not make the single subject "Allegations of apartheid" a valid subject, and that the collection of these uses into one article linked only by word choice is a violation of WP:OR (and, more specifically, WP:SYNTH). In response, the keep side argues that a great many incidents of allegations of apartheid have been covered by reliable sources, and that there is nothing WP:OR-violating about grouping these worldwide incidences of a phenomenon together in one article. I believe that the delete side did a better job of making its case - one particularly strong question that I believe went unanswered was posted by User:Ceedjee, when he wrote "who are the scholars (here sociologists or political scientists are expected) who studied, as a whole, the allegations of apartheid carried against the different countries or regime around the world ?" This strikes me as an enormously salient issue. Moreover, in going through the references in the article, I was unable to find one whose topic was "Allegations of apartheid". I think this has to be a litmus test: if there isn't a single source (broadly defined to include chapters of larger works and the like) that has its primary subject a topic on which somebody wants to make a Wikipedia article, there have to be alarm bells. It may well be so that the collection of these various allegations together is eminently reasonable, but if that is so why has nobody else, to all evidence, ever so-collected them?

It was a combination of all of the above factors that led me to close as delete. While I realize that this is a likely candidate for WP:DRV, I hope that editors will instead work towards creating a more lasting consensus - there seemed to be some support on both side for examining the use of the word "apartheid" in different countries in a new section of Crime of apartheid, and I hope that an attempt to do so would lead to a more focussed objective than there seems ever to have been for this article.
I apologize for the length of this close, but I felt that under the circumstances it was necessary. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of apartheid

edit
AfDs for this article:
  • AfD 1 - opened 5 Jun 2006, closed as "no consensus"
  • AfD 2 opened 29 Mar 2007, closed as "delete"
  • DRV 6 Apr 2007, closed as "overturn and relist"
  • AfD 3 opened 11 Apr 2007, closed as "keep"
  • ArbCom review opened 12 Aug 2007, closed 26 Oct
  • AfD 4 opened 19 Oct 2007, closed procedurally in deference to the ArbCom investigation
Allegations of apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete This article has long been a source of controversy, and is regarded by many as a WP:SYNTH violation consisting mostly of original research. Most of the articles cited in the footnotes contain only fleeting references to the term "apartheid", and I do not believe that any make formal accusations that particular countries are guilty of the Crime of apartheid. (The Bosnia reference is especially weak, as it refers to "apartheid" solely in terms of rich and poor ... normally, there's some reference to class, ethnicity, gender or religion as well.)

For those curious, the first afd ended in utter chaos (the closing admin's comments must be seen to be believed), the second ended in a deletion that was subsequently overturned, the third resulted in a "keep" vote, and the fourth ended with a procedural closure. In other words, there is no strong historical precedent that this article should be retained. In fact, this article's stature is so low in some circles that it's actually been parodied on non-article space (see WP:Allegations of allegations of apartheid apartheid).

I should also note that the previous four nominations took place against the backdrop of controversy over the page Allegations of Israeli apartheid. As this page has now been retitled as Israel and the apartheid analogy, and all of the other "Allegations of [...] Apartheid" pages have been removed, there seems little reason to retain this article. CJCurrie (talk) 03:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) updated 23:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The following discussions may also be of interest:

CJCurrie (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This listing is utterly irrelevant to this discussion and misleading, as the voting editors don't have opportunity to review the merits of articles that were deleted; and it would be undue burden to expect them to review the state of the articles that were kept at the time they were up for deletion. Whether the article up for deletion should be kept or not should be based on the merits of the article itself, not on opinons about certain editors. CJCurrie has not explained why these discussions may be of interest, save to express some (absolutely unfounded) theories about the thinking patterns of some imagined group of editors with whom he appears to have a disagreement or personal beef (not clear which). CJCurrie also refuses to discuss this issue in the talk page. I can think of many other discussions that also might be of interest to voting editors, but will refrain from including them here pending a constructive discussion. --Leifern (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I agree that Allegations of apartheid should be deleted on its (lack of) merits, but it's also important for newcomers to know that there's a history to this discussion. It's also worth mentioning that four arbitrators concluded that the voting patterns of a real group of editors amounted to a WP:POINT violation, and that nine arbitrators concluded "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" was central to the broader debate. I would tend to think this is entirely relevant. CJCurrie (talk) 16:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this article should be deleted or kept on the basis of its merits, what possible relevance does a completely different article, Allegations of Israeli apartheid have? You were among those who said that the existence of an article about alleged apartheid in Israel had absolutely nothing to do with alleged apartheid in other states; and then constructed the case you were referring to out of thin air. And now you are the one who wants to couple the issues for your own purpose. And to take it even further, what possible relevance does it have that four arbitrators at one point in a messy case they eventually gave up, decided they could read my mind? What you seem be saying is that you think that it is time to finish the work you started in the failed Arbcom case, namely to make it difficult for editors who in your opinion have a pro-Israeli bias to edit articles related to Israel? --Leifern (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The relevance of "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" to this article will be obvious to everyone who's looked over its history. The only reason User:Jayjg brought back Allegations of apartheid as a full article in 2006 was to merge Israeli apartheid into it. This isn't speculation -- he acknowledged it at the time! I'm against this strategy for two reasons: (i) Israel and the apartheid analogy is an encyclopedic topic that deserves its own article, (ii) Allegations of apartheid is a WP:SYNTH violation that fails on its own merits.
I don't completely follow the rest of your comments, though suffice it to say: (i) the arbcom case ended in a stalemate, but four arbitrators still endorsed the view that Jayjg and others were taking part in a WP:POINT violation centred around "Allegations of Israeli apartheid", which suggests the accusation wasn't invented out of nowhere, (ii) I'd very much prefer to get over the "pro-Israel/anti-Israel" dichotomy and just work on creating encyclopedic articles. CJCurrie (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you bring in these other articles and keep bringing up Jayjg's supposed motivation for starting this article? You're arguing a particular line of reasoning to make your point (that the article only exists to serve some kind of purpose that has to do with Israel), but you categorically close the door to the equivalent line of reasoning on the other side (that you want the article deleted to single out Israel).
Also, why is it important why a particular article is started? I started an article on Stein Ørnhøi, a Norwegian politician. Do I need a good reason to start it? Should I have to explain myself in case I did it to make some kind of point that some people might not like?
As for the four Arbcom members, I am inclined to round up those mentioned by them and start this issue all over again with these four so we can get on with our lives. I decided at the time to just let things go rather than go nuts trying to explain why I voted each time; but if my vote on AFDs is going to get discounted on any article that has any connection with Israel because these four arbcom members didn't understand my actions, then I'll start a campaign to vindicate myself. So either you drop this argument, or I'll take it to these arbcom members that you think their views at the time gives you a carte blanche to assume bad faith on my part. --Leifern (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responses: (i) I've already answered the other "line of reasoning": Israel isn't being "singled out", and the Israeli apartheid analogy is encyclopedic in any event, (ii) this article is rather different from a biographical piece on Stein Ørnhøi, (iii) I agree that Jayjg's professed reason for re-establishing the article is not directly relevant to the question of whether or not it should be deleted now; it is relevant to the question of how we got to this stage, (iv) I'm not arguing that your "vote" should be discarded, though I'll note that afds aren't supposed to be votes in the first place. CJCurrie (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course. These kinds of allegations are made by many reliable sources, referring to specific types of (perceived) institutionalized discrimination with a great deal in common - which is why, of course, people use a common term for it, "apartheid". What has marred these discussions are the contributions of a specific banned editor, and his 20 or more banned sockpuppets, who have collectively done little but create heat rather than light on this specific topic - including creating the original "Israeli apartheid" article, and then creating strawman sockpuppets for the purpose of fake AfDs, which would then ensure that articles he preferred were retained. On this article alone he has deleted most of the content, deleted what little was left, put it up for deletion, deleted even more, then deleted even more again, all in a desperate attempt to make this article deletion-worthy. While the allegations against some countries (e.g. Israel, Brazil, Cuba, France, China) have received more attention than others, what should really be done with all of these "apartheid" articles is that they should be merged into one main article - this one - and this article should cover the whole topic to the extent that it deserves. And if CJCurrie's issue is with the phrase "Allegations", there's no reason why this article couldn't be renamed "Apartheid analogies", in line with the other article renaming. Jayjg (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I suppose I was naive to hope this could be drawn to a quick resolution.
    In response to Jay's statement, I should note that this particular controversy actually predates the creation of the Israeli apartheid page. To the best of my knowledge, it began with the creation of this subsection of the "Apartheid in South Africa" article on 15 November 2004, which in turn led to this retitling less than an hour later. This material was later spun off to "Apartheid Outside South Africa" (which, in turn, was later retitled as Allegations of Apartheid) via this edit and this edit on 10 June 2005. The section on Israel was removed in February 2006, and the article was reduced to a redirect later in the same day. It was only expanded again on 5 June 2006, when Jayjg tried to merge Israeli apartheid (phrase) into a larger article.
    I'm quite aware that Jayjg has never accepted the legitimacy of an article on Israel and the apartheid analogy, but that matter now been resolved to the satisfaction of most parties, and Jay's suggestion that all of the "allegations" should be merged into a single article is a complete non-starter. The partisan gamesmanship that's taken place on both sides of this debate has been one of Wikipedia's least edifying spectacles of the last few years, and I think it's time we all moved on from this. Retitling Allegations of Israeli apartheid was a good start; deleting Allegations of apartheid would be a good next step. I could add that past situations involving now-banned editors are not germane to the present discussion.
    My question to Jay: how is this article not a violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR? Our standards have improved somewhat from 2005, after all. CJCurrie (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean by "that matter now been resolved to the satisfaction of most parties"; a series of mostly strawman AfDs doesn't particularly resolve anything, and it sometimes takes the community quite a few AfDs to come to a decision - see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Brandt (14th nomination). I note that the article you refer to is, after 4761 edits, still an unreadable, edit-war riven, unholy mess. As for "The partisan gamesmanship that's taken place on both sides of this debate", your nomination is hardly "moving on", but rather is just one more example of it. Can anyone honestly say that Wikipedia wouldn't be better served by including all of these similar types of analogies/allegations into one comprehensive article? As always, I'm willing to abide by whatever standard Wikipedia wants to set for its articles, but I'm hoping we'll give common sense a chance for a change, rather than trying to destroy any possibility of it. Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Israel and the apartheid analogy could stand a bit more polishing, but there's now a general agreement that the subject matter is encyclopedic. Given the growing number of former Israeli politicians who have weighed in the matter, one would think this particular controversy should be at an end.
        In response to your question, I think that Wikipedia would be best served by having individual articles on apartheid analogies (as applied to countries other than South Africa) when these have been the subject of serious academic and sustained journalistic discussion. In practice, this means that we should have articles on Israel and the apartheid analogy and Social apartheid in Brazil; one could possibly add Tourist apartheid in Cuba to the list, and, who knows, there may be some scholarly legitimacy to the Chinese apartheid analogy by the time the 2008 Olympic games are over.
        Wikipedia is not served well by Allegations of apartheid, the sources for which mostly consist of passing references to apartheid comparisons in standalone articles.
        And I doubt that anyone regards the Daniel Brandt situation as a stellar example of how Wikipedia articles should be managed. CJCurrie (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this article is just the thing for a high school student doing some research for an essay. None of the related articles (such as racial segregation) quite address the exact topic that this article is about. The article is heavily referenced (the list of references is longer than the main text of the article), it is written from a neutral point of view, and it is thoroughly wikified. Keep! - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is true that nearly each sentence or information has its reference. Sometimes it even has several ones. This is a good point. BUT the whole topic seems to be a synthesized research. INDEED, who are the scholars (here sociologists or political scientists are expected) who studied, as a whole, the allegations of apartheid carried against the different countries or regime around the world ? If the topic was physics, and if somebody would have gathered different experiment results or comment to point out an hypothesis, it would certainly be speedy deleted. Here, because the topic is (also) political, it seems to me other standards apply... Ceedjee (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the well argued nom and the wel argued deletion vote by Ceedjee above. They have basically argued all the objections I have to articles like this. ViridaeTalk 07:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but rename to Apartheid analogies. -- Olve Utne (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete forthwith. It's a random assemblage of primary sources that happen to use the word "apartheid" in passing; these have been googled-up, huddled together, and awkwardly cordoned off with a sophomoric OR-synthesis: "Allegations of apartheid have been made, informally, against societies beyond South Africa...Apartheid has been used in compound phrases coined to compare actual or alleged forms of segregation, discrimination or disparity to South African apartheid." There are no secondary sources grouping these disparate items or observing these rhetorical trends, or even discussing "allegations of apartheid" as a topic in itself at all. This is purely a Wikipedia invention. The idea may be to create and sustain some sort of larger umbrella topic of which the Israeli apartheid analogy will appear as only one example, but this larger umbrella category of discourse – "allegations of apartheid" in a general sense – has not been recognized as a topic in the real world. For us to invent it is original research.--G-Dett (talk) 15:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only per the nominators fantastic reasoning as to why the sources do not establish profound notability, but as to the unnotability of the topic itself. While many countries may have had allegations of apartheid made against them, I can't see any useful reason to have a topic discussing them all (each individual case can obviously be referenced on the countires article etc.), or given the quite drastic cover of definitions of apartheid in the sources, what definition it is that actual links this articles content. The article while appearing to be structured, is nothing more than a list of indiscriminate information, which doesn't even provide useful connections to other areas of wikipedia. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or rather redirect to a general article on apartheid. Extended diatribes about the motives or conduct of editors, even if their content is accurate, have no bearing on the subject of this discussion, and votes (whether "keep" or "delete") based on them should be ignored by the closing admin. On point: While the individual data points used to construct this article are indeed reliably sourced, there are currently no sources provided which are actually about the topic "allegations of apartheid," ie, about the uses and abuses of the word "apartheid" in political discourse. If anybody can find a book, monograph, or even scholarly journal article which is actually about the subject (I'm mentally picturing something like a book called "The A-Word: Apartheid Rhetoric in Contemporary Ethnopolitics,") there would at least be a valid, if not necessarily convincing, case to keep this article. Absent such a source, it is clearly novel synthesis of unrelated material. <eleland/talkedits> 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename, presumably to Apartheid analogies or Apartheid analogy. It seems kind of strange to me that some people think it is ok to have an "Apartheid analogy" article about one specific country, which is basically an attack piece against that country, but we can't have a more general article about the "apartheid analogy" phenomenon worldwide. (The absence of any country's name from the title of this particular article means that it does not present the same POV problems that the other one does, which is why it is consistent to favor deletion of the other one but retention of this one -- in case anyone is keeping track.) As for the current structure and text of the article, it is pretty bad, but that is mostly because after the failed attempt to get rid of it the last time, banned editor Homey aka Lothar of the Hill People basically destroyed the existing article and turned it into the current piece of garbage. Maybe we should go back to the text from about a year ago and people can start improving it from there. Presumably, any sources that do not mention "apartheid" should be removed from the article. Improvement is the answer, rather than deletion. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Update: The article has been moved to Apartheid analogies. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6SJ7, we've been through this many times. The reason to have the Israel article and the Brazil article but not a general article is not that Israel and Brazil are somehow the worst countries in the world, or the most appallingly racist or apartheid-like or whatever. The reason is simply that in both cases a body of literature (in the Israel case a vast body of literature) exists which discusses the meme itself – debating its merits, describing its history and attendent controversies, and so on. Meanwhile no body of literature exists that discusses "allegations of apartheid" or "the apartheid analogy" in a general sense. As a general subject, it was invented on Wikipedia.
      By the way, you're right that the current version doesn't read as coherently as the one from last year. But the old one had a much bigger problem in that it seriously misrepresented its sources. Material focusing on the Israeli apartheid analogy was presented as if it addressed the merits of apartheid analogies in general.--G-Dett (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not really the place to discuss the contents of the "Israel and the..." article, but most of the sources in that article are not of the kind you describe. They are just name-calling or taking quotations out of context. (I said "most", so don't quote me counter-examples because they are irrelevant.) As for the apartheid analogy in a general sense being "invented" on Wikipedia, there have been dozens of examples of the analogy being used cited in a number of different articles, though whether they are all still on Wikipedia after last year's Great Purge, I do not know. Some, obviously, are in this very article. Would the article be stronger if there were several books about the general use of the analogy? Sure. But that's not the test for inclusion of an article on Wikipedia. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, that is sort of the test for inclusion. You need secondary sources about the analogy itself in order to establish its notability. Wikipedians' observations about rhetorical trends in discussions across sundry topics do not establish the notability of this or that meme.--G-Dett (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 6SJ7 writes: It seems kind of strange to me that some people think it is ok to have an "Apartheid analogy" article about one specific country, which is basically an attack piece against that country [...]
      My response: Israel and the apartheid analogy is not an attack piece against Israel; it's an overview of the serious academic discussions (and sustained journalistic discussions) that have taken place regarding the analogy mentioned in the title. I suspect that some editors will never reconcile themselves to the existence of an article with both "Israel" and "apartheid" in the title, but this particular debate has become extremely stale and most parties have by now concluded that the article is encyclopedic.
      By contrast, keeping Allegations of apartheid alive in the hopes that Israel and the apartheid analogy will one day be merged with it is not encyclopedic.
      Btw, it might be worth mentioning that four members of the 2007 Arbitration Committee voted to endorse the following statement:
      "Seven editors (Gzuckier (talk · contribs), Humus sapiens (talk · contribs), IronDuke (talk · contribs), Jayjg (talk · contribs), JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), Leifern (talk · contribs), and Tickle me (talk · contribs)) voted to delete the allegations of Israeli apartheid article, largely on principle, after having earlier voted to keep the allegations of Brazilian apartheid article. Given the circumstances, the only reasonable explanation for this voting pattern is that the editors in question were attempting to prove a point regarding the allegations of Israeli apartheid article." (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Proposed decision, Proposed Finding of Fact #6)
      This case eventually collapsed due to unresolvable divisions among the arbitrators, but the fact that four committee members were willing to endorse the aforementioned statement suggests that it wasn't a completely arbitrary charge. It's probably also worth noting that nine arbitrators agreed that "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" was the locus of the dispute. I would tend to think that these matters bear some relevance to the present discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This does seem to be a case of keep nominating an article until you get the result you want. It's survived four deletion discussions and now there's a fifth. If it survives this, then someone will, I'd venture, have yet another go. Renaming to Apartheid analogies seems acceptable. Analogies of X to apartheid are common currency (and indeed overused) in political discourse and this article usefully draws these together. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only one of the four previous nominations resulted in a "keep" vote. Of the three others, one resulted in a deletion that was later overturned, one was closed on procedural grounds, and the other ended in utter chaos. Moreover, all of the previous nominations took place against a politically-charged backdrop rooted in divisions over the status of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. That matter has now been resolved to the satisfaction of most parties, and I think it's time that we reviewed Allegations of apartheid with new eyes. CJCurrie (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary, the issue of the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article has hardly been "resolved to the satisfaction of most parties". The AfDs for it were far more polluted than those for this article, with a couple of straw-man nominations by the article creator to poison the discussion right off the start, and most of the rest being various silly nominations by new editors etc. The only real AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination), in which the !vote ended up at 30 Keep, 35 Delete. Most sensible people have mostly decided to avoid that article as a festering sore that contaminates any who touch it. And there are very few "new" eyes viewing this nomination; rather, it's the same old partisans, making the same nominations and the same tired arguments. By the way, do you plan to argue with every single person who !votes keep? Jayjg (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's worth noting that what Jay is arguing was the only "real AfD" was precisely the one where his vote (along with that of six other editors) was determined by several Arbcom members to have been made in bad faith. See CJ's comment above.--G-Dett (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's even more worth noting that only 4 out of 12 active arbitrators made that determination, and, in fact, they made that determination based on the statement of yet another editor, one who was assumed to have been involved in editing the related articles and therefore relevant, but in fact, had never edited them. Jayjg (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep might as well...- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

edit
  • Keep. Suggest renaming to Countries and Apartheid analogies. Amoruso (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article suffers from the same fundamental WP:SYNTH problem as several other now-deleted "allegations of apartheid" articles (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid). It's an obvious piece of original research by synthesis, like the other articles. Looking at the sources, it's clear that the article is based not on any secondary source about "allegations of apartheid", but on little more than a Google search of a country's name plus the word "apartheid". To take two examples from a part of the world I know well, Bosnia and Macedonia, the article's flaws are obvious: "Other countries whose practices have been compared to apartheid include Bosnia and Herzegovina" (based on the word appearing in a single op-ed piece in The Guardian) and "Greece for its treatment of Macedonians" (based on, again, one source - one mention in one book). It goes on like this for example after example, giving no indication of who is making the "allegations of apartheid" (a misnomer in itself, since the word is often used as an analogy, not an allegation), often not stating even what the allegations/analogies actually are, or how widespread such views are. In effect, the article is little more than a "list of occasions when someone has used the word 'apartheid' about a country", with no regard for the due weight of that POV. This is not a viable basis for a Wikipedia article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The arguments about WP:SYNTH are compelling. The individual elements may be well sourced, but the overall article is very much a synthesis. It seems to me very similar to some of the lists I've seen removed of late. In fact, had it been a category called "List of Countries Accused of Apartheid" I imagine it wouldn't have survived long. --InkSplotch (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jay. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not seeing the WP:NOR issue here: There's plenty of reliable sources supporting the notion, and all are obviously tied together by the "apartheid" concept. FeloniousMonk (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The NOR issue is specifically one of synthesis. The individual sources are certainly reliable but that's not the point. As I've pointed out above, the article has been compiled essentially by trawling Google for any occasion when someone has used the term "apartheid" in relation to arbitrary countries. This is a classic example of synthesis; to quote WP:SYNTH, "Material published by reliable sources can inadvertently be put together in a way that constitutes original research. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." In this case, the conclusion is that there is a worldwide phenomenon of "allegations of apartheid"; this has been supported by putting together different sources, none of which states that conclusion. The article cites no secondary sources that treat "allegations of apartheid" thematically, as opposed to individual mentions of the term.
      In addition, as I've also pointed out, the article drastically fails the NPOV undue weight requirement in that it gives no weight whatsoever to the different "allegations" it cites. How notable is it that a Guardian journalist once wrote an op-ed piece comparing the social situation in Bosnia to apartheid? Yet the article blithely informs us of "allegations of apartheid in Bosnia" based on this one op-ed piece. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see NOR or WP:SYNTH. If the article could stand as a list that coheres under a sourcable concept, it coheres enough to avoid those issues. Apartheid exists as a concept in international law and even a concept (perhaps not exactly the same concept, but no more than a variation of an idea) in public discourse. All elements of the article with a direct connection to either (or any) of those variations in the idea would show that the article avoids WP:SYNTH. The title of the article and its format may only hint it, but this looks a lot like an article that should have been formated as a list. It's a short list with a bit of introductory prose that would fit well into Crime of apartheid since its length doesn't warrant its own article and doesn't show signs of being expandable enough to make a separate article necessary. Noroton (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the WP:SYNTH issues raised above.--Cúchullain t/c 14:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A fairly transparent POV attempt, along the lines of the prior seies of "Allegations of X Apartheid" articles, to portray what is overwhelmingly a phenomenon specific to a single country as a generic condition affecting numerous countries. Tegwarrior (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is, and should be, an article about political rhetoric, and then it is only appropriate that it covers a wide range of examples of that rhetoric. I think Tegwarrior (right above here) reveals his/her bias pretty clearly, which is a preference to single out one country by only writing the article about it. --Leifern (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You make a reasonable argument for an article titled "Political rhetoric." However, whether you like it or not, the term "Apartheid" has been broadly used to describe the actions of only three countries, and two of these only in their policies since abandoned (one of these - the United States - only ever having had the term applied to it in distant retrospective). The "bias" you believe you perceive is not mine, but the world's. If you want to eliminate it, I think your most productive course of action would be to write books and articles on Cambodian and French and Saudi and Brazilian Apartheid, and not to insist that Wikipedia act as if such books and articles already exist, along with a vast readership. Good luck finding a publisher. Tegwarrior (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's interesting that the people !voting to keep so far are almost all Israel-focused editors, as is the person who created the article in the first place; your comments make the agenda here pretty obvious. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ChrisO: What evidence do you have that I am an Israel-focused editor? What evidence is there in my comments that my agenda is anything but what I am writing? What basis do you have for making such accusations? Honestly, you claim to be an expert Wikipedian, yet you make these accusations and sweeping pronouncements without any discernible substantiation. --Leifern (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fifth nomination? Someone needs to get a grip. Any article which has passed four afds has been thoroughly vetted by the community. — goethean ॐ 19:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've updated the table of prior discussions with a better list. I've also added some links to possibly-related deletion discussions. Note: I deliberately did not include every discussion which included the word "apartheid" but tried to select those discussions which were well-enough referenced that other discussions chose to link to them. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if for no other reason that this statement "This article has long been a source of controversy, and is regarded by many as a WP:SYNTH violation ..." is no more than an appeal to the public and argumentum ad verecundiam, the authority being the alleged "many". (A use of "many" nebulous enough to imply that the "many" are in the majority). But, I digress, the term and concept exists, we are here to report it. Improve the article, don't delete it just because you find it displeasing and contentious. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 21:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have you read WP:SYNTH? If you are going to quote mention of a policy which applies perfectly to this case then at least support it, don't use the quote as reasoning for Keeping this Original Research just because you didn't like the way the argument was worded. I assume from the fact you didn't actual propose a counter argument, that you agree this is entirely Synthesised for the purpose of making a point? Infact... go back through that and you can label two more policy Violations, however Synth pretty much covers it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the part after "But, I digress,"? (The argument put forth by the nominator is so poor as to not really require a vigorous counter-argument.) Anyway, read the part after the digression. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment fully thankyou, questioning that in this case didn't really make sense, considering my point stands. You didn't make a counter argument as to why this is not a synthesis, you simply stated matter of factly that there is notabilty. Clearly you didn't read the references, none of which mention the topic of "Allegations of apartheid" and all of which are brought together purely for the purpose of Original Research. Please remeber there are other Policies by which an article can be unsuitable, Notability through lots of somewhat related references are not the only reason to keep an article. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's synthesised, fix it rather than try to delete it. It's that simple.
From the OED:
Name given in South Africa to the segregation of the inhabitants of European descent from the non-European (Coloured or mixed, Bantu, Indian, etc.); applied also to any similar movement elsewhere; also, to other forms of racial separation (social, educational, etc.). Also fig. and attrib.
[1929 J. C. DU PLESSIS in Die N.G. Kerk in die O.V.S. en die Naturelle-Vraagstuk 22 In hierdie grondbegrip van Sendingwerk en nie in rassevooroordeel nie, moet die verklaring gesoek word vir die gees van apartheid wat ons gedragslyn nog altoos gekenmerk het.] 1947 Cape Times 24 Oct. 7/7 Mr. Hofmeyr said apartheid could not be reconciled with a policy of progress and prosperity for South Africa. 1948 Ibid. 12 Aug. 1/1 Mr. P. O. Sauer..will explain the application of the apartheid policy on the railways. Ibid. 13 Aug. 8 It is always easy to discern the immediate benefits or comforts conferred on the apartheid-minded Europeans, but impossible to discern the benefits conferred on the non-Europeans. 1949 Ibid. 18 July 9/3 Apartheid is to be introduced at the Kimberley Post Office as soon as necessary structural alterations can be made. Separate counters will be provided for European and non-European customers. 1949 Manch. Guardian 13 July 4/6 Thus Dr. Malan's policy of ‘Apartheid’ for the non-Europeans, which is only the Dutch word for Field Marshal Smuts's policy of ‘segregation’, which in turn is only a pretty word for repression, is achieving a position of ‘Apartheid’, in the literal sense of isolation, for the nation as a whole. 1950 Hansard Commons CCCCLXXVI. 2020 It does not really justify making a sort of political apartheid as the basis of one's foreign policy. 1953 J. PACKER Apes & Ivory ii. 17 This residential and social apartheid is not artificial. It is in the very nature of life in South Africa. What is new in apartheid is the Immorality Act which forbids intimacy between White and Brown. 1955 Times 5 July 6/3 The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Fisher, drew a parallel yesterday between the political apartheid which he had seen in South Africa, separating the nation, and ecclesiastical apartheid which prevented unity among the churches. 1958 Times Lit. Suppl. 21 Nov. 674/5 The tristichs deprived of their rhyming nexus suggest only a metrical apartheid. 1959 Times 28 Feb. 7/3 Some system of apartheid in Central Africa would result. 1959 News Chron. 13 Aug. 4/1 Without going to extreme lengths of apartheid, it should still be..possible to allow those who smoke to do so..on a bus top, reserving the lower deck to those who find the habit revolting. 1961 Times 15 Mar. 14/2 The South African Broadcasting Corporation said the word apartheid would now not be used except in direct quotation... It would use the word ‘self-development’ to describe the Government's race policies. 1963 Listener 25 Apr. 699/1 It was Sir Charles Snow who first put about the idea of cultural apartheid.
&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"If it's synthesised, fix it rather than try to delete it." Ordinarily I would agree, but the problem we have in this case is that the fundamental concept of the article is irretrievably flawed. It's based on the supposition that there is a worldwide phenomenon of "allegations of apartheid", but none of the references in the article discuss this alleged phenomenon. The article instead argues for the existence of such a phenomenon, based on citing random instances when someone has used the word "apartheid" in relation to various countries. That's the heart of the problem. "Unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas", such as the claimed existence of an "allegations of apartheid" phenomenon, are exactly what WP:NOR prohibits. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Articles about political discourse and rhetorical trends can be terrific, but they need sources that actually write about those things, not sources that supposedly exemplify them.--G-Dett (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sofixit template Jim. I should create a template for the following response, since I've typed so many versions of it. In a nutshell: I don't think the sourcing issue can be fixed because so far as I can tell, there are no secondary sources for this topic. This is what I meant when I said it appears to be a made-up topic. Wikipedians using search engines have discovered what they think is a rhetorical trend in discussion of everything from Bosnia/Herzegovina to the worldwide distribution of potable water, but no one describes that rhetorical trend except them. The thing this article is about is not recognized as a thing by any real-world RS; this is what I mean when I say no sources. I've looked for sources myself to no avail, and asked others for them and got nothing.--G-Dett (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You searched all 5 million potential sources? Woe. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 18:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for "delete"rs: For those who are saying there is an "original sythensis" here, can someone quote me the exact words in the article that constitute the "synthesis"? When I look at the intro, I see no "conclusion" or "supposition", or any statement about a "phenomenon." All I see is statements about how a particular word has been used. Also, I'm not sure what it means for an article to have a "fundamental concept" apart from its actual words. (All these quoted terms happen to be from posts by ChrisO, but anyone can answer.) What actual words represent the "synthesis"? 6SJ7 (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)Update: Nobody below has really answered the question, so I have to conclude that there is no valid argument that this article is an original synthesis. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every sentence that discusses the topic of this article, "allegations of apartheid," is a synthesis. From the first sentence forward. Because that topic doesn't exist as a general topic in the real world; it was formulated here.--G-Dett (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this should probably go without saying, I will say it anyway: I don't think that even comes close to answering my question. You need to show what the synthesis actually is, from the words of the article, in order to show that there actually is a synthesis. As for the title, it can be changed. 6SJ7 (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Update: The article has been moved to Apartheid analogies. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, no, you need to start with the lead and show us which reliable sources claim that "allegations of apartheid have been made, informally, against societies beyond South Africa," which ones claim that "activists and political theorists have used the term 'apartheid' to describe other perceived social or political discrimination," and which ones claim that "apartheid has been used in compound phrases coined to compare actual or alleged forms of segregation, discrimination or disparity to South African apartheid."--G-Dett (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is a synthesis in the sense that it draws together a large number of fleeting references to "apartheid" in relation to countries other than South Africa. There is neither a scholarly nor a serious journalistic discussion behind "use of the apartheid analogy, in a general sense". CJCurrie (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answer. In just a quick look, I can answer your question in one word: "Arab." The second sentence of the Post-South Africa section reads, "In France the word apartheid has been used to describe the social situation in the French suburbs where Arab immigrants are not integrated with the general French population and live with inferior social services and housing." (italics added) The sentence has two footnotes, the first of which points to the article Postcolonial Urban Apartheid, and the second of which contains an excerpt from an interview of Tariq Ramadan. After the "Allegations of apartheid" article describes the UN definition of apartheid as referring to "racially based policies in any state," we handily see it reported that in France the term has been used to describe the situation of "Arab immigrants" there. All very good, right? We have the state; we have the affected race. The affected race is even Arabs, which perhaps goes to demonstrate the even-handedness of the authors of this article!
But when we look to the footnotes, we find that the first only uses the word "Arab" once, in the sentence, "The 'rage' expressed by young men from the cités does not spring from either anti-imperialist Arab nationalism or some sort of anti-Western jihadism as Fouad Ajami, Alain Finkielkraut, Charles Krautheimer, and Daniel Pipes among others would have it, but rather from lifetimes of rampant unemployment, school failure, police harassment, and everyday racist discrimination that tends to treat them generally as the racaille of Sarkozy's insult—regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion." Huh! "Arab" as something that the situation is not about!
And then if we look to see what exact phenomenon the authors were describing as "apartheid," there is mainly discussion of how "socioeconomic marginalization has been paired with spatial isolation" in "preeminently multiracial sites, with local bases of solidarity conditioned by common social class rather than ethnic or religious similarity."
But, race? Surely race has something to do with it! And it does, sort of: in "popular talk;" in "pre-existing metropolitan anxieties;" in something the authors call "racialization," which apparently is applying a "racial" grouping to a non-racial group; in prejudice excused by Jacques Chirac as a "justified response to the 'noise and smell' of immigrants." So, "apartheid" has been used by the authors to describe a socioeconomically delineated phenomenon that the nattering classes of France (and now a few intrepid Wikipedia editors ...) have described in racial terms for their own purposes or due to their own prejudices. This isn't exactly an "allegation of apartheid," which, according to the UN definition so helpfully described is "racially based policies in any state." Racially-based, not socioeconomic.
Well, surely the second footnote will clarify! Ramadan also talks about France "disintegrating before our eyes into socioeconomic communities, into territorial and social apartheid." So far, the apartheid he talks about is socioeconomic and not racial. But then he almost immediately says, "Institutionalized racism is a daily reality." But this isn't what he has called "apartheid." And he also specifically says, "The attempt to Islamicize social issues perverts and falsifies political discourse." (What might he say about attempts to Arabicize them?)
Anyway, I think it should be clear beyond any doubt that the claim that "apartheid" had been used in France to describe something having to do specifically with Arab immigrants is a synthesis of the authors of the "Allegations of apartheid" authors, or at least they have not gotten this information from the articles they cite.
Tegwarrior (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed - the misuse of the sources is obvious. I'd also like to point out that many of the cited sources use "apartheid" as an analogy, not an allegation, so they're not even directly relevant to the theme of the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title (and the first sentence) can be changed, so that's not an issue. In fact, since there is at least arguably a consensus to change the title among those who believe the article should be kept, I am thinking of moving the article myself, while this AfD is pending. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Update: The article has been moved to Apartheid analogies. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A LOT more than just the first sentence needs to be changed. As I've noted elsewhere on this page, the citation for "Canadian Aprartheid" more nearly clarifies that assimilation rather than apartheid is what's worried about in Canada. Much of this article seems to be a hodgepodge of stuff that someone found by through google and didn't review very well. Tegwarrior (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Indeed, it seems that many of the "examples" given for "allegations of apartheid" would more accurately be called "misuses of the term apartheid," because they directly refer to economic grounds for discrimination rather than racial grounds. When a term has been defined as a specific crime, it seems awfully un-encyclopedic to call uses of the term that have nothing to do with that crime "allegations." Saying that someone "murdered" a baseball is not exactly a cause to call the police. The economically based matters that are called "apartheid" are not really allegations at all, but more accurately exaggerations. Tegwarrior (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep This is roughly the bazillionth time that some editors have banded together to try to eliminate all mention of any counry but Israel with respect to the apartheid analogy. It makes it look as though Wikipedia is interested in bashing Israel and/or holding it to a vastly higher standard than any other country. I'll also ask editors who are enaging in rank trolling regarding incomplete and therefore defunct/inapplicable arbcom cases to please stop. IronDuke 01:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh come on, ID. We know each other, you know the history, and you know very well that I, the nominator CJCurrie, ChrisO and others have all of us expressed support for articles on the Cuban apartheid analogy and the Brazilian apartheid analogy, and any other apartheid-analogy article with secondary sources that actually describe and discuss the analogy itself. If you think there are good secondary sources describing "allegations of apartheid" in a general way and establishing its notability as a general topic, share them. If you want to contest what we're classifying as "primary" sources versus "secondary" ones, do so – with clarity and thoroughness, please. If you think WP:NOR is commonly misunderstood and you want to make the case for the validity of articles built entirely out of primary sources, then do that. But don't come here and tell editors who are assuming your good faith that we have "banded together to try to eliminate all mention of any counry but Israel with respect to the apartheid analogy." It violates both the spirit and the letter of the truth as you know it.--G-Dett (talk) 02:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, GD, I’m prepared to admit I’m wrong if and where I am. If my memory plays me false, feel free to tell me. But as I look at the Brazilian Apartheid AFD, I see no G-Dett, no ChrisO, and no CJCurrie. When I look at the Cuban apartheid article, I have a Zen experience: the article of no article. Did you support having that as a stand-alone article? I also seem to recall a deletion (oh sorry: a “merge” from a straw poll while a nasty arbitration was going on about that very issue) of the Saudi Apartheid article, in my view the best of the lot. Did you fight that? Did ChrisO? Did CJ?
And again, the fact that an entirely irrelevant non-finding from a non-case by arbcom is being waved about by some (including you, depressingly) makes me feel like those who’ve smashed nearly every other article on this topic into submission won’t be happy until they achieve total victory: Israel must be shown to be in as bad a light as possible, and Wikipedia policy must not be allowed to stand in the way of that.
As for NOR, this article vastly exceeds common wiki standards. If the articles were all in as good a shape as this or better, we’d really have something to be proud of. IronDuke 03:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: I don't believe I was even aware of the Brazilian apartheid afd at the time, but I endorsed retention of the article here. Since we're on the topic, I can't help but notice that most of the people who voted on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allegations_of_Brazilian_apartheid are veterans of Wikipedia's Israel-Palestine battles. Should I assume this was a coincidence? CJCurrie (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ironduke, thanks for your response. Here's where I voted "weak keep" on the Cuban "tourist apartheid" AfD. When the "Brazilian apartheid" AfD came up, I was not certain where I stood on its notability, so I didn't vote. Here's where I expressed my sense that the Brazilian "social apartheid" may indeed be notable per reliable secondary sources. In those comments and just about any other I posted during the whole "allegations of apartheid" debacle last summer, you will find clearly laid out my rationale for inclusion – which has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with the need for secondary sources in articles about political rhetoric.
Your belief that the Saudi Arabia article was the "best of the lot" suggests to me that we are working from dramatically different criteria. If you mean that of all the countries discussed in these articles, Saudi Arabia has the most hands-down appalling human- and civil-rights situations, then we're pretty much agreed. But I think "Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid" (now Human rights in Saudi Arabia) was actually the very worst of the lot, because it was built out of the most ridiculously fleeting and incidental uses of the word "apartheid" in three or four random op-eds and blogposts, there were no secondary sources whatsoever, and nothing indicating at all that the analogy had gained any traction or indeed any notice from anyone anywhere. It's not surprising that so few people have ever compared Saudi Arabia to South Africa, because in most people's minds the former is if anything worse than the latter; and it's not surprising that when the odd pundit does make the comparison, no one notices or cares, given that the Saudi regime has so few defenders (the royal family, a handful of oil oligarchs and regional despots, and about 6 or 7 American presidential administrations), none of whom are culturally, emotionally, spiritually, religiously, and politically invested in its reputation the way millions are in that of Israel. If Wikipedia were a tribunal in charge of praising and censuring countries according to their moral merits, I'd agree that Saudi Arabia would deserve a rotten tomato here and maybe Israel wouldn't. But this is an encyclopedia, and we're supposed to be writing neutral articles on notable topics. The "Israeli apartheid" analogy has been the locus of an extraordinary amount of debate, discussion, and controversy for decades now, and the secondary-source literature on the analogy itself is voluminous. By contrast two or three non-specialist pundits used the word "apartheid" in connection with Saudi Arabia, and nobody noticed except a few Israel-focused Wikipedians. Meanwhile, for the last time, in the real world this supposed general phenomenon of "allegations of apartheid" has never been recognized or discussed; it isn't a topic, except here, among us. Textbook case of original research synthesis.--G-Dett (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I voted on this AFD for the simple reason that there was an attempt to slander me in this nomination. Otherwise, I wouldn't have noticed. As for the Israel connection, I'm pretty sure it wasn't any member of this imagined Zionist conspiracy. --Leifern (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an impressive smear, but it misses the point. Let's put it this way: when over half the contributors to afds on Allegations of Brazilian Apartheid, Allegations of Chinese Apartheid (and so on) are veterans of Wikipedia's Israel-Palestine disputes, there's a good chance that the larger issue may have something to do with an Israel-Palestine dispute.
Last year's controversy over the various "Allegations of [...] apartheid" was an embarassment to the project, and it's lamentable to see the same gamesmanship continuing. CJCurrie (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but that works both ways - the Arbcom case last year was lengthy, involved, very unpleasant I'm sure for everyone involved. Raising the voting pattern of one possible group should open the door to someone responding in kind. If I had hours to spare, I could have generated lots of documentation to look the detractors from this article look just as bad if not worse, but I honestly believe that each article's existence should be based on its merits alone. --Leifern (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to those of us who wanted to keep the encyclopedic article Israel and the apartheid analogy, and also wanted to delete the dubious articles that were created in response to it? This doesn't strike me as a mark of inconsistency. CJCurrie (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@ G-Dett. Okay. So you, CJ, and ChrisO didn’t all necessarily support the articles you earlier said you’d supported. No biggie, I guess, but you’ll save me time if you look these things up first. We may indeed be using radically different criteria to determine which articles merit inclusion -- “the secondary-source literature on the analogy itself is voluminous.” Really? Voluminous? And there’s been “an ‘extraordinary’ amount of debate?” Radically different criteria indeed.
Also, as you’ve demonstrated such a keen interest in eliminating fleeting uses of the word apartheid, I wonder if we can look forward to your excising all fleeting allusions to it in the Israel article.
@ CJCurrie. I find it puzzling that you keep using the word ”gamesmanship” in a derogatory manner: gamesmanship is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of this AfD that was calculated to inflame, and for the appalling appeals to bad faith that have accompanied it. You're a veteran -- you had to have known this would happen. IronDuke 23:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ironduke, this is getting annoying. Here's what I wrote last summer, in a statement to Arbcom:

My sole criteria for any "allegations" article is that there have to be secondary sources discussing the allegations themselves and attesting to their notability, not merely primary-source instances where the word "apartheid" is used gathered and arranged into quote farms...I do not believe the Israel article is the only article that meets this criterion. The Cuba article meets this criterion (though just barely), hence my vote for "Weak keep." And the Brazil article may meet this criterion – and will almost certainly do so if the title specifies "social apartheid." ([42], emphasis added)

And whaddya know, it's since been moved to Social apartheid in Brazil. Rustle my beanbag if there's an AfD on it and you'll have my "keep" vote.
You post here that I and others have "banded together to try to eliminate all mention of any counry but Israel with respect to the apartheid analogy," and when I point out (for the tenth time) that this is false and give you a cursory review of the history, instead of retracting you try to find some new quibble to be magnanimous about ("no biggie"). Next you'll be telling me I've only reiterated it nine times, and forgiving me my misleading paranthetical aside. The "biggie" here is that you keep burying the history and feeding this nonsense about "singling out Israel." Yes, the literature on the Israeli apartheid analogy is indeed voluminous. It goes back decades, and was fed for many years by the close strategic and economic ties between Israel and South Africa. It has become more purely rhetorical in recent years, and is now fed more by demographic concerns about the future of Israel, and the diminishing practicability of the two-state solution due to settlement expansion and the failure of the peace process. Yes, there's a whole lot of crap in the article as well and yes, you and Jayjg are right that it's a POV magnet and often a total mess. Read my extensive suggestions to its talk page at the end of last summer, which were geared toward a historicized treatment of the analogy itself, coupled with a reduction/elimination of the quote-farm food-fight aspect (see my posts in archive 24 of that talk page, especially the lengthy academic bibliography). In answer to your question, yes fleeting mentions should go, except where fleeting mentions themselves have provoked great consternation and discussion (Carter's book = great example). If you feel like giving me a magnanimous "no biggie" free pass on something, let it be for my lack of follow-through last summer. My suggestions were good ones, and my bibliographic research extensive, I think you'll find.--G-Dett (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think bring up this bit of ancient history is totally inappropriate. I stand by my vote, but would not apply it now to anyone involved in the earlier case. This nomination should succeed or fail on its merits, not on virtues or failings of a proposed, but failed finding of fact. Fred Talk 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Fred’s having said what he did puts the kibosh on what I was going to write, which would have been to the same effect, but with perhaps less impact. I trust that ends that part of the discussion for good. In fact, if editors wanted to go back and strike through the inappropriate remarks, a lot of people would, I think, take it as a sign of good faith.
As for your “support” of other articles, all I can say is there wasn’t any for Brazil where it most mattered, on the AfD. And the Cuban article is gone.
You also misquote me, saying that I said you were a member of the band that was seeking to single out Israel. I don’t see where I said that.
How voluminous is the literature exactly? How many books have been written solely on that topic?
“If you feel like giving me a magnanimous "no biggie" free pass on something, let it be for my lack of follow-through last summer.” Actually, that's exactly where I don’t want to give you a pass. Harping on an article because it simply organizes information in a way you don’t like (how many user-generated lists are there on Wikipedia, again?), while letting the IA article fester does not help your case when you claim to bear no animus towards Israel. Not saying you do, BTW: I really have no way of knowing that. I can only read your edits, not your mind. IronDuke 02:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the flare-up, Duke, my affection + respect for you is undimmed. I left the Israel article last summer because I was approaching burnout and because the inestimable HG (one of the only editors widely credited on both sides for knowledge and fairness) was in charge, not because I was content to see it fester. My parting suggestions were as follows:

This article...could use a lot of improvement, beginning with a rename to Israeli apartheid analogy and a more detailed, rigorous, and nuanced treatment of the various valences of the analogy. It isn't purely a debate about what Israel is or isn't "guilty" of, a fact I think is not fully appreciated by those who keep suggesting moving this to Human Rights in Israel and the Occupied Territories (nor, for that matter, by those who insist on the word "allegations" remaining in the title). The Adam/Moodley book is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to work that accepts the analogy as a working model (with reservations) but tries to turn it to practical and pragmatic purposes of conflict-resolution as opposed to rhetorical and ideological purposes of delegitimizing Israel. The South Africa comparison is at the center of debates about whether a society can transform without losing its essential character, whether a SA-style truth and reconciliation commission could work in Israel-Palestine; whether a successful peace process based on a one-state solution (South Africa) can provide a good model for one which will almost certainly end in a two-state solution (Israel-Palestine); whether the almost sui-generis efficacy of boycotts and international sanctions against South Africa is a good model for anti-occupation activism, or whether it's likely to provoke a backlash and other unintended consequences; and so on. We need to begin to expand the bibliography and explore books like Geneaologies of Conflict: Class, Identity, and State in Palestine/Israel and South Africa, Talking with the Enemy : Negotiation and Threat Perception in South Africa and Israel/Palestine, Peace Building in Northern Ireland, Israel and South Africa: Transition, Transformation and Reconciliation, God's Peoples: Covenant and Land in South Africa, Israel, and Ulster, Mobilizing for Peace: Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, and South Africa, Undercutting Sanctions: Israel, the U.S. and South Africa, and so on, as well as other books exploring the ethically controversial dimensions of the analogy we're more familiar with: Israel and South Africa: Legal Systems of Settler Domination, Security, terrorism, and torture: Detainees' rights in South Africa and Israel : a comparative study, Israel, South Africa, and the West, Israel And South Africa, etc. This is a fascinating subject and deserves an article in its own right; I see neither reason nor precedent for a merge.--G-Dett 17:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The "tourist apartheid" in Cuba article was not deleted; it was merged with Tourism in Cuba per the consensus of Latin-America-focussed editors. It has a section of its own there, and Cuban tourist apartheid is a redirect. As for where my support for the Brazil article mattered most, it survived the AfD I didn't vote in, and its move from the POINTy Allegations of Brazilian apartheid to Social apartheid in Brazil, a move urged by me and others, is what has preserved it since.--G-Dett (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I'm not suggesting that last year's proposed finding of fact should be applied to any contributor to this discussion; I brought it up as background information. CJCurrie (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you single out that particular FoF? There were 11, if you count the variations. 04:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC) IronDuke 01:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the nom is well thought out and I agree. The artilce had had POV problems for years, so it's not a leap to assume that it will be for years to come, being a potential embarrasment to Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia:Consensus and the entire XfD process are completely and utterly pointless if the results of previous iterations are not respected. There is no explanation to demonstrate that consensus has changed since deletion attempts I, II, III and IV, nor that stabs VI, VII, VIII (and more) won't be coming at regular intervals down the pike when this attempt fails. Alansohn (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per G-Dett, ChrisO, et al, terrible article full of original synthesis. Naerii 18:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - the argument that the article violates WP:SYNTH is flawed. We don't need a reliable source to tell us that certain topics are tied together by a certain theme, and in this case, the theme is obviously apartheid: the claim of systemic, government supported, discrimination - we don't even have to guess about it. Indeed, we have lists on Wikipedia for just about everything, and I doubt that scholars have tied together in such lists all the topics we have lists for. The article is properly sourced and can be expanded even to featured status, I believe (as long as it's stable). It appears that the only reason some users are voting delete is to leave Allegations of Israeli Apartheid as the only allegations of Apartheid article, even though many scholars have indeed linked Apartheid with many national policies worldwide, as documented in this article and its sub-articles. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As with many others here, I see that there is a set of collected facts, and an enterprising synth endeavor to make a case against a group. Does it exist? Most likely in most article subjects. Do the articles do that reporting within policy? No. Either rewrite them around a sourced central premise, or burn them. Like others here' I'd like to see a serious set of sources who can tie all this together into a clear systemic, publicly endorsed situation, otherwise, it can all be written off as cultural perceptions differentiating. ThuranX (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Article fails WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:SOAP. L0b0t (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are hardly any sources (from what I see) that discuss "allegations of apartheid". Sources certainly discuss apartheid allegations against Israel, or apartheid allegations against Afghanistan, or apartheid allegations against Sri Lanka... But to put these sources together is a violation of WP:SYNTH.Bless sins (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment users should not consider whether keeping/deleting this article will "single Israel out", or "this article is in response to allegations of apartheid". This article must judged purely on whether it meets/violates WP:NOR and other core wiki policies. Lets keep Israeli-Palestinian politics out.Bless sins (talk) 21:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just like the last 10 times I've commented. A case of POV pushing that is not worth an article, even if it could be kept free of bias and original research (which it can't). The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

edit
Yes, and that's why we should have an article on the Crime of apartheid. It's not enough to justify the piece currently under discussion. CJCurrie (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a (good) argument for a merger rather than a deletion. It appears that both articles are so close in theme and so short that they might be merged. This article does look a bit too short though, given all the other, country-specific articles on allegations of apartheid. It seems it could work well as a longer article with sections summarizing the other articles. In that case, it would be too long to merge. Noroton (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, there aren't that many. I see country-specific articles for Israel, the U.S., France. This sounds like it could all fit into one, merged article. I'm changing my vote to reflect that. Noroton (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to live with merging Allegations of Apartheid into Crime of Apartheid (though I would not, of course, support a merger of any country-specific articles that are encyclopedic in their own right). CJCurrie (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC) See below for a clarification. CJCurrie (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't write that well: I meant to say almost exactly what you just did. Sorry for the confusion. Bad idea to edit while tired. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To my understanding the crime of apartheid is a specific legal charge, have any of the countries with articles suggested for merger been charged with the crime of apartheid? By that I mean some real sanctioning body like the World Court not just some journalist or academic comparing policies or broad social and demographic trends to apartheid. If they have not been charged or sanctioned for the crime of apartheid then there is no reason to merge into Crime of apartheid. Also, the quote from the UN only speaks to the existence of apartheid and the possibility that it may, at some future time, appear in nations other than the RSA, not to the existence of any overarching and connecting allegations of apartheid around the world. The WP:SYN problem is in no way addressed by the quote. L0b0t (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly right. There are two different topics here – one about political rhetoric, the other about international law – and only the latter topic has sources and notability. These two topics have tended to be conflated on Wikipedia, a problem that's been exacerbated by the systematic misuse of the word "allegations," which only properly applies in the context of international law (ChrisO has addressed this problem above and I have at length elsewhere; analogies, comparisons, and so on are not "allegations," a term which refers exclusively to assertions of fact that could conceivably be proven or disproven). Any merger would have to be very selective and avoid further conflation; otherwise, far from atoning for the SYNs of this article, it would sink deeper into them.--G-Dett (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, I should indicate that I'm willing to merge Allegations of Apartheid into Crime of apartheid on the following terms: at the end of the latter article, brief reference is made to the fact that the "apartheid" analogy is sometimes used in a less formal fashion, where no formal allegation of the crime of apartheid has been made. One or two noteworthy examples may be provided. This may not sound like much of a "merger", but then Allegations of apartheid isn't much of an article. CJCurrie (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this article was merged to Crime of apartheid then that'd be a reasonable solution. However, the two topics seem to be different. This article is about allegations (made by random people), while Crime of apartheid would include more careful assessments made by international bodies and scholars.Bless sins (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the crime of apartheid is specifically "inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." Probably two thirds of the "examples" of the article have nothing to do with the crime of apartheid because they are about socioeconomic discrimination rather than anything based on race. Tegwarrior (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the "apartheid concept" you refer to was created through judicious use of synthesis right here in this article, it is purely a product of Wikipedia, there is no body of work in reliable sources that talks about apartheid as political rhetoric and connects it around the world to countries other than the RSA, which is what this article is about, this article is NOT about the real, actual, defined Crime of apartheid. This article just collects disparate, unrelated, incidents of some journalist or blogger compares economic inequality or broad social and demographic trends with apartheid as it was practiced in the RSA prior to 1992. It is ALL original research and synthesis. Those who have simply opined "keep, not OR or Syn" have either not read the article, sources, and our core policies or they are being obtuse. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the well reasoned arguments of ChrisO. I guess I defy the generalization that pro-Israel editors are collectively voting keep on this article, don't I? Avruch 16:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment Whatever happens to this article, this AfD has attracted enough attention to set a precedent for what counts as original research when working from primary sources. We should all hope it will be a sensible precedent, given that it's likely to reverberate beyond the Israel-Palestine quarrels on Wikipedia. To my mind a good guideline for thinking about these things is this: if an article's genesis would be virtually inconceivable without the use of automated search engines – not just more difficult but virtually inconceivable – then that article probably constitutes an original research synthesis. That is, if there's no bibliographic trail anywhere, if the scenario involves the equivalent of thousands of monkeys with red pens reading through mountains of primary sources and circling key words, it's original research.

I have always assumed, for example, that an article like Talking animals in literature would be original research unless sources outside Wikipedia had defined that as a notable general topic.

Now, let's apply the test I've just described. Automated search engines like Google don't exist, so I consult a reference librarian, who tells me that a Harvard scholar by the name of Marc Shell has indeed written about talking animals in literature. I then consult Professor Shell's books and articles, and their bibliographies lead me to other sources, primary and secondary. By mid-afternoon I have the skeleton of a well-sourced Wikipedia article. With Google I could have gotten there in the time it takes to brew a pot of coffee, of course, but the bibliographic trail is well-marked, and easily traversed in a half-day at the library. This passes my proposed SYN test.

If, on the other hand, Marc Shell's work or its equivalent doesn't exist, and the research librarian can only furrow his brow and dimly recall reading something about a talking dog somewhere in a Pynchon story, so I go and scour Pynchon's oeuvre looking for the dog, in the meantime hiring 1000 research assistants to start reading other novelists at random looking for other talking animals in other books, then this fails my proposed SYN test and I'm doing original research.

The fact that both the half-day search at the reference library and the 6-month primary-source team expedition take only 3 minutes on Google has led many, I think, to regard them erroneously as comparable forms of research. The fate of this AfD will give us a sense of where the community stands.--G-Dett (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very cute and clever, but this AfD is about this article. Besides, all of your "spinning" will just make people dizzy. 6SJ7 (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it shows what "the community" thinks. Take out all the editors who are involved in Arab-Israeli articles and you'll have a pretty strong consensus for deletion. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, now we have spinning of the spinning! And see my comments on your "counting" below. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take out the people who disagree with you and you will indeed have a 'consensus' for any position! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not what I said. Take out the editors on both sides of the Arab-Israeli issue and you'll still have a consensus for deletion. This AfD has been distorted, like all the other "allegations of apartheid" AfDs, by the endless Arab-Israeli edit war. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just did a count (as of 17:40 UTC, July 12), excluding those who can reasonably said to be "involved in Arab-Israeli articles" and I get 11 for keep, 13 for delete, and 1 for keep/merge. (There were, of course, some definitional problems as to who is involved and who isn't. I am not going to analyze each editor in "print" because it would be overly intrusive. If you count the total number of comments on this page, which I didn't, you will see that I excluded a lot of people. If in doubt, I excluded the person. I did include Avruch's "delete", in case anyone was wondering.) Hardly a consensus either way, and barely even a majority either way. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did the same count - they cancel each other out, don't they? But if you count the editors who are not "involved in Arab-Israeli articles", I think you'll find a majority for deletion. (Then again, decisions shouldn't be based on a crude headcount anyway...) -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already excluded those involved, and got a count of 11 to 13. Look, you were the one who said there is a "pretty strong consensus" if you exclude the involved, and there is no consensus, there is barely a majority. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We may be counting the numbers differently. Not that it really matters, anyway, since the quality of the arguments is what is supposed to count, so we'll just have to let the closing admin decide on that point. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, I had assumed (with you) that the NOR/SYN issues would be clear to the wider community, but reading through this AfD I am not so certain. Of course some editors are simply taking an IAR approach (Jay for example is ordinarily very strict and exacting on the need for secondary sources, but is keen to make an exception for this article), but as more input from less involved editors comes in, we're beginning to see quite a range of opinion. If you look at Danielx's keep vote below, for example, he's very clear about his position that notability is a meta-content issue, and therefore established purely by editorial consensus that a topic is valid and interesting – not by the existence of secondary sources devoted to it. His view has been endorsed by others here. Again, given the amount of attention this AfD has drawn, a "Keep" decision may well set the precedent for a shift in how we think about the viability of articles on quirky topics devised by Wikipedians with no secondary sources. An article like Queen of Bollywood, for example – which was deleted when it was shown to be built entirely out primary sources using the phrase "queen of Bollywood" for this or that actress, with no secondary sources connecting these actresses or discussing the phrase itself – may be ripe for a comeback.
6SJ7, can you be clearer about what you think is wrong about my proposal? I.e., do you think the world-without-Google (WWG) test for notability is generally a good idea (would clearly rule out oddities like Queen of Bollywood), but because of the Israel issue here we need to take an IAR approach to the present case? Or do you agree rather with Danielx that a topic is notable if editors feel it is notable, even if no secondary sources about that topic exist?--G-Dett (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We cannot hope to ever neutrally deal with such issues as long as deletionists keep trying to bury them under the carpet. When that is done it will just come up again under some other name. Eclecticology (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now do you have a reason that is germane to the discussion at hand? This AfD is about an article that fails WP:OR and WP:SYN and those concerns have yet to be addressed. We have seen lots of straw man arguments, lots of WP:ILIKEIT, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments and lots of arguments about the relevance of other articles but this article is still afoul of policy with no hope of improvement because the subject just does not exist other than on Wikipedia. L0b0t (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who participated in the last four deletion discussions, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of American apartheid, excluding those who are currently blocked or who have not edited in the last month; a "friendly notice", limited in scale, neutrally worded, nonpartisan and open. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisO has canvassed no less than 115 users. This needs to be taken into account when closing this discussion. I do not think 115 users is a "small number" of "friendly notices" as mentioned in WP:CANVASS. Jehochman Talk 18:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
115? Can this be documented, or is ChrisO stipulating that's the right number? Looking at the policy, it appears this is at least excessive cross-posting. If ChrisO limited this cross-posting to editors he knew were likely to vote his way, then it might be votestacking. To be fair, ChrisO's culpability in this matter shouldn't be held against the honest delete voters, though. Should this be investigated separately? --Leifern (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read Shuki and Jaysweet's comments below. I didn't discriminate on the basis of who was likely to vote which way; thus of the people whom I notified, 9 have so far !voted to keep and 8 have !voted to delete. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those AfDs have involved a larger number of editors than in most cases; that's the only reason for the number of users notified, and in absolute terms it's a tiny fraction of the user community. But consider the bigger picture here. The more feedback we have in this AfD, the more integrity it is likely to have as a representative view of the Wikipedia community. Nobody has been asked to support one side or the other. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The language in WP:CANVASS refers directly to 'indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors' which clearly is not what Chris has done. Suggesting that something improper has occurred is off base. Jd2718 (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are four factors: 1/ number of editors, 2/ indescriminate selection, 3/ non-neutral message, and 4/ biased selection of recipients. ChrisO's notices, made in good faith, have only failed the first criteria, not the other three. Yes, there were 115, and that's too many. Nothing needs to be done other than recognize the issue and keep it in mind for the future. Jehochman Talk 07:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason the number is relatively large is because the previous related AfDs involved an unusually large number of editors. That's all. If they had involved only 30 editors, I would only have notified 30. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The chart at WP:CANVASS uses the term "Mass posting" but User:Jehochman needs to read the text, not just glance at the picture. Excessive cross-posting: Important discussions sometimes happen at remote locations in Wikipedia, so editors might be tempted to publicize this discussion by mass-mailing other Wikipedians. Even if the goal is not to influence the outcome of the debate, indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming"... Chris has neither been indiscriminate, nor has she spammed uninvolved editors. Jd2718 (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Listify This is merely a catalog of instances in which the word "apartheid" has been used to describe situations in various countries. If the article is kept, let's not pretend there's any "glue" that holds them together; this should be a list. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As before, WP:SYN is a content policy, not an article inclusion policy. Every article can be considered a "synthesis" in the literal sense -- an editor decides that a topic merits an articles, goes and fetches sources, and synthesises them in writing the article. Thankfully, our definition of prohibited synthesis is more narrow. "Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources." Exactly what non-obvious conclusion is being synthesized here; what "position" is being advanced -- that apartheid analogies are observably common? (Not exactly a controvertible premise.) Deciding that topic like apartheid analogies merits inclusion is a meta-level editorial decision; applying WP:OR in this context is like applying WP:NPOV to an XfD comment. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

edit
  • Delete. Quite simply, this "article" is a dumping ground for every time the word "apartheid" is mentioned, and is a playground for POV-pushing. Additionally, it violates both WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Also, I see no problem with the notes left by ChrisO. This type of discussion needs more light, not less. S. Dean Jameson 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the notice left by Chris0, I don't see anything that is not endorsed by WP:CANVASS. A number of editors commenting here seem to have brought issues with other articles and topics with them to this discussion so some fresh eyes here can't hurt. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jehochman, I respect ChrisO for 'canvassing' people like myself who might oppose his opinion. Does it even matter why I choose to keep? It seems that the opinions of pro-Israel editors seem somewhat disregarded here (speaking of some sort of alluded WP apartheid for even mentioning that ludicrous association). Ho hum. --Shuki (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that so many people have found it interesting to comment on this AfD shows that it is a notable issue. The page needs some work, but that is not a reason to delete. Apartheid in countries other than SA has been mentioned in the press and so it should be straight forward to properly cite and document this page. lk (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with new name This is a toughie, because what would be WP:UNDUE in one part of the world might be pretty mainstream in another. If this were Americopedia, I'd be inclined to Delete because the apartheid analogy is pretty fringy where I live. However, it appears to me -- and I vote "weak" because I could be wrong here -- that the apartheid analogy is relatively mainstream in some parts of the world. Care should be taken, though, to consolidate where appropriate so that we don't have pov forks and such. For instance, this may be redundant with Israel and the apartheid analogy. (On a side note, any allegations of WP:CANVASsing on the part of ChrisO are ludicrous. He is informing potentially interested parties of thjs debate regardless of their previous opinions -- which, having done similar things in the past, I can say is a tedious, thankless, and yet very valuable service. Shame on the accusers, and kudos to ChrisO for getting more participation.) --Jaysweet (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been renamed Apartheid analogies but that does nothing to address the problems of WP:OR and WP:SYN. This is still just a collection of random, disparate mentions of the word "apartheid" in relation to various policies and practices of nation states and broad socio-economic and demographic trends. The only thing that connects these items is that somewhere in the source material the word "apartheid" appears. This article is just an original research dumping ground held together by synthesis. L0b0t (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per S. Dean Jameson, and my argument in the prior AFD that any article about "allegations of" is just a recipe for POV in all its mutated manifestations. Disclosure: I probably wouldn't have seen this AFD without the note from Chris O on my user talk page. --Rividian (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Allegations" is no longer in the title of the article, nor does that word appear in the text. 6SJ7 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well that's good. I'm uncomfortable with most articles titled "Allegations of X" because it seems potentially inviting of POV pushers. I suppose I might go "weak keep" then, but for now I'm not voting.--T. Anthony (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry but the title is still Allegations of apartheid, and "Analogies to..." suffers from the same basic problems. Articles shouldn't be framed around an argument like this... it lies to the inherent problems I mentioned and referenced. I.e. instead of "Arguments that Bush is a Bad President" and "Arguments that Bush is a Good President", it's vastly more practical just to write an article about all (notable) viewpoints on his presidency. Doing it the other way is much more condusive to compiling a laundry list of POVs than actually writing a useful article. That's just how I approach article writing. --Rividian (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real allegations of various crimes against humanity: see crime of apartheid. -- Kendrick7talk 21:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sadly the term "Apartheid" is used too easily worldwide to describe various forms of discrimination. The most notable example, where it is falsely used, is regarding Israel, but is not limited to it. This article should be improved rather than deleted. Noon (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, per user:Nunquam Dormio: it seems that if one were to author any article on Wikipedia critical of Israeli government policies, some people (apparently mostly United States citizens, not even Israelis) will try to have it deleted. That said, some small consensus appears to be building around some merge (in approach if not a full merge) into crime of apartheid. T L Miles (talk) 22:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - not because of the essence of the article but because of its inherent biased POV. --Oren neu dag (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apartheid was a complex system of laws that were unique to pre-Mandela South Africa. The article completely misuses the word "apartheid," turning it into a trivial catch-all phrase. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the widespread dillution of the original meaning of the word. But the ignorant journalistic or NGO usage of it to describe descrimination in many places has already been accepted by equally ignorant vocabulary-challenged people around the world. Very sad, but a fact that WP will not be able to change.--Shuki (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, since when is the United Nations an NGO? -- Kendrick7talk 03:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current definition of the international Crime of Apartheid is not just about race, it's about inhumane acts such as torture, murder, forcible transfer, imprisonment, or persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds, "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." That's a broad remit, and therefore it's natural that scholars and commentators will apply this definition to a broad range of international situations. I find sources on sexual apartheid in Afganistan and class apartheid in America , and proceedings from a conference on social/class apartheid around the world, all of which would benefit from a high-level view of "comparisons to apartheid" rather than only splitting them off into separate subjects. I think it's absurd to suggest that an article about the widespread phenomena of applying the notion of "apartheid" to various international situations is original research when there is an international law that does exactly that. The United Nations groups these things together as forms of apartheid, but we can't? Further, this article shouldn't be merged into crime of apartheid because it is independantly notable and has potential to grow considerably. The question of the allegations against Israel, and the wiki-maneuvering surrounding the article on that topic, should be set aside and this subject judged on its own merits. It is clearly notable and it is possible to write an article on the subject suitable to Wikipedia, so it should stay. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
??? You're simply wrong. The only direct quote you give directly contradicts most of the rest of your comment. Tegwarrior (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree when you say "...all of which would benefit from a high-level view of "comparisons to apartheid" rather than only splitting them off into separate subjects.", once a reliable source does that then, and only then, we write an article about it. Since a reliable source has not done that yet, this article fails WP:OR and WP:SYN. This article is nothing more than a collection of random uses of the word "apartheid" in relation to a vast array of things from government policies to broad socio-economic trending. This article is about the term "apartheid" as used in political rhetoric not the actual, defined and codified Crime of apartheid there should be no conflation of the two. L0b0t (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In wikipedia, we say what other's say and this article is a clear cut case as an example. There are many WP:RS that claims these allegations and indeed is a notable subject. Just because it is something controversial, it does not deserve to be deleted. Watchdogb (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYN. This title has been branded about by opponents of [name your country] and used as a brush to tar same without a properly justified third party sociological source linking all the examples in the article. It is not even a clever synthesis -for nobody has been able to prove there is such thing as a blanket 'allegation of apartheid' - it is but a hotch-potch of links from a variety of sources of journalists somewhere who are attempting to write news copy and give it more impact by use of such analogies. I refer to this AfD. I totally agree with the excellent analysis and rationale of User:Eleland Ohconfucius (talk) 08:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are certainly OR issues with this article, but that in itself is not a good reason to delete the article. If too many instances of apartheid are mentioned when that's not really warranted based on a neutral reading of all the sources, then a NPOV version of this article would become rather small. If that turns out to be the case, then what remains of the article could be merged with the article on allegations of Israeli apartheid. Count Iblis (talk) 14:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if the same standards that some are trying to apply to this article were applied to the one on Israel, that article would become rather small as well -- I'd guess about one-fifth its current size. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, all the sources in the Israel article refer to Israeli apartheid where none of the sources in Allegations of apartheid refer to some sort of overarching apartheid analogy. Strongbrow (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then it may be a good idea to merge the articles right away. That will make it more dificult to use different standards for different cases. Count Iblis (talk) 14:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, as I've already noted many times, is that Israel and the apartheid analogy is an encyclopedic topic with a large volume of secondary literature behind it. "General allegations of apartheid", by contrast, is a made-up topic. I imagine some editors would favour any strategy that brings about the removal of the Israel article, but there's a qualitative difference between the two works. (Not that it matters at this stage, I suppose. Unless a rogue admin does something crazy, the final result of this debate is unfortunately going to be "no consensus".) CJCurrie (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merging this article into Israel and the apartheid analogy makes about as much sense as merging Europe into Belgium. How could you have a section in Israel and the apartheid analogy on France? And there's no basis or mandate for merging the Israel article into this one. The Israel article passed a recent AFD with flying colors and without a merge option - this looks like the side that lost in the Israeli apartheid AFD is trying to get its way through the backdoor. The only article you could possibly merge Allegations of apartheid into is Crime of apartheid. Strongbrow (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 00:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feak on the Dance Floor

edit
Feak on the Dance Floor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Suspicious-looking future Beastie Boys song. Verifiability appears to be a problem, per this. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SnoutBusters

edit
SnoutBusters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Google search for the Russian title of this "upcoming film" turns up only the wikipedia article, and a search of the English title isn't any better. Seems like nonsense to me... I was away on holiday for two weeks or I would have caught it sooner. Esn (talk) 02:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also like to copy & paste here a message that the article creator posted on my talk page:
"While it is not a known Hoax, I'll admit what i've written is original research, but its sure as heck not a hoax started by me. I "saw it somewhere," thinking back, it may have been a poor choice to base an article around it. I believe I started the article as a hope that a few other editors could pull up some information on it." Esn (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree with your vote, I would think the fact that there are no sources (which is required by Wikipedia policy) would be a more important reason for deletion than the fact that it may not fit the notability guidelines (not policy) if there was any proof that this was real. Esn (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, webcontent with no claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoon and suger

edit
Spoon and suger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Little known amateur, YouTube hosted Loose Change (video) spoof. The killer for me was this last line of the article:

These movies are shot with little or no budget and mostly volunteer acting. As the movies become more popular, the budget will increase. Pichpich (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. "More movies currently being planned...", I can't wait. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William G. Hobbs

edit
William G. Hobbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy tagged after being restored after a prod. So let's take it up here. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the references is from the debates of the Saskatchewan Legislature, in which a cabinet minister talks about the artist and a painting the government commissioned from him. There is also an article from the Winnipeg Free Press. I think this artist, who is also a medical doctor, passes notability. Most artists don't get their life and work discussed in a provincial legislature. --Eastmain (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Of marginal notability as an artist, in view of his career output, but Eastmain's points on the level of his artistic recognition is a trenchant defence for including the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an article that I have contributed to and think it is worthy of kepping. Hobbs’s paintings are slowly gaining a reputation because of there content about railways in Canada. As I understand Hobbs is still alive and kicking but is of a good age now. One day his work will be of some significants because of its content about the Canadian Pacific Railway.  stavros1  ♣ 
  • Keep It seems to me that the contributor User:Freshacconci who has now tried to get this article removed from the pages of Wikipedia twice now. Has he a motive that he is not coming clean about. I see from his user page that he himself is a Canadian artist, so is this some form of snobbery!. As for Hobbs as an artist, I had heard off and admired his paintings of the Canadian railways and I live in England. Haydnaston (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Video Games

edit
Awesome Video Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability sort of barely kinda indicated. But unless there's any serious indication of non-trivial, third-party coverage, this appears to be yet-another YouTube podcast. Pichpich (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep AVG is owned by Wipido.com which is a division of the Time Warner Broadcasting Company. With hundreds of thousands of channel views, and over one million video views documented on YouTube alone, notoriety isn't debatable. AVG has been featured on the front page of several popular websites, such as Newgrounds, Yahoo Video, and has received an entertainment feature on YouTube.--Draconic86 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And give this article a chance. You swooped down looking for free and 'easy' brownie points less than 24 hours after this was even created. SashaNein (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Popularity on Newgrounds and YouTube is completely irrelevant (both sites fail WP:RS), as is any sponsorship. Notability is not the same as notoriety. To be included on Wikipedia, something must be the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple independant, reliable sources. No evidence has been produced that Awesome Video Games meets this criterion, so the article should be deleted. Additionally, look at what this, this, and this have in common... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latischolar (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, no reliable sources. Kotaku is a blog (though probably one of the more noteworthy ones), and thus not a reliable source per WP:RS. Huon (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not 100% so: "use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered." The author's credentials check out, but can the particular article cited for this discussion really be considered "non-trivial" coverage per guidelines? —Latischolartalkcontributions 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I have read about "non-trivial" sources on wikipedia, the Kotaku article does not have this counted against it at all. Contrary to popular belief, "Durr even though it's from a reliable source, it's a video game article about video game stuff" does not make it a 'trivial' source that needs to be thrown out. SashaNein (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, you are misrepresenting WP:VG's position on the reliability of Kotaku. The project page states that, at best, Kotaku articles can be reliable, but their use must be carefully considered. This is notably different from other sources listed on the page. Asserting an endorsement of strong inherent reliability is misleading and misrepresentative of community consensus. Second, your attribution of my concern about triviality to bias against "video game stuff" is unfounded. Your disrespectful "durr" additionally demonstrates pointed unconcern for civility as a mocking attack against my intelligence: please refrain from this in the future and do not put words in my mouth again. The Kotaku article is trivial because its only coverage of the subject amounts to little more than, "Hey, Craig told me about this and I thought you should check it out." The article is nothing more than a brief mention of Awesome Video Games (which, by the way, had to be solicited by its creators) with no substantial coverage. Notable subjects do not need their creators to ask acquaintances to write about them in their blogs, and if this is the best coverage of the series there is, the Wikipedia article has no right to exist. —Latischolartalkcontributions 08:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand corrected on blogs not being reliable sources in general (thanks for pointing that out!); still I don't see this Kotaku piece as establishing notability. That review seems to have been invited by people connected with its production who, judging from its tone, may be acquaintances of the review's author. There is rather little actual content, and (while maybe that's just me) I was unable to verify the author's credentials, if any. Huon (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be reading too far into it. Jack Thompson and Brian Ashcraft (or Crecente.. one of them) play 'email tag' all the time, but it doesn't make the Kotaku articles about him any less credible just because they may be perecived as acquaintances. SashaNein (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep — Looking past the apparent meatpuppetry and WP:IDONTLIKEIT accusations, this article was created on July 7, 2008 (2008-07-07) and nominated for AfD on July 8, 2008 (2008-07-08), as User:SashaNein mentioned above. With that being said, we need to give the article the opportunity to show notability. With that also being said, the creator of this article should have also been prepared to show notability on the onset. While I do agree with the arguments for deletion, the timing and circumstances of this AfD nomination is out of place; and therefore it should be kept to give extra time for whomever is working on this article to establish notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Per agreement to hold discussion for several days until more information could be found, nothing has been done to improve this article between now and then. Hence, I change my opinion to delete. The article's author has now been given ample time to show and proof of verifiable, third-party sources, and the article shows nothing to show forth compared to before the 2nd nomination for AfD. MuZemike (talk) 07:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several substantial contributors to the article have been passionately trying to do just that. No new sources establishing notability have been brought forward. When the series is the subject of reliable, third-party coverage per WP:N and WP:RS, then the article will be acceptable for inclusion at that time, but not sooner. —Latischolartalkcontributions 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's not deleted again in less than 24 hours of another creation. Otherwise, I'd agree. I'm sorry, but when someone nominates a newly-created article for AfD less than 24 hours after its creation, something is not right. The people working on this article have virtually very little to no time to do any type of research for notability (and I'm not talking about giving up after finding nothing on Google; newspapers, magazines, etc. can likely have reviews on this show — stuff that is not necessarily easily found by simply typing "Awesome Video Games" in the search box of Google. MuZemike (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is plenty of time to gather this information: before creating the article. The "no page with that title exists" page tells editors to 1) read Wikipedia:Your first article, 2) Gather references to the source(s) of your information, and 3) Create the page including your references. The article creation page also clearly says: "As you create the article, provide references to reliable published sources. Without references, the article may be deleted.". Clearly, references are supposed to be provided when the article is created, not after notability or verifiability or reliability of sources is questioned by someone patrolling new pages, and a consequence for failing to do so, deletion, is disclosed. Quoting Wikipedia:Your first article: "Articles that do not meet notability by citing reliable published sources are likely to be deleted." —Latischolartalkcontributions 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment AFD runs for five days. That would give the article supporters six days to find sources that satisfy WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N. If such sources are not available, then deleting the article six days after creation is perfectly valid. Resolute 16:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Whether users Bslashingu, IGAmazingbob or I are "meat puppets" is irrelevant, if the points we make are true. My references to "popularity on Youtube/Yahoo/NewGrounds/Revver" are valid, as rather than pointing to a number of views asserted by YouTube (etc), they are verifiable, documented facts and events. --99.10.67.223 (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia policy dictates that YouTube, Newgrounds, Revver and sites like these are unacceptable sources of documentation. See WP:Reliable source examples. Notability requires independant, non-trivial coverage of the subject to pass WP:RS. So sorry, the references to popularity are not valid. I'm a fan of the show myself, but the lack of reliable third-party coverage means that, at present, it is just not acceptable for Wikipedia. —Latischolartalkcontributions 23:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll further add to that, quoting from AfD guidelines: Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight. MuZemike (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can provide some evidence towards the series' coverage in other mediums, as it has been featured on a multitude of websites, television programs, and magazines, but the article was marked for deletion so quickly, that we all panicked trying to compile our sources. We don't really have much free time to spend towards editing the Wikipedia article, so we thought that we could just put together all of the sources for that as we go along. But as soon as that Articles for Deletion notice popped up we all scrambled to try and pull everything we knew from memory. --Bslashingu (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what happens when sources are not gathered before creating an article. :) I don't have a problem if the deletion decision is put on hold for a while (this, however, is not the same as "keep") to give you time to find those other sources. If your statement about the show being featured in "a multitude" of coverage is correct, establishing sufficient notability shouldn't be too difficult. Magazines in particular are great sources. But please read WP:RS and WP:Reliable source examples very carefully. Even very popular web content may be an unsuitable subject for Wikipedia because of the guidelines. If sufficient sources are found in a reasonable period of time, I'll change my recommendation to keep. Consensus to stay the decision for a while, everyone? —Latischolartalkcontributions 01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple and Cinnamon (Utada Hikaru song)

edit
Apple and Cinnamon (Utada Hikaru song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an unreferenced article about an upcoming non-notable song. Should be deleted per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. It's been proded, but IP user removed it without stating a reason on the edit summary. Victor Lopes (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon Belavenets

edit
Nikon Belavenets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't think this person meets the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (people). The article about him has been deleted in ru.wiki. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge to Super Bowl ring per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladmir Putin Super Bowl ring incident

edit
Vladmir Putin Super Bowl ring incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-inportant incident. This did infact happen but I don't see the notability for its own article.WildyMedic (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Vladimir (yes, that's his name) Putin or Robert Kraft Super Bowl ring (-golf clap for Dhartung). The incident is covered by several newspapers(including USA Today), but there's not a whole lot that can be said about the incident: Kraft showed Putin his ring, Putin liked it, Kraft told him to keep it as a gift, Putin pockets it. The only thing out-of-the-ordinary is that a newspaper or two (The Boston Globe) thought/speculated that he stole it, for a brief moment. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but to Super Bowl ring. This is surely one of the more famous individual rings, now, and may be the only one in the possession of a foreign country per se. That doesn't make it worth its own article as the misunderstanding is the only part that makes it remotely newsworthy and it's not even clear how much of a misunderstanding there was by the participants (as opposed to observers). --Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Dweller (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soroush Sehhat

edit
Soroush Sehhat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability issues for over a year now. So listed DimaG (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 12:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of high-definition titles featuring 7.1 surround sound

edit
List of high-definition titles featuring 7.1 surround sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate collection of links. Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide. Corvus cornixtalk 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although there could be an arguement that this is a valid navigational list, i feel the title is unclear and the criteria too broad and indiscriminate to be an appropriate subject for a list. --neon white talk 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain what you mean by the criteria being 'too broad and indiscriminate'. This list refers to Blu-ray and HD DVD releases featuring a 7.1 channel audio track. This is extremely specific criteria to which only a handful of titles conform and it represents a useful addendum to the Surround sound article section on 7.1 surround sound. I would recommend that editors read that article before commenting on deletion. Rishi (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep seems like a reasonable list. Needs to be renamed to something that is more descriptive. Hobit (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Delete article, create category— see below I could see this list being useful in building the web in a way that keeps context. (I'm at Surround sound, and I want to know which titles were produced in 7.1 in which eras and by which publishers.) I do feel the list should be moved to List of high-definition titles featuring 7.1 surround sound, or similar, though. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to just be a buyer's guide. This is the wrong site for this. JJL (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete buyers guide, and incredibly trivial information. Resolute 03:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems like a reasonable list. Each item is sourced by a secondary source (Be still my beating heart!) and the list does not seem to be in immediate danger of becoming indiscriminate. I suspect that we may need to revisit this AfD when the list of 7.1 titles approaches the list of movies, but for now it seems kosher. Protonk (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Moved. Protonk (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of material. I could likewise create List of VHS Titles for the nostalgic. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While in the long run, we may change our minds, the list currently shows that these new formats are really not providing what they are really capable of. That makes this information encyclopedic. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once 7.1 becomes the standard this list will become obsolete. However, right now it's a smaller list that IS informative. In fact, I don't think anyone would be against having a technical information section for each individual title. there is usually a plot summary, cast, reception..... obviously technical specifications are relevant on wikipedia. This just brings a list of titles that fall under a certain criteria into one area. And to lonely beacon, I'm not arguing to have a list of hundreds of Blu-Rays listed here, just a few specific ones. And to all those who say that wikipedia isn't a buyers guide, why then do almost all movies have their critical reception listed? Double standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beezball (talk • contribs) 21:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's the problem, once notability is established, it is forever. We cannot decide "this article is of temporary importance", so today we think it is notable, and we can just delete it later. If someone wanted to tag a film's page as being 7.1, OK .... if someone even wanted to invent a category and tag each such film, we can do away with categories later. The problem is: once the article is declared "notable" it is here forever. I think we can all agree that is not a good idea. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category would be a compromise that would avoid notability issues while keeping the article useful in navigation. (Shouldn't "7.1 surround sound" have its own article before a list of 7.1 titles is created, per WP:LISTS?) I believe I'll change my !vote to Delete article, create category.
  • Comment. you do have a point. However, if hollywood insists on keeping 5.1 the standard this wouild indeed stay notable. and with only two production houses using 7.1 after two years of availibility it's not un-reasonable to imagine 7.1 being skipped over.--Beezball (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment notability is forever, but I don't think notability is the important question here. The list is sourced and covers a notable topic. The problem is whether or not the list is indiscriminate. If it is, then we delete it per WP:NOT. My argument is that it isn't now and isn't likely to be for a few years. Maybe in 4-5 years the number of 7.1 titles will grow to approach the number of total titles sold (just imagine a 1998 wikipedia where we are debating a "list of DVD titles". That debate then could be approachable but to not today). A list may be manageable today and unmanageable 4 years from now. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedied. Alexf42 10:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Motwani

edit
Gaurav Motwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As I said in my prod: No notability asserted, probable conflict of interest, no references and not neutral. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gnangarra 12:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Satyeswarananda Giri

edit
Swami Satyeswarananda Giri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An associate of a notable person. Alone, this person is not notable. Also there are not reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I agree that he wrote a lot of books - but they are ALL self-published books from his organization called "Sanskrit Classics." This website, which is his personal website, is the only source for the article. I question these books notability and the author's as well. Swami Satyeswarananda Giri never did anything notable and there are no reliable sources about him. This article deserves a delete vote. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your first edit on Wikipedia. The article you are suggesting has no notability or reliable sources - in this discussion there have been 11 days for reliabe sources to be presented and none have. If you know of any claims to notability and sources to back up these claims; please add them to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong keep.

How the Sanskrit Classics, Publishers started

Having arrived in the United States of America, Swami Satyeswarananda Vidyaratna Babaji Maharaj mentioned to a devotee that he was supposed to publish some writings of spiritual interpretations as he was instructed to by Mahamuni Babaji in the Himalayas. So the devotee asked his literary agent to contact some publishers. As a result, he received offers from some reputed publishers (among them was Inner Tradition from New York) who were interested in publishing “The Original Kriya Discipline.”

The Publishers expressed that since the writings were from an Indian gentleman they would have to edit the materials for better presentation. Maharaj-ji immediately realized that he could not publish his writings with the American Publishers. He did not want to compromise at all or give them the right to edit his writings. He had this strong uncompromising attitude for a valid reason; after all, these were spiritual books that needed to be presented properly.

Publishers in general have the sole interest of making a profit from their investments. Nobody can blame them in that respect; after all, it is a business for them. In that situation, the moment the author signed the contract for royalties, the publishers would own the book and do whatever they thought fit to make it publishable and profitable by their standard, and the author would lose control.

In Maharaj-ji’s opinion even the highly reputed publishing companies’ able intellectual editors are not able to penetrate the vibrations of atoms of inner Light and atoms of inner Sound (OM) of the Letters (Aksaras: A means “No,” and ksara means “transitory” therefore, Aksara literally means no transitory or “ETERNITY” or “IMMORTALITY”) of the Sanskrit ‘words’ and ‘mantras’ emanating and resonating mystic Energy (Kundalini Energy) from them.

The renowned editors of the publishing companies may be well equipped with their intellectual powers to understand the concepts and meanings of the words and sentences, but they lack the power and insight and have no eyes to see the inner Light of the letters and hear the inner Sound of the word. As a result, they cannot do justice to the presentation of publishing the spiritual books Maharaj-ji wrote.

Take an example, to an editor or an intellectual for that matter, a word is composed with combinations of letters and is defined as having a meaning or at least, must be making a concept.

On the contrary, for a Yogi or for a spiritual person, the English word’s equivalent in Sanskrit is Sabda, which literally means Sound that comes from the inner Sound (OM).

Here the big difference between the intellectuals and the Yogis, is the intellectuals trade the path of concept, word, and meanings; while the Yogis and spiritual persons follow the path of vibrations of inner Light and inner Sound from those Letters. As a result, they bypass the intellectual’s limitations of concept and meaning (free of playing semantics). The intellectuals on one side and the Yogi and spiritual person on the other side, DEPART in their ways. In fact, they are in two different worlds.

Each odd letter (Aksara) of the alphabet contains a smaller degree and number of atoms of inner Light and atoms of inner Sound; while each even number of letter contains a greater degree and number of atoms of inner Light and atoms of inner Sound. The word therefore, expresses the composite vibrations of inner Light and inner Sound depending on how many odd letters and even letters there are in the word.

(Similarly, a sentence carries the composite degree of vibrations of inner Light and inner Sound depending on how many words are there in a sentence.)

For example, “Sanskrit” is an English word, its equivalent is Samaskrita. If the word Samaskrita is scanned it will be two words: Sama means “Tranquility,” and krita means “done.” Therefore, Samaskrita means the “state of Tranquility;” it happens when the restless breaths are made tranquil.

So the word, Samaskrita, for a Yogi and spiritual person is the “state of tranquility of the breath;” while for an intellectual it is merely a word.

How then can the editors of the Western publishing companies and also of Indian Publishing companies do justice in this situation? Certainly they can’t. Internationally famous Indologist publisher - Motilal Banarasidass from New Delhi (Letter dated November 16, 1995 Ref. no. JPJ/USA/295) was interested publishing Maharaj-ji’s books, for the same reason he turned down their proposal.

That was the main reason Swami Satyeswarananda Vidyaratna Babaji Maharaj had to start “The Sanskrit Classics, Publishers” as self publishing in 1984. It becomes imperative to make it clear here that it is a Publishing company and NOT a spiritual organization.

(It would not be out of place to mention here that the Divine Himalayan Yogi, Mahamuni Babaji, and his principal Kriya disciple, Lahiri Mahasay, made an INJUNCTION not to start any organization (this includes center or asram) for teaching of Kriya discipline. Maharaj-ji with uncompromising zeal obeyed this injunction with the spirit and the letter of the injunction.

(Some violated Mahamuni Babaji’s and Lahiri Mahasay’s explicit injunction and started organizations. They are charging for their teachings and are collecting donations as non-profit organizations. In almost all spiritual disciplines, the teachings are traditionally free. It is wonderfully easy to start an organization and pollute oneself; on the contrary, it is extremely difficult to restrain oneself starting organizations, remain obedient, and follow the great Guru’s instruction; that is true loyalty.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary2006 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Reply Babaji did not allow organizations to be formed to teach Kriya. Yogananda violated this injunction.

Ism - You are wasting your life bowdlerizing Wikipedia. You should read The Eternal Silence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.148.7 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Over two week of debate - and still no reasons for notability, and much less, reliable sources to prove notability! This article deserves a Strong delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This version of the article is sheer fan speculation. I also took a look at the creator's edit history (Jovitoaa2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)), and there is a pattern of adding unsourced/speculative information to other articles. I'm going to invoke WP:SNOW here and close the debate early, especially given the fact that Wikipedia is the only significant Google hit, and I don't want us being the bearer of false news any longer than necessary. If this proves out to be the title of the fourth movie, then an article can be created - later, after reliable sources are available. —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls: The Rise to Fame

edit
The Cheetah Girls: The Rise to Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. DCFan101 (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, elucidating the comment immediately above) Comment. I've again reverted an attempted closure of the discussion. Xp54321, only an admin can close a discussion as "delete", since only an admin is empowered to follow through by actually deleting the article. Deor (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Canley (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Darragh

edit
Lee Darragh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I was the creator of this page and have decided that it is not an appropriate article for wikipedia Yankees04 (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sorry, but a casual Google search confirms that Mr. Darragh passes WP:N and WP:BIO. The article needs references, not deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've proposed it for speedy deletion as you were the initial author and only main contributor. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no 00:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec, but since I took the trouble to write it …) Delete. Sorry, I'm not seeing much of anything in Google or Google News searches (discrete hits in each in the 150–180 range) except bog-standard quotations in news articles about outstanding cases. I can't find anything that verifies most of the biographical information in this article, not even the cached version of Darragh's own (apparently no longer existent) Facebook page. Unless it's been decided that every district attorney in the United States is inherently notable, I'm agreeing with the nom that this fails WP:BIO. Deor (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that much of the article is derived from this page but I maintain that the article fails to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:N in general. Deor (talk) 03:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Carroll (radio & tv personality & publisher)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Wes Carroll (radio & tv personality & publisher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. This individual is non-notable. Such a dubious "world record" doesn't warrant an entry. Freddyboy (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged UK (talk • contribs) 08:41, 8 July 2008
    • Comment - the above vote is likely to be discounted as it was not signed and we're not supposed to use "per nom" rationales. I encourage whoever posted it to revise it and sign it. 23skidoo (talk)
  • Delete as per nom. ;) Seriously, though, there seems to be little to suggest notability outside his region. The magazine only has regional distribution and the Guiness record is unsourced. Nothing here really sets off the WP:BLP alarm, but there needs to be better sourcing to assert notability and right now I'm just not seeing any. 23skidoo (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —

Eastmain (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both articles Gnangarra 12:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Captain Smith

edit
Space Captain Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was created by Ottens (talk · contribs). The references for the article are a review of the novel at a steampunk blog written by Ottens, and a review in a magazine published by Nick Ottens and hosted at ottens.co.uk. This falls far short of the standard of Wikipedia:Notability (books), which requires multiple non-trivial published works about the book, specifically stating that personal websites and blogs are considered trivial. Darkspots (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, the biography of the author of Space Captain Smith:
Toby Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I Object, obviously. Frankly, I did not know that a published book had to be proved "notable" to be allowed; I figured that the mere fact that it was published made it notable. The references which I provided served merely to proof that this book is steampunk; not to proof its notability.
Now, if we omit the blog reference, this I understand can be considered trivial, we still have the references in the online publication, Gatehouse Gazette. Note that though I am indeed Editor of this publication, I did not conduct the interview with Mr Frost therein. Ottens (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BK as mentioned above. Specifically, the only one of the literary notability guidelines that's even vaguely applicable is the first one and I'm afraid that it absolutely fails to meet that. The words "multiple", "non-trivial" and "independent" are certainly at question here and I'd even go as far as pointing a finger at the phrase "published works". Nick, you may also want to read the self-publication section of the guidelines I linked to above. Whilst not obviously applicable it does contain the sentence "...it should always weigh against an article's inclusion if the author or other interested party is the creator of the Wikipedia article" and considering that the majority of your contributions are related to this author or the publishing house, it may be something to bear in mind. OBM | blah blah blah 13:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of my contributions? If you mean, over the past two days, you might be right but it's not as though I signed up to promote this book. Indeed, by no means would I consider myself an "interested party" in this regard; I have no direct ties with Mr Frost, let alone the company that published his novel!
  • Considering that the book has only been published a mere two months ago, not an awful lot has been written about it yet. Now, I've created pages for books before (Steampunk, Queen Victoria's Bomb) and the notability of those was never questioned. Indeed, neither have been augmented with much references, Queen Victoria's Bomb none at all, and yet they're presumed notable enough. Frankly, this doesn't make much sense to me at all! Ottens (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're confusing what I'm saying; my direction to the self-publication section of WP:BK was in reference to the fact that the sole editor supplied the majority of the original sources and not with an aim of bringing the publishers into question. My point, however, is that notability of this book is not being asserted in this article, not that the book isn't hilarious, well-liked or available at most good bookshops. OBM | blah blah blah 07:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's quite all right. As far as Space Captain Smith is concerned, you'll find plenty of reviews and blurbs about it on blogs and websites like amazon, but so far I haven't found a review in a "non-trivial" source yet--except the Gatehouse Gazette that is, which is apparently, for some reason yet unexplained, not acceptable. As I mentioned, though, it was published only two months ago! (Not to mention that I think it strange anyway that a published work must be referenced to elsewhere to be considered "notable".) Ottens (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have helped a little... but the notability of the magazine is itself in doubt so I don't think it would have helped much. There are a couple of problems evident here; the non-notability of the sources and the apparent conflict of interest shown by you being the sole editor of this article and the main source of the, er... sources. OBM | blah blah blah 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to comment, you added an online merchant/listing service of the book, which goes towards WP:V but adds nothing to the notability of the book as defined by our guidelines, as well as a local newspaper that says that Mr Frost's sci-fi comedy Space Captain Smith will also soon be in the shops, which is a trivial mention, a "listing" as it's called. Neither increases the notability of the book, the way the relevant guideline is written. Darkspots (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_8&oldid=1081073824"