Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 12

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 11 November 13 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. A large number of delete votes here were disregarded. The article most defnitely does not fall under WP:MADEUP, as there is a source from over a hundred years ago. In addition, the fact that the article is imperfect is not a reason to delete it. In addition, much of this AfD has been overcome by events, as there has been a massive rewrite of this article since the AfD began. Another AfD may still be filed but I would recommend waiting at least a few weeks to see where the article goes first. NW (Talk) 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illness among Jews

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

Copy & paste from >100 year old source with anecdotal data not examined epidemiologically, let alone including all data on health in Jewish communities (including genetic disorders) accrued since that time. Article could be recreated from scratch under Judaism and health if deemed useful. JFW | T@lk 23:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article has existed for approximately half an hour. I've not even had a chance to wikify it yet. This seems absurdly hasty, and I feel JFW isn't extending WP:FAITH. Its from a public ___domain Encyclopedia. Its self evidently encyclopedic - its from an Encyclopedia (now in the Public ___domain). Obviously it doesn't include 20th century stats at the moment. How is a 19th century source supposed to include 20th century stats. There's nothing to stop 20th century stats being added. Newman Luke (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly a WP:MADEUP topic, is it, when the 1906 JE article Morbidity is precisely on this subject? And there is at least some significant modern research specifically into disease directly associated with Jewish ancestry, most notably Tay-Sachs disease. My view is we should wait and see how the article develops. Jheald (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Update: whilst I haven't been able to check the latest (2007) edition, note that the 1970s Encyclopedia Judaica also treats the subject at length, in a three page article titled "Sickness". Jheald (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And for the record, I'd find an article on a subject like Disease trends in the U.K., looking at what diseases/conditions were particularly prevalent or not prevalent in the UK compared to international yardsticks, and how this may or may not have been changing over time, would be an extremely valid and valuable addition to the encyclopedia. Jheald (talk) 09:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jews are an endogamous ethnic group, and therefore share a number of particular and distinct genetic traits, such as the size of the nasal duct, for example, which have distinct health impacts. Hindus, Christians, and Atheists are not. Nor are Italians, Russians, or Kenyans, sufficiently endogamous for them as a group to be more affected by certain disease than by others - Kenya particularly is a mix of several ethnicities. Similarly Jews have a history of highly specific and distinct cultural practices which mark them out from society in general, and leave them open to occupational disease stemming from certain of these practices. Italians, Russians, Kenyans, Christians, Atheists, and Hindus, are each too culturally mixed for any particular occupational hazards to affect them as groups - they do not have sufficiently distinct behaviour as groups for noticeable discrepancies in their health. It is the great distinctness of Jewish culture and genetics which makes Jews have noteworthy discrepancies in their health, compared to the general population. This is not true for for intellectuals, etc. Women, however, are biologically distinct, and there is an article about Illness among women - it uses the greek word for women, hence its called gynacology. Newman Luke (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newman, I have stopped your redirect of "illness among women" to "gynacology" because "gynacology" is not an "illness" as such, it is about treating women, a field of medicine, including ALL healthy ones, relating to the reproductive parts of their body. Healthy women go all the time to see an "OB-GYN" or don't you know that? I cannot believe that you even think that "gynacology" is an "illness"! Please stop creating fake connections and links where none exist thank you. IZAK (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The primary source material is more than a century old and ignores the Sephardic Jewish population completely. Unless this can be updated with 21st century medical information and a more comprehensive understanding of its subject matter, this article has to be taken offline. Warrah (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand your vote. You seem to be saying the article needs to be updated with 21st century information, and information about the Sephardic Jewish population. Anyone can add this information into the article at any point. YOU CAN ADD IT YOURSELF. Nothing is preventing you. Yet you want it deleted, why? You can't update an article when its deleted. Newman Luke (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom and ISAK. While I am sure that the creation was made in good faith, the largest basis of this article is from a single out-of-date source. Alternately, incubate or userfy it for the considerable cleanup needed. As is, it is a mess. Bearian (talk) 04:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Foundations are quite safe. It just needs redecorating to bring it in line with the latest fashions. Or to put it another way, it can be updated. Articles are frequently updated from their foundations to be uptodate with science/statistics. Look at all those electoral ones. Take Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 for example, the foundations were woefully out of date by the time it came to November 2008 - they don't even mention the guy that won; but no-one deleted the article, they updated it. Newman Luke (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article you cite (which is anyway an irrelevance - WP:WAX) was correct at that point in time. The nominated article is based on significantly out-of-date and therefore unreliable information which is why it is not a safe foundation. I42 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User has less than 200 edits. First edit was yesterday. Newman Luke (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Comment was struck by Newman Luke (in contravention of WP:TPO), not 76.66.197.2. I42 (talk) 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Vote was struck in accordance with the policy that new users - indicated by less than 200 votes, or less than a week's [month's?] edits (in this case both) - cannot vote. Does anyone know the link to this?Newman Luke (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No such policy exists. Indeed, WP:AFD states "unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion". I42 (talk) 09:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have unstruck the vote. This is not WP:RfA, new users are perfectly within their rights to contribute here. "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion." is the relevant bit here, and 76.66 is clearly acting in good faith. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to be a question of whether the topic is better handled "vertically" (i.e. does it stand cohesively as a whole) or as a "horizontal" strand through Medicine articles. The article as it currently stands does not make the former case at all - it reads almost like a list, and no special insight is gained from having it collected in one place. Some of the material would be worthwhile as addition to the relevant disease article if it can be properly sourced. Similar data would properly be added for other identifiable racial and ethnic groups as well. --Scray (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no valid reason given for deletion. The topics proposed, of illness in other cultural groups, would also make good articles. I am getting very bothered by the attempted deletion of articles about particular concepts in Judaism (and similar articles in some other religions). This is beginning to seem a little like a pattern. Two pattens, actually--one of the creation of articles about topics in religion that may appear a little unusual to the uninformed, the other the refusal to accept that they can be edited properly. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original version was a cut & paste from a source dated 1906 which was lacking in even the basics, and I felt that it could not even serve as a proper springboard for a better article. The creator is now populating it with more recent content, but it is likely to remain unreliable until the 103-year old content has been removed. JFW | T@lk 18:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Incubate. As per Una & DGG. Needs substantial work but the foundational reasoning is correct: distinct patterns of disease can and do emerge in populations following ethnic/genetic lines, especially in endogamous groups. The subject can be treated vertically--enough literature should exist to do the subject justice. The title of the article needs to change, though. Sounds like some antisemitic tract from the turn of the century. Consider changing title to Historic Patterns of Disease among Jewish Peoples or similar. --Whoosit (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think using a very old source as the starting point was sensible, but it's got plenty more sources now and we can keep improving it. The topic of illness among Jewish people - particularly genetic disease - is definitely notable. Fences&Windows 00:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Vickers makes an excellent point, not all populations of Jews belong to the same ethnic group. I think it should be incubated to give time to think what to do with the article. Fences&Windows 02:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The above discussion doesn't seem to indicate strong reasons for deletion. However, the article should probably be incubated as suggested above, or at least flagged as potentially unreliable. Certain sections are a joke: the "mental health" section, especially, seems especially out of date by modern standards. Le Docteur (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incubation (or quarantine) might be a good idea. To show how out-of-date some of it is, the "Mental health" section was titled "Insanity" until I changed it, which should never have been left in by the article creator. Fences&Windows 21:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see how the article develops, without prejudice to future nomination; particularly as there is at least some significant modern research specifically into disease directly associated with Jewish ancestry, most notably Tay-Sachs disease. But per the comments immediately above, it is certainly clear that in its present form the article needs extensive revision and bringing up to date. Jheald (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't find the arguments for deletion to be the persuasive in the least, although I am sure they are made in good faith. Unencyclopedic is clearly not a valid concern, as the article was drawn from the illustrious Jewish Encyclopedia. Out of date is a concern, but simply means that the article is not yet finished, but requires more work. Jewish illness is a complex topic, clearly. But if we delete every unfinished article on a complex topic, none will remain, and Wikipedia will be left as a steaming heap of TV and movie fluff. We have to permit incomplete and out-of-date articles in order that they should eventually grow to become complete and up-to-date. This seems obvious. So I would just suggest to those who want to push the 'Delete' button to push instead the 'Edit' button and start updating. Why not make a project of it, and a bunch of us can kick in to find more current info? The publications on Jewish hereditary disease must be legion. —Dfass (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Perhaps the nominator was mistaken and thought that this s about the atitude of Judaism towards illness? The subject is well-research in medical literature, as can be seen from the many references in the article. Supprised at such a nomination! Debresser (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename. While I can appreciate the nominator's concerns, there are sufficient reliable sources for important subtopics in this article, though the content from the JE needs to be updated. However, the sources and NPOV require a rename, probably to Jewish genetic diseases though there may be grounds, which need to be shown, for Jewish diseases. So the problem here is a matter of editing not AfD per se. HG | Talk 12:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the 1970s Encyclopedia Judaica article also reviews social/environmental factors, not just genetic factors; which it suggests may be quite relevant to the fact that throughout the 20th century Jews in America and Canada had better remaining-years-of-life expectancy at all ages than the corresponding population average; environmental/social factors were also thought (at least in 1972) to be likely to be quite significant, alongside genetic factors, in accounting for the relative susceptibility of the Jewish population to cardiac problems, compared to the general population. They would also be important for reviewing historical sickness trends. Jheald (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but only the genetic info deserves its own Jewish subtopic article, given the unique and significant research on Jewish genetic diseases (plus, Jews and genetic screening, etc). (Needs to be updating, but that's an editing not AfD point.) The other Jewish material IMO could be put in subsections on demographics of each disease, though you are welcome to prove otherwise by bringing forth significant sources etc. There are some important new cultural studies on perceptions/stereotypes of (European) Jews as sickly and as healthy, but these also belong elsewhere. Thanks! Best wishes, HG | Talk 03:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides coverage of a range of diseases that are more prevalent among Jews than in the population as a whole, with reliable and verifiable sources supporting the article content. Alansohn (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And of course every topic in Wikipedia will be just as out of date in time. All the living people will have died, science and technology will have moved forward. Many of the articles on computer software and hardware are out of date in just a few months. All that matters is that they be sourced and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IZAK and I42 and violating Wikipedia:Scientific standards. While the Jewish Encyclopedia printed 100 years ago might be a good source for 'timeless' material about people or places, it is not an RS for this subject and it is utterly ridiculous to use superstitious and primitive medical information as a base for an article in WP. The information is utterly out of date and not relevant anymore. Giving a platform about studies on mental disease or anything else over a hundred years ago is very misleading and making a farce out of Wikipedia. This is WP:COATRACK and WP:SYN. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not here to judge the article's current content, which I think everyone agrees is problematic. We're here to judge whether the topic is encyclopedic and has the potential for a sourceable article. Given that Encyclopedia Judaica thought it worth devoting three pages of well-footnoted material to the subject in the 1970s, and there very likely is an updated article in the 2007 retread, the presumption has to be that yes, this is an encyclopedic topic; and yes, it should be possible to write an up-to-date well-sourced article on the subject. Jheald (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course we can judge the current content. If, as you say, everyone agrees the content is problematic then the article should be deleted and there should be no prejudice against recreation using reliable sources. I42 (talk) 07:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested name If the article is kept, renaming it to something like "Jewish ethnicity and health" or "Health issues among Jews" might be appropriate. Judaism (a term suggested by the nominator) is generally understood to refer to the religion, not the ethnicity, and religious conversion does not change genetics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the ethnicity and health, but the article also contains discussion of occupational disease - particularly bowel/intestinal disease which was thought in part to be related to eating food on shabbat which had been left on a low heat in an oven for the previous 12-24 hours (according to the Jewish Encyclopedia), and the historic prevalence of haemorrhoids, thought to be due to spending vast long hours studying the Torah while sitting on a hard bench - a prevalence so extreme that in eastern europe it was rare to find a Jew who didn't have them (at least historically - according to the Jewish Encyclopedia).
Health issues among Jews would be a good title, though I'm not sure why that's much different from the present one?
Newman Luke (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per HG. Genetic disease amongst Jewish populations is well documented. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Rewrite with more timely sources or Delete. This is not an article on Jewish tradition, for which a century old text may be appropriate vis-a-vis the millenia old history of Jews. This is ostensibly an article about scientific phenomena, and as such, deserves to be written using the most up-to-date sources. It is well accepted that like any group which has not had a high rate of assimilation, there are unique mental/physiological strength and weaknesses. However, they should be discussed using the latest evidence, not 19th century understandnings. -- Avi (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Jewish people share a religion, but are not a homogeneous genetic group (see Jewish ethnic divisions). This is in contrast to defined ethnic groups such as Ashkenazi Jews or Beta Israel. I therefore think it is inaccurate and misleading to merge together horribly outdated "encyclopedia" content from the turn of the last century on, for example "tuberculosis in Jews", and modern studies on a particular ethnic group, for example, "Tay-Sachs disease in Ashkenazi Jews". It would be perfectly possible to write a good article on Medical genetics of Ashkenazi Jews, but you can't write an article on Medical genetics of Jews any more than you could on Medical genetics of Christians. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If you read Who is a Jew, you'd be very much of the opinion that many Jews view Jews collectively as a comparatively homogeneous genetic group. Given the historic hostility to intermarriage, this is also a reasonable conclusion. Christians have intermarried frequently. Christianity has evangelised multiple fairly unrelated genetic groups. Judaism hasn't. Although modern more liberal strains of Judaism aren't so hostile to intermarriage, and don't view Jewishness as such a genetic/maternally-transmitted thing, such strains haven't been around for much more than a 150 years, so it hasn't had that much of an effect on diluting Jewish genetics. After all, most Jews all claim descent from the same person - Jacob. Newman Luke (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was basing my comment on the PNAS paper cited in that article, which demonstrated that although most Jews share a reasonably recent common ancestor and are genetically distinct from the rest of the population in whatever country you look at (except the Middle East) there are exceptions such as the Ethiopian Jews. I realise the question of whether "Jewishness" is a racial or religious construct is highly controversial in modern Judaism, i.e. is a converted Jew "really" a Jew? This controversy, and the few clear exceptions to the "racial definition", are the reason why I think you need to either rename the article to deal with the sociology of illness in Judaism, or deal with the genetics of illness in an uncontroversial ethnic group, such as Ashkenazi Jews. Presently, the article tries to do both, which is impossible. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although interesting it is not really encyclopedic as that is understood on WP. A WP article should be about facts, not long rambling theories and speculations. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you followed that principle, all of the articles about religion would be deleted, except the only one that mentions how many people follow each religion. And Wikipedia would be all the poorer for it. Newman Luke (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. The facts about what people of a religion believe and practice is perfectly fine for an encyclopedia article. When you start speculating about how different things affect each other, like religious practices and health you are getting out of encyclopedic range, however interesting such speculation is. (i.e. Jews don't keep pet snakes so are less likely to suffer snakebites. Mormons don't drink so are less likely to be in auto accidents caused by drunk driving. Etc.)Steve Dufour (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nurdin Hrustic

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fruit Town Piru

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

Non-notable street gang. The author cannot even manage to identify properly where they operate but I gather it is greater Los Angeles. The NY Times reference contains merely a passing mention. See also Fruit Town Brims by the same author and its AfD discussion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StudyPoint

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

This article seems to fail WP:N. I've added one reference to the article, but it is from a small Boston-area business publication[1]. The only other mention was in an Inc. Magazine listing of the top 5000 companies, but that mention included no discussion.[2]. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jedi. NW (Talk) 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jedi Code

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

Appears to be a collection of philosophical material without any reliable sources. Furthermore, I have serious concerns this may be copied from the one book cited as a source. TNXMan 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguments for keeping this page don't seem to address the notability question. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coke Zero Facial Profiler

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

non-notable; fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was more successful and garnered more press, you'd probably think differently. Though I improved the article, I'm not shocked at the deletes in light of the sourcing.--Milowent (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete. Please take discussion of whether to redirect and/or merge to the appropriate talk pages. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politics, Religion and Her (song)

edit
Politics, Religion and Her (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Charting songs aren't inherently notable. There is nothing particularly notable about this song; it only got to #28, and no reviews of the album discuss this particular song in depth. I have tried several times to redirect this, but have been contested by the author. Note that the author was similarly defensive of If I Was a Drinkin' Man, another low-charting, unsourced song which was deleted here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The personal animus that TenPoundHammer had against the song If I Was A Drinkin' Man(a hit single by Neal McCoy) was over the top. The song went to #16 in BILLBOARD!!! and was a significant career single for Neal McCoy on Atlantic Records. TenPoundHammer also refused to believe the song was an ASCAP Award winner. Any article about a song/single that wins an ASCAP Award for one of the "most performed Country songs" of the year, should not be deleted, but I gave in to TenPoundHammer's persistent self-perceived authority. Here again folks, we have another incident where TenPoundHammer's actions are running good less-experienced editors off of Wikipedia, and for every good editor he runs off, there are probably several others who out of anger and frustration turn to rogue behavior and become vandals that we all have to contend with. Perhaps TenPoundHammer needs to read some of the points under Wikipedia:Signs of disruptive editing.Wikibones (talk) 20:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. The motive of TenPoundHammer here is and continues to be especially determined to destructively delete a song article that happen to be of a song (an actual single by the artist) that was also a "title cut", being the same title as the album article TenPoundHammer created or contributed to. This focus by TenPoundHammer to redirect hit single song articles to his own album articles in this manner is extremely restrictive of wiki content. His arbitrary judgement of this well-known significant hit song in the career of Sammy Kershaw as "not noteworthy" is a rediculous and uneducated stance. Every fan of Sammy Kershaw and country fan in general knows this song as being associated with Sammy Kershaw's career.Wikibones (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In defense against TPH's back room lobbying to anyone who posts "keep" on here, there very well needs to be a distinction between the single and the album, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that they are the same title, and especially on such a highly promoted and successful single. Assuming that Wikipedia IS a research tool, and really an encyclopedia, it would seem quite silly that no one can go Wikipedia to research the album without being able to get the details for the successful singles from the album. In the case of TenPoundHammer, he seems more concerned about the ambiguity with his article, which of course wouldn't really be much of an article without all the singles associated with the album. Remember too that there wouldn't be a Politics, Religion and Her (album), without the Politics, Religion and Her (song). TPH's destructive edit on this issue (AND NUMEROUS OTHERS) continue to be restrictive of Wiki content. At least in this case he has allowed discussion, which has not always been case. Often TPH acts and doesn't ask ANYONE. His actions are aften in violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wikibones (talk) 12:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hit singles (song articles) are separate resources, with individual content relative their own unique historical contribution to an artists career. Missing from album articles is the content that is specific to those singles or song articles (eg. songwriter credits, award acheivements, chart numbers, links to albums that also contain the same song, links to the songwriter for the research of other material written by that writer, lyrics of interest, etc). This is what I mean by "restricting wiki content". By merging the song article into an album article, everything I have mentioned above in parenthesis is lost. TPH has asked me "Don't you think one longer article is better than two articles?". These are not two articles about the same thing. One is a single song article. One is an album article. Broader wiki content and a deeper resource for research is being destroyed by merging. It isn't about promoting any elements of the product. It is about providing users of Wikipedia the most detail possible, and the specific details related to a succession of hit singles (usually only 3 or 4) released from a noteworthy album is too valuable to lose by merging.Wikibones (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shame. Rehevkor ✉ 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat

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

Three-sentence stub dicdef, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was created after a discussion at Talk:Military_brat_(U.S._subculture)/Archive_6#Move.3F. Military brat previously redirected to Military brat (U.S. subculture), prompting repeated proposals that the US article (a featured article) be changed to not be US-centric. After that discussion, I changed Military brat from a redirect to a stub. The term is used in many countries, and it is likely that more information can be found (to at least turn it into a bigger stub). Karanacs (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Note, I archived the talk page so I changed the link to the archive.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep please see extensive discussions on the name of Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture) and the need for at least a stub at Military brat.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)(Note the discussions are highlighted in the box at the top of the page.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per explanations above and urge withdrawal of nom. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I have this horrible feeling that the article was seen by international editors as too US-centric, got forked into a stub and a US article, and the stub is now in danger of being deleted. WP:TIND: Mark it as a stub and leave it be until editors from non-US locations are able and willing to flesh it out with an international scope. - BalthCat (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I feel the article on the US subculture should probobly become the Military brat article minus US centric parts which should be left in the subculture article..--TParis00ap (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Keep The US subculture article is completely US centric--TParis00ap (talk) 13:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef allam

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

No third-party, reliable sources supporting notability. A google search reveals the only relevant hit is his company's website. There are no sources that claim he was one of the wealthiest men in Egypt. Even if he were to derive notability from the company he founded, there are no sources that the company is notable. Singularity42 (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep First of all, i'm from saudi Arabia and have heard many times of Mr. Youssef. He is not known since he tries as best as possible to keep his info from the public, although if you ask anyone in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, he or she wil tell you all about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.4.34.222 (talk • contribs) 19:01 31 October 2009
Do you have any sources? Otherwise, your word isn't enough for Wikipedia's policies. Singularity42 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you let us know the spelling of the subject's name in Arabic? That might help other editors to look for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt to see if anyone there knows if the individual is actually notable, and if they can provide any third-party sources. Singularity42 (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name appears to be "يوسف علام" in Arabic (that's the form used on his website, anyway). Orderinchaos 03:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The IP address above is the same IP that removed the PROD without adding any sources. They also tried to replace entires in List of billionaires (2005) and List of billionaires (2006) with "Youssef allam". They also made this edit. So I think their comments should be taken with some caution. Singularity42 (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or incubate Searching in Arabic brings up at least one good source, an article about him in Egyptian newspaper Almasry Alyoum, which confirms the basic outline: he ran a big paper company, and died recently. Perhaps this can be developed into an article about the company if the man himself is not notable. cab (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Road

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

Not Notable Grim23★ 20:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - nomination withdrawn with no Delete !votes remaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomsteve (talk • contribs) 07:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamada Gaku

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

Fails WP:notability (people), unless perhaps there is a reference for his winning the 11th Nikkan Sports Drama Grand Prix. I'm not sure even that makes him notable. Pdcook (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - If someone who knows Japanese checks, and doesn't find enough sources, that's good enough for me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Poorly-formed article by, apparently, a Japanese-speaking first-time editor. The type who should be encouraged here rather than bitten... Article is on a young actor who already has an extensive list of high-profile film and television work. Walkerplus shows him at the #2 spot of the cast for an Ultraman film. A search on Cinema Topics Online shows him at several articles, including THIS ONE (google-cached to highlight his name) where he's interviewed along with the cast of the film Ahiru Kamo no Coin Locker. Add in the award, and the fact that Japanese media is notorious for staying off the Internet (meaning there are bound to be many print sources on the actor which cannot be located through Google), and I highly doubt that a US actor of this prominence would show up at AfD. Seems to be quite notable. Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs editing, but as Mr Criblecoblis says, this would seem to be a fairly prolific young actor. I, too, can't help suspecting that appearing in every episode of something comparable to Operation Love would be enough for an American or British actor to pass the notability bar. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Checking the credential of Mr. Otis Criblecoblis, leads me to believe that this is a WP:BIAS issue, and many sources can be found. Articles are deleted for being unsourcable, not for being in a bad shape at present. Power.corrupts (talk) 12:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems notable in light of new references. Pdcook (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just sourced the award from the Nikkan Sports site. According to MOS-JA, the article's name should be "Gaku Hamada", and it can be moved after the AfD closes. I think it can be speedy-closed since the nominator has changed !votes... Pdcook-- thanks for reconsidering your position. Just some friendly advice: Articles on non-English topics should be given the benefit of a doubt. The language barrier is not the only issue, sourcing for those subjects-- while it may likely exist-- is rarely as easily available online as it is for English-language subjects. When in doubt, a note to a Wiki-project will help get more experienced eyes on the subject. (Oh, and Credentials? I've got credentials? ;) Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. At the very least, this certainly vetted the article and whipped it into shape! Thanks for your work. Pdcook (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I would support speedy keep, but as I understand it everyone would have to change their vote. Is that right? Pdcook (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Current guidelines do not preclude the inclusion of articles about words, whether the article discusses the word itself of the idea represented by the word. As long as a particular topic can be verifiably shown, with reliable sources, to be notable, then it is acceptable for inclusion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prithee

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

Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be on a topic. However the prithee article is a purely a somewhat stubby dictionary article that has no realistic chance of expansion. The wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dictionaries are word based, whereas encyclopedias are based on general or abstract concepts, topics or things.

This article starts by stating that prithee is an interjection, but an interjection is simply a type of word. So the article starts off claiming it's a word. It's an article on a word, in a body of work that doesn't do articles on words.

This is not about a concept, it's just a word that means something like 'please' and which there already is an article on. (It's just a corruption of pray thee, which jumeans beg thee- I beg you, that's the whole article.) The article is well sourced but contains only English-language related references, which supports that this is only about a word, rather than any underlying meaning. There is an associated wiktionary article has coverage that is not currently as good but could be easily expanded with the material from here. The wikipedia is not a guidebook or usage guide for the English language.

Even if you were to think that it's a useful or interesting article to have, that it should be kept because its useful is an invalid argument in AFDs: Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#It's_useful.

The article has not "done enuff" to be encyclopedic (actually there's no policy either way to that effect anyway, there's plenty of stub articles that aren't dictionary articles), but this one clearly is a dictionary article.

Because of this, I'm calling for Transwiki.- Wolfkeeper 19:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: as far as I can tell, Wiktionary does not typically include some of the information in this article, for example "Prithee is the most widely known example of second person object enclitics" and "Because prithee eventually came to be used in the same context with the word you, it is considered to have developed into a monomorpheme." for example. How do we reconcile this? –xenotalk 20:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not a dictionary entry. Much of the information included here is not transferrable to Wiktionary, as Xeno has hinted at above. Prithee is a very important word in the history of the English language which has much cultural and linguistic significance. Its encyclopedic relevance is similar to that of the word Thou, which has developped into a featured article. This encyclopedically notable concept should have its own Wikipedia article. Neelix (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it might be a lexicographically important word in the English language, but even important words (with very rare exceptions) don't get their own articles in the Wikipedia. I think that it could and should be included and mentioned from the other articles, but they can just as easily reference to wiktionary as to this article.- Wolfkeeper 00:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion thou should be merged into an article like Personal pronouns in Early Modern English, but I don't know enough about the subject matter surrounding this whether you could do something like that here.- Wolfkeeper 00:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely nothing to stop you merging the article with other linguistics articles in the Wikipedia. Personally, I have my doubts, but the claim is that this is the most important word that has certain linguistic properties. If that's the case, it should slot into the articles on those linguistic properties just brilliantly.- Wolfkeeper 14:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially none of the articles in those categories category:phrases and category:words are about words, they virtually are all about an underlying meaning. It just isn't the case, and I encourage anyone to go through those and find an article that is about the word or phrase, it's very difficult. Sorry, but this is actually a flat out lie that has now been used in multiple deletion reviews to misrepresent the nature of the Wikipedia.- Wolfkeeper 14:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether Wiktionary will accept this content verbatim is 100% irrelevant. What is important is whether this content is encyclopedic. It is not; it is entirely information on the history, usage, and derivation of a word, which is content that properly belons to dictionaries. Whether any specific dictionary would use this content word-for-word, however, is not our concern; it is the subject matter that is under consideration, not the specific wording. Powers T 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sometimes information on the history, usage, and derivation of words is an enecyclopedia subject, from thou to nigger, because these matters touch on cultural history as well. This contains just such information as well. And no, if moving to Wiktionary involves loss of data, there's an encyclopedia subject worth keeping - by definition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that last bit is just bollocks. An encyclopedia isn't just a collection of dictionary articles with extra stuff in them that stops you deleting them, and if it worked the way you imply, then it would be. We can an add an infinite amount to any wiktionary article and stuff it in the wikipedia, that doesn't make it encyclopedic. What is allowed here depends on the policies, this one fails to meet the policies.- Wolfkeeper 15:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Smerdis of Tlön is arguing that the addition of nonsense to a dictionary definition makes it encyclopedic. Rather, I understand him to be arguing that if making a Wikipedia article into a Wikitionary entry requires the stripping out of encyclopedic content, then the article was encyclopedic.
I'm leaning toward keep myself, since the comments on grammaticalization make this, arguably at least, an encyclopedia topic. My only concern relates to the notability of this word. To wit: is this really about prithee per se, or about the grammaticalization of pronouns? But the references, especially Lindquist and Mair (2004), seem to allay that concern. "The best known example [of object enclitics] is prithee." (241) Cnilep (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only encyclopedic information in this article belongs in clitic or some other topical article. Everything else is just word history and usage. Powers T 19:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So far as I can tell, here are the arguments that have been presented so far suggesting that this article should be deleted and my responses to them:
  1. It is a "dictionary article." - Not the case; the majority of this article moves beyond what is appropriate for inclusion in Wiktionary. All of the supplementary information is encyclopedic, not just the fact that prithee is the most widely known example of second person object enclitics.
  2. The article is "somewhat stubby." - Not relevant; stubs are integral to Wikipedia.
  3. It "has no realistic chance of expansion." - Not true; I have doubled the amount of encyclopedic information and sources on this article since this comment was made. Much more information can be added; there is a very realistic chance of expansion.
  4. "Wikipedia does best when it's about generalities, not specific examples." - Highly suspect; certainly no reason to delete articles about specific instances of things. The majority of articles on Wikipedia fall into the category of specific examples of more general concepts.
  5. It "is not about a concept, it's just a word." - The fact that the Word article is in the Concepts category should by itself demonstrate the fallacy in this argument.
  6. A user "has [some] doubts" that prithee in fact is the most widely known example of second person object enclitics. - This source should clear up any doubts: [4].

This is a valid article which should remain and develop on Wikipedia. If the only objections to this article's existence are those outlined above, there are not sufficient grounds for deletion. Neelix (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #1, what is and is not a "dictionary article" is not determined by what Wiktionary would include. Powers T 00:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is determined by Wikipedia guidelines, which state that "terms with encyclopedic disputes connected with them" (such as the debate and extensive research into the differences between prithee and pray you) and other words "such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness" are valid Wikipedia articles. Neelix (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I actually searched through the literature in google books and elsewhere about encyclopedias and dictionaries and the only acid test I've managed find is that encyclopedia articles are straightforwardly translatable into any language, because while the topic in an Encyclopedia is identified by a word/phrase (the signifier) but is actually about the subject (the signified). Because you can easily identify any encyclopedic subject in many different ways, and in many different languages, then you have a test you can apply. For example, the English wikipedia does not include articles on Russian words because we cannot have titles in Russian. Similarly if you were to try to translate this into Russian, it would be essentially impossible, because prithee is only an English word, and you would presumably not be allowed to quote an English word in the title either.- Wolfkeeper 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I feel this fails the acid test; it's not a truly encyclopedic topic for an article because it's about an English word. This isn't to say that it can't be merged with other articles, there's no prohibition about any words from any language in the body of articles.- Wolfkeeper 01:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c, reply to ltpowers) This is one of the fundamental disagreements (misunderstandings?). You and Wolfkeeper have said before that Wiktionary's inclusion criteria is irrelevant. I think the people who originally wrote WP:NAD would completely disagree with that. The whole point of the policy is to determine whether valid/valuable content belongs either here or there.
The difference between "dictionary entry" and "encyclopedic content" isn't as simple as Wolfkeeper keeps trying to make it out to be. The policy specifically mentions articles on terms, such as SNAFU and singular they and sexism. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were to accept Wolfkeeper's arbitrary test, this article passes. An article about the word prithee most certainly could be translated into another language, just as the Thou article has been translated into French, Romanian, Russian, and Scots as an important and encyclopedically notable word in the history of the English language. Neelix (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thou hasn't been properly translated. If it had been translated it would be about French words that mean the same thing. Thou is still clearly an English word in the French Encyclopedia. The article hasn't translated properly, because it cannot be translated.- Wolfkeeper 01:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, are you saying it's OK to take the spanish 'you' and translate that article and put it here in the English Wikipedia? Is an article encyclopedic in one language and not another?- Wolfkeeper 02:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that's just because Wiktionary was a convenient available example of a dictionary, and an attempt to emphasize that plain definitions should go to Wiktionary. Since then, the policy has evolved (as have Wiktionary's inclusion requirements), and it now makes it clear that it's certain categories of content that is prohibited. This remains true regardless of whether or not the exact wording can be transwikied. For example, just because Wiktionary doesn't want extensive instructions on how to use a word doesn't mean that that information automatically becomes encyclopedic. It's still dictionary content; it's just dictionary content that Wiktionary (for some reason) doesn't want. Powers T 01:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect/Transwiki the relevent content to an appropriate language article such as clitic. Wiktionary should accept the vast majority of this content. There is useful content here but the best ___location for it appears to be Wiktionary and/or language articles rather than having an article in an encyclopedia which is a dicdef plus a bit more.--Michig (talk) 08:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't a dicdef, it's an encyclopedic encyclopedia article about a word. Nothing in WP:NAD says that words qua words are ineligible topics for encyclopedia articles – I would hope that nothing is an ineligible topic for an encyclopedia article. Wiktionary already has an entry for prithee, which needs to be expanded, but transwikiing this content there would violate wikt:WT:CFI#Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia. +Angr 10:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, me, I would hope that admins wouldn't close reviews illegally. I would also hope that admins wouldn't pretend that the Wikipedia can cover any topic, when WP:ISNOT clearly states that isn't the case. I guess we can't have everything, and you shouldn't have this article, according to the policy you clearly haven't read. What wiktionary does with an article when it gets there is up to them, but there's certainly no policy against transwiking this.- Wolfkeeper 15:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're the one that seems not to have read the policy which you cite. WP:ISNOT says clearly "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject ... Descriptive articles about languages, dialects, or types of slang ... are desirable." Its point is that we should not just provide a definition of a topic's title but "...should provide other types of information about that topic as well.". Our article does this well and so the policy supports it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It says that, and both are concepts; one is about what Macedonia is, the other is about treating gut opinions as if they were iron-cast truths. And those two examples are both nouns. This isn't a noun, and that encyclopedic articles should be noun topics is very well established.- Wolfkeeper 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things WP:MADEUP one day, including Wolfkeeper's idiosyncratic interpretations of policy. (Thanks for the personal attack by the way, you're just digging yourself further into your hole.) +Angr 12:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, that an encyclopedia should cover words is something that somebody made up and stuffed into the relevant policy before anybody realised; where's that stated in the literature on encyclopedias? Clue: It isn't. Barring occasional mistakes no other general encyclopedias does that, because they aren't dictionaries either.- Wolfkeeper 19:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also note your very cynical idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:MADEUP; it's a content policy, not covering policy discussions at all. Tell me, have you abused your admin priviledges again today, Angr, or have you just restricted yourself to slinging mud at users?- Wolfkeeper 19:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like any well-referenced dictionary article?- Wolfkeeper 15:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I mean an encyclopedia article such as found in the Encyclopedia of language and linguistics‎, An encyclopedia of swearing, Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories, Funk & Wagnalls standard encyclopedia of the world's knowledge, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia is not a specialist linguistic encyclopedia. There's all kinds of strange 'encyclopedias' out there. The wikipedia is a general encyclopedia.- Wolfkeeper 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "Prithee" article is about a word and should be in a dictionary, not Wikipedia. When original research is deleted people do not argue that it should not be removed because good information will be lost. I do not claim that the "Prithee" article is bad, poorly done or immoral, only that it does not belong here because of established and useful policy.
Quiddity's claim that the article is encyclopedic does not belong in this AfD. The term "encyclopedic" is somewhat ambiguous. If Qiddity means comprehensive, there is no policy exempting dictionary style articles if they are comprehensive enough in their violation of Wikipedia's policies. If he means suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, then it is equivalent to writing that the article is suitable on the basis of Quiddity's personal authority. What belongs in this AfD are specific examples of what makes this article encyclopedic or unencyclopedic.
There is no more cultural significance to prithee than there is to the average arbitrarily chosen word in the English language, less because it has been obsolete for many years.--Fartherred (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your rationale that the article should be deleted because it is about a word is inadequate because it is well-established by precedent and policy that we may have article about words. To sustain such articles, we need to demonstrate that the words are notable as a topic in themselves. In this case, we are able to point to numerous scholarly investigations and accounts of this word. These go far beyond a dictionary entry and so we're good. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure no such policy states that articles on words are allowed. Please point to the policy that states that, or are you just making a groundless assertion in the hopes nobody notices.- Wolfkeeper 18:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a general rule, it's just two exceptions. And there's no rule that any word goes in; in fact WP:NAD gives whole classes that exclude this word.- Wolfkeeper 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Colonel Warden's point is not demonstrated. There is scholarly work done on every single root word listed in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, (c) 2007. For instance the word grass is revealed to most likely derive from the Old English growan through the Old High German forms gras and grass and the Old English graes through the Middle English gras. Even if every old lexicographical paper for the word grass were dug up and thousands of court cases in which the word grass appears were referenced; it would still leave the word grass without special cultural significance. It is just an ordinary word. So there is properly only the Wikipedia article on the concept of grass, with no disambiguation page for an article on the word. This precedent demonstrates that the mere fact that every English word has a derivation of interest to some lexicographical specialists is an insufficient cause to include the word as a Wikipedia article. Colonel Warden's claim that those he includes by the pronoun "we" are good may or may not be true, but it seems irrelevant; and his logic seems to be defective.--Fartherred (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What precedent? Please provide some evidence to support your unsubstantiated assertions. We have presented numerous independent and reliable sources which testify to the notability and cultural significance of this topic. All you offer is your personal opinion of the matter but this is not a vote. Your position seems to be that all articles about words are necessarily invalid but this is clearly false as we have numerous articles and categories of this sort and policy which say clearly that they are just fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not a noun though; and non-nounal words are not permitted in general encyclopedias.- Wolfkeeper 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not just a "general encyclopedia", as pointed out in the first section at Wikipedia:Five pillars. The naming conventions are just that, conventions/guidelines/recommendations, with many (non-exhaustive) exceptions mentioned in the main policy page. -- Quiddity (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The five pillars page is not a policy or guideline, and the policy and guidelines there are elsewhere, are consistent with it not being a specialised linguistics encyclopedia. The wikipedia's articles in practice, are nouns or noun phrases. This one is not, and hence needs to be renamed or merged, or is ineligible here.- Wolfkeeper 05:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I should have made it easier for Colonel Warden to find Grass (disambiguation). If he will simply check that page he will see that it is just as I stated. That disambiguation page has no Grass (word) article. He writes: "All you offer is your personal opinion of the matter..." Clearly neither the Webster's Collegiate Dictionary nor the Grass (disambiguation) page are my personal opinion. The derivation that I referred to is based entirely on the dictionary without quoting it. That is a fair use of the dictionary, because that is what dictionaries are for, providing meaning and derivations, among other things. The main page of Wikipedia gives 3,095,383 articles as the current number. A matter of hundreds of word articles is no great part of that.
Colonel Warden makes the unjustified suggestion that my position is that all articles about words are necessarily invalid. Perhaps he did not read my reference to Libellus de Medicinalibus Indorum Herbis and Magna Carta in the "Prout patet per recordum" AfD which we both voted in before he misstated my position. Perhaps he simply fails to recall the "requiescat in pace" AfD that he participated in, where I referred to

the "The King is dead. Long live the King." article the only one that is a reasonably encyclopedic article about something culturally significant.

No problem, I helpfully preserved a copy of the AfD at User:Fartherred/AfD1.
I do not imagine that Colonel Warden will deny that every element of the derivation of Grass from earlier languages must necessarily involve scholarly research. But if He wants to deny that, I am willing to record his denial. We have a case in which we know that there were many scholarly works done on many words. Only some of them that were presented in the "Prithee" article are easily known by name to participants in this AfD, but the existence of the unnamed research is a certainty.--Fartherred (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper stated "wikipedia's articles in practice, are nouns or noun phrases." This statement is not true. Wikipedia has accepted articles about the words Amen, Humbug, Go, and many other words which are not nouns or noun phrases. What Colonel Warden was referring to when stating "All you offer is your personal opinion of the matter," if I understand correctly, was that no one has demonstrated that there is precedent in Wikipedia guideline discussions or AfD's in which it was decided that an article should be deleted for the sole reason that it happens to be about a word. In fact, the opposite has been thoroughly demonstrated: articles about words are so well accepted on Wikipedia that some of them have become featured articles (such as Thou and Macedonia) both on the English Wikipedia and on the other language Wikipedias (see for example History of the term Wallon on the French Wikipedia). If editors strongly feel that articles about words should be deleted from Wikipedia out of hand, it should be the established articles that are addressed (such as Thou and Macedonia), not ones just starting off like this one. Unless there is a reason which Prithee should be deleted which does not also argue in support of the deletion of the previously mentioned featured articles about words, then this discussion should be on a guidelines page or on AfD's for the featured articles. As far as the current arguments for the deletion of this article are concerned, this is not a standalone issue and cannot be treated as one. If we are not to follow the guidelines which exist and follow the precedent of accepting articles about words on Wikipedia, the AfD page for a new article is simply far too obscure a corner of Wikipedia for such an important discussion to be taking place. Neelix (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I find it surprising and disappointing that what is simply an article on the definition, etymology and usage of a word is kept in the Wikipedia; that this isn't immediately laughed out of court. It's probably because the Wiktionary is uniformly pretty awful, and is failing to suck these articles away to where they should be.
Encyclopedias are on topics, not words. Words are not valid topics. That this is a word article is clear- it is not possible to translate it (including the title) into (say) French without changing the article completely. This clearly makes it an English-word dictionary entry.- Wolfkeeper 20:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors look at the exemptions to the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and think that they have a loophole that they could sail the USS Nimitz through. We should have some understanding of the allowable exemptions. The exemplary articles Macedonia (terminology) and Truthiness are really quite exceptional.
The use of the name, Macedonia, for various places in the region of the Balkans is integral to the complexities of the history of that area for many centuries. The lack of a single geographical ___location to associate with the name makes an article on a country named "Macedonia" difficult, and the name itself have been the subject of diplomatic dispute.
While politicians have probably been making high sounding empty statements since before recorded history, the satirical use of "truthiness" was the epitome of current comedic response to such statements. It was appropriate to put the article about that satire and people's response to it under the title Truthiness.
Other word article topics might not be quite so exceptional and still rate an exemption from the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy but Prithee is not one of them. It is of interest to very narrowly specialized language scholars. The word's major cultural significance is that it was part of the language of Shakespeare. The way to address that interest is with an article on the Language of Shakespeare, not with a separate article on the word prithee.--Fartherred (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems agreed that there are some words which merit articles. The question is then how do we determine whether a word such as prithee is one of these words. We can't just give our personal opinions as these would tend to be the weak argument of WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The test must surely be the same as that used to establish the notability of any topic — whether it has been given specific coverage by reliable sources. In this case, there are numerous scholarly papers which discuss at length the shades of meaning of this word and its usage in literature. These seem to provide the level of notability required. User:Fartherred asserts that you can find papers of this sort for any word such as grass. I had a look for similar papers about that word and couldn't find anything comparable. The test of notability thus seems to work well enough for our purposes. This is the way that other AFDs about words have been resolved and so we are not breaking new ground here. This case thus turns upon the quality of the sources provided. I consider that these are good enough and so we're good. If others dispute the quality of these sources then they should please explain why they are not satisfactory for our purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually argue that neither Macedonia, nor truthiness are really about words. Macedonia is about a sense of nationalism, and truthiness is about people (mainly politicians) portraying bullshit as truth, and everyone really knows that. The truthiness article does have quite a bit about the word in it, how it won awards and so forth, but everyone really knew what it was about. It was even succesfully translated into French and used in the Canadian parliament. That's because it's not a word; it's the idea behind the definition that's important.
What is prithee really about? Well, it's used in Shakespeare... and that's about it. It means please, with extra shades of subservience. Big deal. This is not encyclopedic, it's just a dictionary article, it is no Earth shattering thing- unlike Macedonia people don't go to war over it, the word has never won awards, and it's no longer even used. If you want to know what it means, or any other word, a dictionary is the right place to go.- Wolfkeeper 16:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not for us to decide ourselves whether a matter is a "big deal" or not. We judge this by seeing whether other third-parties have considered the topic sufficiently noteworthy to write about. If they have, then the notability of the topic is established and we have a ready supply of sources to summarise. This same principle applies, whatever the topic, because Wikipedia is not censored and it is not limited in size. Our topic in this case is not just the plain meaning of the word prithee but also encompasses its history, nuances and literary usage. Scholars have found this matter to be a fruitful topic and it is not for us to gainsay or second-guess them. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this word is covered as an article in other general encyclopedias is it? You can point to it in EB and so forth? I mean, it's so very important, they must have right......???- Wolfkeeper 18:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In point of fact, they do not. The EB for example has an article called 'poetic diction' that mentions a list of words one of which is prithee. That's it. And that's encyclopedic, because there's a topic (which is not in itself a word), and they cover it correctly. Compare and contrast that with this article; which is just a dictionary entry.- Wolfkeeper 19:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not the Encyclopedia Britannica. They have but 73,000 articles while we have 3 million and counting. We obviously don't delete articles here if they are not in EB. I provided a list of other encyclopedias which feature this word above. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's more than that isn't it. The EB defines what an encyclopedia is. They may be smaller, but they've had hundreds of years to work out what an encyclopedia is, and is not. They don't have articles like this one.- Wolfkeeper 00:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • EB doesn't have an entry for nose cone, let alone nose cone design. We do.
    We are not a "general encyclopedia". We incorporate "elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers."
    This is getting further and further away from dealing with Prithee.
    If you want to have a proper discussion about removing word articles from Wikipedia, please start one at the villagepump. If you think Wikipedia should be more like Britannica, with a general or narrow focus, start a discussion about that there too. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the Wikipedia will have ~30 times more encyclopedic articles; and those would seem to me to be encyclopedic topics. But I'm not aware of any word articles in EB at all. It seems obvious that they should be in the dictionary.- Wolfkeeper 04:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Wikipedia would be better with a policy that did not let numerous scholarly papers, in a field that grinds them out like sausage, establish suitability for an excemption to the not a dictionary policy. Until such policy is found or established, I think prithee has won its case. How does one put a frowny face symbol in this discussion?--Fartherred (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it has won it's case at all.- Wolfkeeper 04:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly what words were used in these 3 works from the 1700s to sell themselves to their prospective customers need not concern us in the 21st century. People actually know what the difference between a dictionary and what we do here is; well most people do.- Wolfkeeper 00:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the general consensus at this discussion, the topic is not adequately notable to warrant its own page. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Recall About Strange Happenings

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

Procedural nomination. This article was speedily deleted over a week ago, then overturned at WP:DRV with a consensus to list at AFD for further determination of notability. I think that the notability is thin at best, myself; I removed links to blogs and forums. If kept, it desperately needs better sources (Ken Jennings' book is a good start). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vote, not canvassing, and I'm not a "member of TRASH". The forum was one of the "external links" I noted in the article and I thought it stood to reason that if anyone was in a position to improve the article or otherwise give evidence of the subject's notability, it would be those who had involvement. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A related AfD turned up potential off-site canvassing for keep votes, and given that I think it's reasonable to more-or-less discount posts from new users. That considered, deletion seems appropriate here. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game Show Congress

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

Procedural nomination. This article was speedily deleted over a week ago, then overturned at WP:DRV with a consensus to list at AFD for further determination of notability. I think that the notability is thin at best, myself, and have not been able to find significant sources outside press releases. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It sounds generally interesting, but that's not the criterion for inclusion. There is no press coverage at this point, no reliable sources, and nothing suggesting notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sadly. I voted to overturn the speedy at DRV, and frankly I'm a little surprised this isn't more notable than it is, given the big names involved. But it looks like the latest congress came and went last weekend with nary a blip of press coverage whatsoever, so I have to say delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If media coverage is your criteria, the event received coverage by radio stations KNX and KRTH, as well as a blurb in the Orange County Register [7]. I would also like to point out that this event has greater attendance than some of the events listed here List_of_science_fiction_conventions, and draws equally if not more notable names, if notability is your criteria. Mmb5 (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to coverage in the media, this event was mentioned in extensive conversation with the audience by Johnny Gilbert, Alex Trebek and executive producer Harry Friedman on the set of Jeopardy at the tapings on Monday November 16th of shows to be aired Jan 5-8 2010--G. Paul Bailey (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I submit that the attendance of an organization's events is no direct measure of its significance, nor necessarily the level of interest or appeal it holds. But if that is a criteria, Game Show Congress enjoys loyal and active participation among a group of interested parties larger than the subset who travel for its annual event. Each year the various functions are carried live via the Internet to listeners who do not make the journey. Further, there is value to continue to list the sole organization involved in this area of American pop culture. Please note further that there has been press coverage within the trade press, including L.A. Radio [8] (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda 09

edit
Zelda 09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

textbook violation of WP:CRYSTAL, I would suggest that it may be WP:HAMMERtime WuhWuzDat 19:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that we already had an AFD on this game at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Zelda Project. We also have all the relevant info on the series page so a merge is not needed and since this is not a likely search term we also don't need to redirect it either.--76.66.189.141 (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well. With an AfD precedent to delete, someone recreating it and it deleted again, and this still being almost an empty page, this is kind of solving itself. Ooh! It never went through a CSD tag/untag... but I'll admit that PROD was the better/safer choice to put on first even if it means this will sit here a week. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Many involved in this debate need to have a good cup of tea and relax. This sequence of debates has been most dramatic but the consensus is clear - Peripitus (Talk) 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human disguise

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

This article has been subject to two AfDs, both which resulted in delete (although the second was closed as no consensus, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Human disguise gives a clear summary. The article has no references from WP:RS that establish WP:NOTABILITY of the concept, and is merely a mostly WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:PRIMARY sourced collection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. This article violates several core policies, and was incorrectly and abusively created as a cut-and-paste duplicate during the first AfD against the community consensus clearly established. The article is now longer, but still fails to meet even our most basic criteria. It is at best a list of OR WP:TRIVIA. Verbal chat 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • IAR Keep and nominator trout-slap You have GOT to be kidding me. The DRV for this article just closed TODAY. Why in the green hells do you want to re-start this drama? And don't give me the blah blah blah policy arguments. With as much drama as this article has created, you will NEVER get a consensus with this AFD, and quite frankly all the opening of a new AFD amounts to is disrupting wikipedia to make a point. GIVE IT A REST ALREADY. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be blunt. Get over it. My post isn't an accusation of bad faith, its my way of saying Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Having this article around will NOT kill wikipedia, and consistantly putting it up to afd simply amounts to listing it till it gets deleted. I honestly don't get the vehemence behind wanting this article deleted, I just know that I am sick to death of the constant complaining about it. Leave it alone. Come back in month, or two, or six, and look at it with fresh eyes. Until then, all I can say is ENOUGH ALREADY. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right that it won't kill Wikipedia, but it may CREATE something inadvertently. Try googling for "Motif of harmful sensation" and see what an OR article with two years of existence can do. - BalthCat (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're trying to persuade me, using a slippery slope argument isn't exactly going to help. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm trying to point to an example of what's at the bottom of the slippery slope. I'm not inventing alarmist possible results because I don't want the article to exist, I'm just cautious as a result of what I've seen happen. Consensus in 2006 or 2007 or whichever (on the talk page?) was that the topic (motif of harmful sensation) was obviously notable, and that it MUST have been researched as a cross-cultural phenomena, and that Wikipedia simply had to find out what the proper name of the motif/theme was. Two years later there's 96,000 google hits [9], and blogs are using Wikipedia's term for the phenomenon. There's actually at least one not-yet-published scholarly paper that uses the term now. Give it a few years and the Wikipedia-created expression may come home to roost with proper sources (that don't reference Wikipedia). I don't really mind, on one level, but if I'm not mistaken, Wikipedia is not supposed to be doing this. - BalthCat (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting that if Verbal doesn't get to run continuous AfDs on an article the name of which is two common words, in a common configuration, and the subject of which is a common concept, then in a week or two googling for those common words will return results some of which are relating to that common concept? Artw (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhhh Noezzz! It's already too late!!! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is obviously what I am saying. (Don't try for anything reasonable or anything.) - BalthCat (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Notable topic, reliably sourced and heavily referenced to multiple cultures and time periods sharing the theme. The article would be further along without the deletions, so right now deletion seems like a self-justifying problem/solution. Try just leaving the article-builders unmolested for a month, and then decide whether it's worth keeping! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide a few WP:RS that contain significant discussion of this concept (per WP:GNG). The last two AfDs failed to find any, and nor does the article contain any. Verbal chat 20:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're saying none of these (Human disguise#References) are WP:RS on Human disguise??? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... that contain significant discussion of this concept (per WP:GNG)Verbal chat 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're saying that not even "Divine Disguisings" and "The Disguises of the Gods in the Iliad" contain significant discussion of the concept of non-human beings (like gods) disguising themselves as human beings? Well, the problem is... that's exactly what they're about. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • All of the sources discuss various entities taking on human disguises, and even the concept of doing so; however, none of them (as far as I can see, and I'm quite prepared to be proven wrong) can validate the notability of the term "human disguise" itself. I would contend that this article simply lumps together notable instances in literature and myth of entities concealing themselves by posing as human and refers to them as "human disguise" - surely a synthesis of material that is effectively original research? The concept of a human disguise is not notable. It simply isn't. Individual instances (Clark Kent, etc) are notable, but not the overall concept. If Wikipedia starts allowing these non-notable phrases, there will be an explosion of flimsy articles. A similar example would be "teen sensation". That's a well-known, often-used phrase that is utterly without note. It is easily more popular and common than "human disguise", but quite rightly doesn't have an article. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, I see. For instance, here a source is clearly and repeatedly using that phrase with that meaning, as an example of how we use it in this article, and I would have thought that was okay, but you're saying no, because the author's merely using the term, not turning about and holding a meta-discussion about the term to establish the term's notability; he's more interested in the concept it's being used to help communicate, the bit about angels coming among humanity. So as far as you're concerned, that whole source is a wash. And likewise every other source in that list is a wash for you, because they're using words to convey ideas, instead of having meta-discussions about the words they're using. I am so sorry for you, but I don't think the problem is with the articles. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well I cannot see that page, for some reason; however, assuming everything you said is true I would have to say that it simply supports my position that the sources are not adequate for establishing the notability of the term. Consider the difference between "human disguise" (not notable) and something like "human shield" (very notable). The sources for the latter are very much the sort of thing you would expect in a Wikipedia article, but in the "human disguise" article they are more tangential. Anyway, thank you for the subtle dig at the end of your comment which effectively invalidated your whole argument at a stroke. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How witty of you to write as though that ultimate refusal had ever, at any point, been in doubt.
"human shield" = very notable (at 807 book hits)
"human disguise" = not notable (at 678 book hits)
That's the scale we're working on, is it? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those nice, misleading Google numbers. Here are some of my own:
Do you see how pointless it is to use "hits" as guidelines for notability? The argument is about whether or not the subject is notable (which it isn't). I must also note that the majority of "keeps" (and all the yelling, screaming, trouting and other nonsense) seem to be complaints about the nominating procedure, rather than comments about the validity of the article. All that stuff should be moved to the talk page, where it belongs. This page is for discussing the validity of the article, not the validity of the nomination procedure. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
«Do you see how pointless it is to use "hits" as guidelines for notability?» Dunno... you seem to think 807 book hits are very notable, while 678 book hits are not at all; 260K web hits are very notable, while 129K web hits are not at all; exactly where between the points do you draw the line? And who else agrees with you? Is this a rule you just came up with for this particular occasion? In short, why should I pay it any heed whatsoever? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are missing my point. Let me be more explicit. Notability is not based on how many Google hits (in any flavor) a subject has. At best, those numbers are a guide - normally they are completely misleading and largely useless. Notability is established by the quality, specificity and number of available reliable sources after considered interpretation. It is painfully clear that however lucid and accurate my argument will be, you will invent some new way of refute it in order to protect this garbage article. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for the same reason I would delete "Red car" or "Green grass", etc. Seems like an indiscriminate collection of examples, many of which would be more suitable to the significantly-more encyclopedic secret identity, alter ego, persona et al. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close - Disruptive editor seeking to maximize drama and utterly failing to work constructively with others. Artw (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please withdraw that bad faith accusation, which isn't a valid keep or close reason. Doing the same thing and expecting the same results (delete) isn't disruptive. Verbal chat 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are, frankly, very few forums you could take it to that I am not considering taking you to right now. I suggest you self close and stop this destructive behavior. Artw (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Same results" honestly would be "no consensus", which should = "keep" according to policy. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please cool down, the point of this AfD is to establish consensus. The last one generated confusion, the first was clear delete. I was clear in my nomination to avoid the confusion of the previous AfD. Let's see if this AfD comes to a different conclusion than all those before it. The intention isn't drama, and drama will be minimised if people keep to the point and confine themselves to policy based reasoning, for or against, keeping this article. After this AfD we will hopefully know better how to proceed. The first AfD was a clear delete, and the second was open to interpretation, but the talk page shows a compelling reason for it to be closed as delete. It was the unusual close that was overturned at DrV, not the AfD discussion. Please do not attempt to hijack this AfD and make it about anything other than the article and policy. Verbal chat 21:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, the DrV overturned the unusual close that deleted the article, not the "no consensus" verdict that by normal policy would have resulted in a keep result. Whereas you are trying to reinstate the delete and overturn the keep, in essence overturning the DrV the same day it took effect. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be willing to put this AfD on hold for a month if other editors genuinly feel they can address he issues raised in the nomination in that time. Verbal chat 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no issues. Most agreed the article was fine the way it is now. You are not going to get a consensus to delete it, no matter how many times you nominate it. Dream Focus 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was one clear delete consensus and one that I believe was a policy consensus but was misclosed per the drv. Verbal chat 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a deletion review, and it ended. You had your chances to speak, and its over. [10] Stop being disruptive. Dream Focus 21:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you unilateral close this AfD, which you yourself seem to be conceding is mistimed and disruptive, without trying to set any "conditions", and hope that people take that into consideration when it is decided if further action against you is required. I have to say that at this point your pattern of behaviour suggests that a ban on your editing that article should be requested. Artw (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ohh great ghu, now we're going to see !votes with super- and sub-indices, numerical or with symbols like ∞ and ℵ0 and ℵ1 [ha ha, my infinity trumps your infinity!] — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
would someone help me find my jaw? i dropped it on the floor around here somewhere.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 23:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article looks great. Lots of improvements on what was already a good well sourced article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uber Ultra Omgz Strong Whatever Anyone Else Said +1 I think that there is a possibility of a coherent article here, but don't see much chance of it emerging with this much unfocussed attention. The main question is whether the topic of 'non-human things disguising themselves as human' meets the minimum standards of notability. So far it seems not. And some of those quotations from the Bible definitely do not mention disguise, human or otherwise.   pablohablo. 23:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly.   pablohablo. 08:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary source gives the Hebrews quote as part of its analyses of the human disguise, so its fully legit to include it. Additionaly, viewed in context with the rest of the Holy Bible, the quote does imply Angels wear a human disguise, as its revealed in Revelations that their natural forms can be extremely inhuman in appearance. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep with an admonishment to the nominator per WP:NOTAGAIN: "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination.". A renomination that ignores the consensus reached at DRV disregards the instructions set forth at WP:DEL. Perhaps if the nomiator had waited several months and was then able to make note of changes or lack thereof to the article, his nomination might have merit. But to return it to AFD with a rehashing of the same arguments from the 2-week-old deletion dicussion because of his diagreement with the consensus of the DRV keep, does not improve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and, of course, trout for nom:

Whack! The WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis) is used to make subtle yet hopefully long-term adjustments to clue levels in experienced Wikipedians.


We are not here to wage battle or overwhelm opposition, we work with others to find the best ways to serve our readers. It took me all of thirty seconds to find hundreds of books utilizing this plot device, including few dozen about Jesus disguised as a human. This plot device has also been pioneered worldwide by the Star Trek franchises among dozens and possibly hundreds of other examples. Literary devices are perfectly appropriate encyclopedic subjects so what remains is finding the best ways to approach and write about the subject. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quoting the article: The various incarnations of Star Trek had numerous aliens capable of appearing to be human, e.g. the Salt Vampire of "The Man Trap", Trelane the Squire of Gothos, the Organians in "Errand of Mercy", the re-created historical combatants in "The Savage Curtain", among others from the original series [the article doesn't mention "Catspaw"]; the Changelings (Odo's people) in Deep Space Nine; and the Suliban in Enterprise. ... The various Star Treks also had persuasive androids, for instance in the original series episodes "What Are Little Girls Made Of?", "Shore Leave", "I, Mudd", and "Requiem for Methuselah". In Star Trek: the Next Generation, the android Data's desire to become more human was used as an ongoing source of commentary on the human condition. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not interested in rights or wrongs of nomination. Undoubtedly a significant plot-device across all manners of cultures, but the article is OR/synthesis and perhaps will always be so, as I'm far from convinced that either the dozens of sources cited or thousands that could be establish (or even mention) "human disguise" as the overarching abstract concept that this article seems to think it is. Unless someone can find some way of showing that Kenyatta being a "monster in human disguise", uncanny valley cyborgs, kitsune, etc. belong to the same class of thing, then I'd suggest userfying it as a prelude to splitting down into more homogenous articles on human disguise as a Sci-Fi trope, Olypian gods taking human form, etc., if such do not already exist. Declan Clam (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks dangerously like Motif of harmful sensation, which I once mistakenly defended on the principle that it "must exist, it just needs renaming." (And now the internet has started to use Wikipedia's term for it... full circle someday, perhaps...) - BalthCat (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A literary device that has been used throughout the recorded history of literature, mythology, and religion. The article itself is well referenced. The Westfahl references transcend merely the listing of examples, this quotes Voltaire discussing the concept used in the context of pagan deities, Judaism, and Christianity. The nom has questioned the WP:N of the subject; the Voltaire bit alone should establish notability. As to the other claims of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH; these are the result of there being so many examples of this device mixed with the eagerness of Wikipedians to add to story. Combining that with the need to "defend" the article from repeated attempts at deletion; has led to the long list of examples, some of which do go beyond the scope of what this article should be; I'm sorry but the Trix Rabbit? The article's lead, which doesn't contain WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, or WP:SYNTH is enough for my Keep !vote; the rest of it enhances the article, puts it into fantastic historical perspective, and more fully elucidates the point. I would also like to point out the lack of assumption of good faith and the excessive badgering by both sides of this debate. Everyone who has voiced an opinion on this page has done so because they believe they are making Wikipedia better and their opinion should be respected whether you agree with it or not. Other than that I have no strong opinions on this matter. J04n(talk page) 10:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm... the article lead is original research. None of its references contain the phrase "human disguise". It's well-written to sound nice and encyclopedic, but ultimately it is still just synthesis. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Erm... considering that a lede normally has no references at all, it's pretty darn significant that the only two references that did get cited there are already directly quoted as saying: "Disguises also aid in crossing racial barriers, often represented in science fiction through the use of aliens in space or robots. Sometimes humans attempt to pass as the other ... more often, aliens and robots attempt to appear human."   "Stories of secret identities have roots in ancient mythologies as disguised deities frequently descended to walk among mortals."   Those aren't using the phrase "human disguise", but they're clearly referring to the same referent. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi. I reject your rerasoning on both counts - those both quite clearly discuss the concept, whether or not you got a result when searching for the string "human disguise". I suggest you try again using human parsing. you might have some ground to stand on if this were a WP:NEO discussion, but it is not. Artw (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the problem is the title? The two words together are not in the Westfahl references but the concept certainly is. The Voltair references does use the words together here but I don't think that invalidates Westfahl. J04n(talk page) 18:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per beating a dead horse. Seriously now just as an AfD ends, we go to DRV, just as that ends we go to AfD again. Is this some kind of game or something? Imagine if all this time nominating and renominating articles was put into article work instead... And yes, the concept itself is pretty notable. For example, check out the remake of V on Tuesdays on ABC to see a famous example. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is disputing the existence of the concept of a "human disguise", just as nobody would dispute the existence of a "tall tree". The point here is that it isn't a notable concept, and there has not been significant discussion of "human disguise" in reliable sources. And once again, I must state that it is inappropriate to discuss the nomination procedure in the AfD discussion. The closing admin should discount all "keeps" that are based on a perceived flaw in the nomination procedure and consider only the comments that concern the validity of the article. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be accepted at DRV to say that DRV is not AfD take 2. I will therefore say, AfD 3 is not AfD 2 instant take 3. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a valid reason for a keep. Please !vote on the validity of the article, not the validity of the nomination. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respects, Scjessey... questioning the motives behind an editor's speedy renomination of an article is perfectly valid. That the someone does not agree with their findings of the second AfD or the DRV is exacly why revisiting concerns of those discussions would have best waited waited several months, rather than several days... allowing it per WP:WIP to be improved in the interim, and showing good faith that others might continuing it in the meantime. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that does not change the fact that a !vote of "keep" is invalid if it is based on the procedure, rather than the article. And frankly, the talk page is surely more appropriate for meta discussion about procedure in any case. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you making the assumption that the AfD exists in some kind of perfect, context free void? Not even Verbal makes that assumption – you’ll notice he links back to DoriSmiths misleading and extremely misjudged (not to mention insulting) “reinterpretation” of the last AfD. In fact every step of the way he has made every effort to make his deletion efforts tie into some perceived previous slight. If he had drawn a line under it, waited a while and then started a new AfD purely on the strengths or weaknesses of the article then I would have no problem with it . As it is ,y reasons for keeping and expanding this article hacve been given in the previous AfD, on the talk page of the article. My work in expanding the article is in it’s history. I do not feel the need to recap them for a spurious 0-day AfD based on a grudge. Artw (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was not involved in any of the previous procedures. I came to this AfD "fresh" while working my way through a list of AfD discussions, and found the article to be about a non-notable subject. AfD discussions, however conceived, should be on merit. They should discuss the validity of the article, not argue about how the nomination procedure was "based on a grudge" (a bad faith characterization that isn't appropriate in an AfD discussion). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • there's assuming good faith, and then there is denying the utterly obvious. Artw (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • However, a number of your comments suggest a misconception that the article is about the phrase "human disguise" rather than about the concept so denoted. You've demanded verification of the phrase as verification of the subject of the article — which the phrase is not — and you've complained of absence of the phrase from references, as though that meant anything at all. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                And here's a reprise from the article's talk page:     :«but not the actual term that is the subject of this article» — This is your fundamental misunderstanding, Scjessey. The subject of this article is not "the actual term" "human disguise", but the concept so denoted. As long as you're only looking for and at "the actual term", you're looking for and at the wrong thing. That's not what we've been discussing here, not at all. We could have used terms like "man-like masquerades", "human guises", "counterfeit humanity", "shapeshifts into human semblance", "taking human form", "taking human shape", and meant the same thing by them. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 18:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

                • And here is a reprise of my response to your misunderstanding of my thought process:
                  It fails in either regard. The concept, while it exists, is not notable. In this article, an attempt has been made to establish notability by piling a huge stack of individual, distinct-from-one-another examples with associated references. That's synthesis. Whatever term you use, the concept is still not notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Oh, right, piling individual piddling little non-notable references nobody ever heard of, like the Bible and the Iliad and the Terminator movies and the recent remake of Battlestar Galactica with the humanoid Cylons and the current remake of V that nobody's watching.... they're all not notable just because you few say so, Scjessey, the people making and watching these shows don't understand how boring and non-notable this theme really is, they seem to think there's some deep emotional and almost mythical impact being delivered here.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for the same reasons this entry was already deleted -- it violates WP:NOR, specifically by synthesizing information that has not been discussed by any secondary or tertiary reliable sources as part of a coherent and notable topic. It is frustrating to see so many people voting keep repeatedly for an entry that doesn't satisfy one of our most basic requirements. It implies a serious lack of understanding of core principles regarding what constitutes original research, and how to properly use reliable sources. Frightening to think what the encyclopedia will turn into should this faulty reasoning continue to spread through the editorial population. Is there a vaccine for this?PelleSmith (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not. Perhaps after a decent health care reform bill has been passed? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly Pelle, lets be clear that this article is a different beast to the one that was deleted. Human disguise is much broader than Human Suit. A suit is something you put on, the disguises in our new article include examples where the creatures transform their outer form - an act fundamentally different from donning a suit!
Secondly there seems to be a misunderstanding of policy. Lets try and break it down. The position on Synth is contained in a nut shell in the first sentence of the policy doc you linked to.
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" Its important to understand that to count as synth, an article has to violate both clauses at once. Granted this article combines material from multiple sources - but thats what encyclopedia articles are all about. What we dont do is make any original conclusions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really pains me to see these arguments. Given the fact that no sources exist discussing this as a cohesive subject matter there are only two options to explain what is going on at the entry: 1) It is a violation of WP:SYNTH because editors are in fact implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources, and if they are not doing so then 2) the entry is violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE, because consists of an unrelated jumble of stuff. In my view, and the view of many others who are capable of seeing this very basic dilemma a mix of both is going on. Either way, without solid secondary or tertiary sources discussing a topic covering the scope of the entry, I'm sorry, but it clearly violates policy and I remain extremely disheartened about future of this project if so many people are failing to understand this since it is such an obvious violation of a very core principle of Wikipedia.PelleSmith (talk) 15:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry to hear this discussion is causing you pain Pelle, I hope this reply will help set your mind at rest! The key point to understand with reference to both alternatives you raise is that the articles scope is given by the title and clarified in the lede. As suspected it looks like you feel the article violates synth by being wider in scope than any one of the sources. This is not what our policy on synth is designed to prevent – whats prohibited is drawing original conclusions by synthetically combining information from more than one source. The mere act of collating information from different sources does not involve creating any new conclusions. An example might help. About a year ago there was lot of popular interest in Credit Default Swap, so I helped improve that article and add some clarity for the layman. Some of the themes we covered were The creation and history of the CDS - Its role in specific incidents such as the collapse of Bear Sterns - The mathematics of Swap Finance - Progress in improving regulation on CDS - Criticisms of CDS - The different types of CDS Etc etc Now to the best of my knowledge,none of the sources cover all of these themes. Many just address one, or at most two or three. Are we guilty of synth as just by addressing the different aspects of the subject more comprehensively than anyone one source we're making an original conclusion that a subject exists with a scope not acknowledged by sources? Should we instead split the article into separate subjects to avoid this, regardless of how inconvenient it would be for the reader? I dont think so! Moving on to your alternative 2) the articles talk page clearly shows that far from indiscriminately including every human like creature that comes to mind, the good editors building the article are carefully considering each on merit, and rejecting humanoids that dont belong, such as zombies. There currently seems to be an exhaustive source based discussion on whether or not to include werewolves. I hope if you read it you'll be satisfied that all due rigour is being excercised to ensure a quality article for our readers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No source ever deals with every detail of any topic, and to suggest that this is the standard by which I judge something not to be a violation of WP:SYNTH is a straw man of epic proportions. What the sources at Credit default swap directly relate to is a coherent subject matter recognized as such either explicitly on implicitly by the sources themselves. How is that? Because there are reliable sources available that define and/or describe what a credit default swap is. Each source does not have to encompass the totality of the subject, but some source must recognize that there is such a subject in the first place -- that there is a basis to group and compare examples within the same category. There are no such sources describing or defining the theme, trope, motif, or what have you, of "human disguise". And yes I'm still dismayed, more dismayed in fact, because the longer this goes on the more apparent it is that you all are deeply entrenched in a very problematic reading of WP:NOR and WP:V. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add the the mere use of a term doesn't cut it either. The term "human disguise" consists of a noun (disguise) and an adjective (human) that modifies that noun. Infinite numbers of similar combination like "blue mountain", or "irritable cabdriver" are possible in English. Very few of these modified nouns actually merit an encyclopedia entry, and very many of the ones that don't are still exceedingly common in usage. The test isn't to find the number of times that a given term shows up in popular or academic contexts -- consider doing so for "blue mountain". Of course, most of the sources utilized in the entry don't even use this exact term in the first place -- and this has been noted in connection to the policy argument for deletion based on WP:N. In my opinion this fact is quite telling about the times that the term does appear, and it suggests (particularly without any sources that refer directly to a motif of "human disguise") that the appearance of the term is merely descriptive in the same way that "irritable cabdriver" is. That is to say that the modification of the noun is clearly meaningful but it has no purchase on anything beyond pure linguistic utility.PelleSmith (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is surely not only "pure linguistic utility" to note that the theme of gods disguising themselves as human beings exists, as we have references in the article noting; nor angels nor shapeshifting creatures of lesser stature (supernatural animals) nor aliens nor even machines. And Westfahl all by himself notes the disguised deities, aliens, and robots in the very first two cites. So the subject did clearly exist before we discussed it. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, these are not examples in which "human disguise" (or a synonym thereof) is used in a manner denoting a similarity between the examples given in a particular source and others outside of the source beyond the very basic descriptive sense in which all of them involve something else disguised as a human (just as "irritable cabdriver" describes a cab driver who is irritable). The one thing no one arguing keep has been able to produce throughout these many AfDs is a source that connects these disparate examples in a meaningful way. There is a glimmer of hope that a very specific version of this dynamic is meaningful in this way within ancient Greek tragedy. But that is about it. The rest is a figment of your collective imaginations. Don't worry it is very plausible that the closing admin will take your words for it instead of investigating your various sources. Never fear, you are not alone amongst those who err.PelleSmith (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
«all of them involve something else disguised as a human» — A god, demon, monster, alien, robot, etc., yes. Precisely. Yes. That is the common factor. Something not human disguised as human. By George, I think you've got it! That is the topic of this article! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with PelleSmith and am concerned that no one has made any argument that reliable sources on this topic exist and just have not been cited yet, i.e. it is not just that it violates NOR, but it necessarily violates NOR. My bigger concern is that anything notable in the article seems to have a more proper home in anthropomorphism; this article seems to be at best about a subset of this larger theme in mythology and literature. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually quite a lot of discussion of just that has taken place. And a lot of sourcing has been added to the article. My personal take is that the science fiction section is pretty strong now and could easily be it's own article, and that there is definitely work do be done on the discussion of the subject as a unified whole - but even there we have some sources and more sources can be added. For instance I'll be looking at the use of the Joseph Campbell cites in the lede.
So, at the risk of repeating myself, that is why I originally voted keep on the first Human Disguise AfD, and why i consider that keep to still be standing . Disruption of that work would be the primary reason why I object to this 0-day AfD and why I believe it is completely non product compared with, say, backing down on the drama, allowing work to continue on the article undistributed and then reassessing it a later date. I'm sorry if this the reasons I believe this article should be kept are obscured by my objection to the disruption, but there they are. Artw (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Artw. Slrubenstein, phrases like "it necessarily violates NOR" are high sounding but dont really impart much information. In order for this to be a productive discussion that helps us approach mutual agreement and true concensus, please can you spell out in detail specifically what you think the problem is here possibly quoting the relevant lines from policy and from the article. For example as I did in the reply to Pelle. If we dont take the time to make ourselves clear we'll just talk past each other and folk arent going to have the chance to improve as editors. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per our deletion policy which states, "Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." and this is clearly a disruptive renomination of this sort. As for the article, it continues to improve and has excellent sources such as the multi-volume Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy which amply demonstrate the notability and unoriginality of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only sources about related motifs or themes have been produced. These sources may discuss instances where this particular dynamic is apparent within another motif, or they may discuss motifs that are themselves much more specific (see related literature on Homer) but they never engage it as a motif itself. Can we dispense with the technicalities please. There is ample reason to call a great deal of what went on surrounding this entry disruptive, and a majority of it by "keepists", so lets focus on the entry itselfPelleSmith (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - to repeat what I said on the article's talk page: Nobody has been able to tell my why "human disguise" is notable. Only the notability of the examples has been demonstrated. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Human thought"? Part of the reason why you wont see a topic with this scope discussed in academic contexts is precisely because it implies similar distinctions between the categories of "human" and "non-human", cross-culturally and historically. It is also implied that there is a unified significance to this particular dichotomy in the various folk traditions that it may appear, when there is no reason to believe there is. In reality you're just citing examples of times when the trope is apparent to a modern western mind socialized on science fiction an a particular idea of what it means to be human (what narcissism). Continue to believe that it has the same universal significance that you think it does, but you'll not find support from scholars who know better.PelleSmith (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, you mistake my ethnicity. Second, if I'd intended to give a unified Western academic interpretation, then there would have been plenty of citations handy. Third, consider tinyurl.com/sizzleflambe — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And this is moot, since the person to whom I made the offer has "checked out". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with intentions or ethnicity. When you figure it out get back to me, until then carry on. BTW, do you think a zombie fits this motif, or maybe a zombie is like a human disguised as an android having technical difficulties. I'm going with that.PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the varying backstory of Swamp Thing which in one rendition is a shambling dead man, but in another is a plant-entity that only thinks it's the body of a man, and therefore holds that shape. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what's going to make discussions of inclusion criterea a lot cleaner and simpler? Not fighting an AfD for at least a solid 24 hours, something that I do not believe has happened during the articles existence. Artw (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Notability is easily demonstrated by the high quality secondary sources which dont merely mention the human disguise in passing, but analyses it in detail - e.g. the Professor Kreeft source on Angels. The fact that our article is wider in scope than any of the current sources doesn't make in synthetic. The article doesnt seem to be reaching beyond the sources to make any original conclusions . Its part of an encyclopedias function to collate different secondary sources, so naturally in some cases our articles will have the broadest scope. And this is a good thing not a bad thing – likely one of the reason why reliable sources praise this noble project for sometimes having the best available article on certain topics. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:BEFORE, WP:STICK, WP:POINT, WP:PRESERVE and WP:FICTION (in the proposed notability guideline regarding fictional topics under its "other criteria" for what should pass the General Notability Guidelines it states:
The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, [which it is] that the required sources are likely to exist [which they do] - The fictional element has established a tradition in a particular genre [which it is]) emphases and commentary added.
If I missed any allcaps bluelinks that will support my case, let me know I will add them. Based on the previous AfD, and the DRV there was no consensus, there is likely to be no consensus on this, so how about we get back to doing constructive things, like writing articles. Re-debating this subject's notability is getting to be counter productive, especially when people with different interpretations of the same policies/guidelines are involved, and no one is changing their position. That to me is the definition of no consensus. --kelapstick (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it has descended to the point were a few fanatical maintainers of this article are going to argue against every point raised that has already demonstrated the complete lack of notability of this list of disparate human disguises you call an article. Now that "The Court" is here en masse, I shall be checking out of this ridiculous and gross abuse of policy. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for so firmly assuming good faith. Mind the door on your way out. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Thwack, thwack. Nope, still no whinny—this horse is dead.

    By now, it's been well and truly established that there is insufficient consensus to delete this article. I take a very dim view of repeating the nomination again and again, in the hope that one day the keepers will fail to turn up so the material might be deleted out of sheer persistence. See WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that has been established at all. What has been established is that most of the "keep" !votes come from either (a) a small group of like-minded individuals who spend most of their time apparently creating and defending articles of dubious notability ("The Court"), and (b) the !voters who object to the re-nomination on procedural grounds. In stark contrast, most of the "delete" !votes are based on sound policy reasoning. The closing administrator must consider these matters before wrapping this up, because it sheds a completely different light on the AfD discussion. I agree the nomination was procedurally out of order, but I did not participate in any of the previous discussions and came at this fresh (as did most of the other people who !voted for deletion). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we're playing that game are we? Okay, in that case I've arbitarily decided that your votes doesn't count, since the reasoning for it has been shown to be false and I don't care for any of your rebuttals of that. Sorry about that. Artw (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that objection, Scjessey, but I would reply that in a collaborative encyclopaedia that depends on good faith users' contributions, FairProcess is vital. The people who write the articles need to know that they'll get a fair hearing within the rules, and that the hearing will end with closure one way or the other. This fact is what enables them to write material without going through a committee process first.

Sometimes I disagree with the results of process, and I'd buy into a better system if it was on offer, but I don't see one so I feel we have to accept the processes we have rather than try to circumvent them.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while the lead has good sources and could easilly be merged into another broader article - the remainder of the article has little to no value. The fact that the following sections have been rewritten to a better prose structure does not take away from the fact that it's original research and synth to link them all here. Everything but the lead remains to this day nothing but a magnet for trivia entries of loosely related examples. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whereas, by the same token, this AfD and the others before it have been attempts to drive away contributors by making them afraid their efforts would all be deleted. If the article were left unmolested for awhile, then more work could get done there instead of here.... — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 17:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's pretty laughable. I don't think you have to worry about the article creators being afraid. Hundreds of new articles are deleted within minutes of their creation as a matter of routine, and this has already had several fair hearings and plenty of opportunity to be improved upon. Unfortunately, no amount of fettling will fix this article because the problem lies with the premise that it is okay to create articles about non-notable pairings of a noun and a qualifying adjective (I refer to my "tall tree" example again). -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, you misunderstand (although I've learned to expect nothing less). The concept remains original research. The creators and maintainers of the article essentially chose the term to describe the concept - the term was (to all intents and purposes) "invented" for this function. In fact, this "invention" came about because the previous attempt ("human suit") was a failure. I imagine if this also gets deleted, the same article will pop up again under the new title of "human concealment" or something similar. The concept certainly exists (as numerous examples have been found and cited), but the term used to describe this concept is an invention. Furthermore, it is not even a notable concept in itself. There is literally ZERO evidence to suggest that the concept is more notable than the concept of a "tall tree" (for example), with all references to the "human disguise" concept being anecdotal, insignificant or non-specific. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Just as "tall tree" is a meaningful description of a tree the top of which surpasses certain relative distance from the ground so is "human disguise" a meaningful description of something that enables a non-human entity to appear human. But this is pure linguistic utility and doesn't in anyway speak to the notability of human disguises, or to the notion that discussing them as a distinct category is at all meaningful. The mere existence of such "human disguises" in various story telling traditions, like the existence of "tall trees" in various forests (which I assure you there are plenty more of) does not give grounds for an encyclopedia entry. There has to be something meaningful about human disguises, as with tall trees, above and beyond the merely descriptive to make it a meaningful category of disguise, but that is not all. On Wikipedia there has to be reliable sourcing attesting to such a meaningful category. But I must sound like a broken record at this point.PelleSmith (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there was nothing memorable about those movie posters with a glowing red cyborg eye glaring from Arnold Schwarzenegger's partial face; nothing classically mythic about those Greek gods disguised as human beings; nothing to heed in that repeated theme of hiddenness in the Bible, God's ways being mysterious to man, Jesus coming like a thief in the night, some have had angels for guests unawares; nope, nothing to see here, folks, mind your own business, go on your way! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourcing is fine in the article. The article has no references from WP:RS that establish WP:NOTABILITY is clearly bogus as the article is well sourced. One can argue that the cites aren't entirely on topic, but the nom didn't do so (and I think they are fine). The other issues raised by the nom are in the "shades of gray" of policy (is this indiscriminate? I don't think so, etc.) In any case, it meets all of our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is about a clearly notable literary device (per user:Benjiboi and others), and while it isn't perfect deleting it wont improve it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't begrudge Verbal his nomination, this is a fine piece of Wikidrama. I thought the original Human suit article was a disaster, but the current article isn't setting off my WP:SYNTH alarm bells. The article is about the concept of an other disguising themselves as a human, and I think the sources giving plenty of support to the notability of the concept. Fences&Windows 22:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is no such concept in any of the sources so how could they possibly give support to it? There are different concepts in these sources (from Greek gods pretending to be humans to Japanese strangers disguised as beggars). When these sources actually have something meaningful to say about, for example Greek gods, or Japanese strangers the entry mangles this entirely by shifting the focus off of the actual plot dynamic the sources' authors are focusing on and onto the sometimes entirely inconsequential fact that the "other" happens to be non-human while the group this other is trying to blend into is human. At other times tremendous liberties are taken with widely read stories, like those from the Hebrew Bible, in which any angel appearing amongst humans without being recognized is supposedly in "human disguise". These stories themselves never attest to the notion that the angels have to disguise their physical form. Then one or two cherry picked and poor quality sources are found that use the term "human disguise" or a synonym thereof, but no one thinks twice about what mainstream scholarship on these stories may directly claim or imply about this dynamic. Perhaps the only example used in the entry that can actually be sourced to a tradition of scholarship that has identified a meaningful motif of non-humans disguised as humans (relating to Homer, etc.) is itself made virtually meaningless by being lumped in with this other nonsense.PelleSmith (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
«there is no such concept in any of the sources» — There you have it, folks! When Greek gods disguise themselves as human beings; and when angels disguise themselves as human beings; and when demons disguise themselves as human beings; and when shape-shifting animals disguise themselves as human beings; and when extraterrestrial aliens disguise themselves as human beings; and when robots disguise themselves as human beings; there is absolutely no common concept shared by these scenarios such that they can be spoken of in the same terms — you have PelleSmith's word on it! A phrase like "human disguise" simply will not suffice! Or will it? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Setting aside the interpretation of what this means to the discussion about WP:SYNTH I think a mistaken assumption perpetuated by the lead of the entry has to be clarified. The first sentence of the lead claims that human disguise is "a concept in computer science, fantasy, folklore, mythology, religion, literary tradition, iconography and science fiction" (emphasis and wikilinking choice mine). The idea that it is "a", or one, concept across these fields is patently false and clearly not supported by any source used in the entry -- those who doubt this should note that the most salient quotes from the sources used have been provided in most of them as support. Read them, you'll find nothing to support this claim, in fact the idea that it is "a" concept even within any of these fields is dubious at best and again not supported by any given sources. The reason I bring this up is that the language of the entry seems to have misled people at this AfD, such as Fences and Windows above, or else these people are using sloppy and inaccurate expressions. Either way I do not think anyone should be misled about this. The lead of the entry is making a very false claim. If it were to say that human disguises of various kinds can be identified in the literature of ... that would be a different matter. This distinction is not simply nitpicky either, it is quite meaningful to the objections that some of us have to the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you yourself pointed out, "all of them involve something else disguised as a human", something not human disguised as human, a shared root concept (phrase it as you will) that is notable, age-old, and wide-spread. That is the topic of this article, not the mere phrase "human disguise". — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You continue to totally miss the point about what we are saying. All these examples you keep quoting are fine and dandy, but nowhere is it said that they all fall under the single concept of "human disguise". That's just original research on the part of the article creators and maintainers. Argue all you want, but that fact will never change. If this article is kept, it will be because of a failure to understand how this violates basic policy. Worst still, it will set a precedent for the creation of all sorts of bullshit meaningless articles about nebulous, non-notable concepts. It is because of that fact that I returned to this AfD after previous removing it from my watchlist - I realized that this will be an important "line in the sand" issue with articles in the future. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's like talking to a brick wall, FFS. As I've already said, the examples are just fine. They do indeed show examples of mythical or fictional beings concealing themselves as pretending to be or look like humans; however, SO WHAT? It's just not at all notable. And the term "human disguise" (RARELY mentioned in the references) is a construct devised by the creator of the article (when "human suit" didn't work out). If you change the title of the article to "Examples of mythical or fictional entities disguising themselves as humans" (or something like that), at least it wouldn't be original research. It would still struggle to meet the GNG, but at least it wouldn't be OR. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well thanks for that useful contribution to the debate. But it wasn't me who pounced on every single "delete" !vote like it was a personal affront. I've consistently argued from a policy standpoint and left all the snide remarks to the Flambé crowd. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I think you'll find that it is a notable figure of speech for describing a frustrating situation where someone is making no effort to understand the reasons why they are completely wrong about something, despite being presented with the facts in plain language. Do you have any more inanity for me? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, for instance, all the times I've reminded you this article isn't about the phrase or term "human disguise" — only to see you come back complaining how this article lacks references for mentions of the term "human disguise" (when mythical or fictional entities disguise themselves as humans) — I've been talking to a brick wall, haven't I? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing the point again. When this article was created, it was about the term. Then it was confusingly about the term and the concept. Now it is about the concept. But the problem is that neither the term nor the concept are notable. And the article contains umpteen examples of entities disguising themselves as humans, but with no significant or noteworthy references that specifically refer to them as "human disguise" (a TERM being used to describe the CONCEPT). I've said all this before, but you are just not listening, or understand. If you actually understood, you would change your !vote to delete. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you seem to miss the point that when entities disguise themselves as humans, that is the topic here, and whether or not the term "human disguise" pops up in that context is entirely irrelevant, because the term is not the topic of this article. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like you are finally beginning to understand. You have correctly stated that "human disguise" is entirely irrelevant - that's because using the term to describe this loosely-pulled-together concept is the part which is original research. As I said before, "human suit" didn't work so "human disguise" was tried instead. The article maintainers have worked really hard to make it look like a real article, but it is still based on the faulty premise that "human disguise" (as a term OR a concept) is notable. It does not meet the general notability guidelines. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a quick count you have responded to a keep vote, or leapt in to counter a response to response on a keep vote around half a dozen times, not to mention numerous other ocmments repeating pretty much the same line of argument without moving forwards (not to mention your blanket dismissal of all keep votes). I see Verbal and PelleSmith doing similar, with Verbal being particularly agressive at the start of the debate. People in glass houses and all that... Artw (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidently you are having trouble counting. I responded to legitimate keep !votes a couple of times. The rest of them were responses to the invalid !votes based on a procedural complaint. These petty comments of yours aren't really contributing anything useful, and are most certainly not assuming good faith. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry mate, you appear to have massive double standards to the point where any conversation with you is just pointless, so I'll just stop. I'd encourage Sizzle Flambé and others to do likewise, as it's not going to get us anywhere. Artw (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP AND KEEP AND WTF. A brief glance at the nominator's contributions reveals him to be altogether AfD-happy. - Tzaquiel (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unbelievable, is this stuff still going? Keep, and let's abolish the entire AfD process while we're at it. How many more hundreds of kilobytes do we need to waste our time with? The sources look good and the article is of a valid, encyclopedically interesting topic. But this AfD madness is just something that defies all possible explanations. How can such a simple matter turn so ugly? --a carefully considered and weighted opinion from wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Cook: Vicious Circle

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

This is a promotional ad for Dane Cook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Around the Edges: Live from Madison Square Garden

edit
Rough Around the Edges: Live from Madison Square Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a promotional ad for Dane Cook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs)

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Todd (policeman)

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

Seems only notable for a single event, and falls under WP:BLP1E. Singularity42 (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel the necessity of adding in that this stub should not be "salted". This is because more needs to be investigated, and I am sure will be, about why the Army reported false information. The New York Times may have more to say on this. The possibility of bare notability comes not from the fact that Todd shot Nidal, but that the Army falsely reported that he had nothing to do with it. I would also not be so sure that this is a snow close. My mind is open, and would like to see more of a discussion. The inability of the military to say who shot the shooter casts doubt on their identification of the shooter. This could be used for the defense as reasonable doubt. Bearian (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It might also be noted, by way of explanation (and as may be relevant in light of wp:blp), that "[i]n an interview on Wednesday, Sergeant Todd’s wife, Lisa, said he had asked the Army to protect his identity in the immediate aftermath of the shootings." [19] --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read it and I understand. Thanks for the heads up. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. SNOW close this one after it's open for at least 12 hours or so. It's possible Todd will become notable eventually if his actions receive more and more coverage and result in him writing a book or the like, but for now this is a very clear BLP1E delete. There was no agreement about creating the article in the first place and the consensus here seems pretty clear, so an admin should feel free to close this as delete without waiting the full 7 days. We need to get a handle on these insta-bio articles created because of a couple of news stories, and a speedy close of this AfD helps us do that. A redirect can and probably should be created that points to some portion of the Fort Hood shooting article, but there's nothing in this article history that needs to be merged so it should be deleted prior to that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the chief question is if the subject of the article meets WP:NN, there are presently 779 instances of news articles with a mention of the subject that is being proposed to be deleted. Therefore, per WP:BIO

    If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

    the subject meets the second part of the quoted part of the guideline. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it notable that the top result in those news search goes into the following detail about the subject: "Little information was available about Senior Sgt. Mark Todd". We cannot expect a biography from this material. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E clearly applies.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. I agree with many people who have commented in various discussions that this policy is often quoted misappropriately, but that shouldn't stop us applying it when it is appropriate. I don't see any point in a redirect from a title with a disambiguator, but there may possibly be an argument for a link from the disambiguation page to Fort Hood shooting, although I don't really see that helps with navigation (which is the point of disambiguation pages) because the only reason that anyone would be looking up information on the subject would be that they have already seen the name in the context of this incident. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ¨consensus from established editors is clear Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shangra-la Mission

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

This article is a content fork of The Summit Lighthouse. There are no news articles about this organization available in Google News or other sources. The article appears to be a promotional piece for the associated website (recently back online, a personal website which rambles on about a couple's relationship breakup mixed in with new-age spiritual un-sourced waffle). Consequently in addition to being a content fork, it fails to meet WP:ORG requirements and should be deleted. The original text (some of which is now removed) made several unsourced assertions about living people failing the requirements of WP:BLP. This is likely to be a contentious deletion due to the potential claimed religious or spiritual context, however standard Wikipedia policies apply. Ash (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I ran across this because it had been listed in List of Christian denominations and User:Ash thought it didn't belong there. I agreed to that, since it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion in that list (it lacks any self-identification of Christian as far as I can tell). Then I ran across the afd and agree. Other than the website, there isn't any indication of its existence. The books are all in the category of self-published books, which are not sufficient as independent sources. Tb (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I encountered this article for the first time this afternoon and was appalled by its blatant status as advertisement for a nonnotable religious group. I had no idea as to its history. Nothing notable here, nothing referenced in a third party source, nothing redeemable. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for deleting the previous post. It said to delete the template when closing.
Allow I will re-iterate my stand that the content for Shangra-La Mission is not connected with Summit Lighthouse at all. The poster "Ash" should be better informed before making such statements.
Shangra-La Mission is a God-based mission to teach us how to Be that which we were created to be. IAMBeing —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMBeing (talk • contribs) 02:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— IAMBeing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
(reply) It would be useful if you could point to some verifiable sources. I was going by previous badly sourced (as in relying on self published sources) statements on pages such as The Summit Lighthouse. Presumably for similar reasons this would mean that links to the Theosophical Society and The Saint Germain Foundation should be removed.—Ash (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alas (he says, tongue in cheek) being a God-based mission is not relevant to AfD criteria. Tb (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't it hilarious that the modern scribes and pharisees are now working to set rules on the net, they have certainly kept on top with the technology, however they are still in the mindset that things that step outside of their set up rules and regulations on what goes where in what file on which cabinet.
Why do they want a group that is recognized by the government of the United States as a registered charity to be taken out of their entries? What is so threatening about us that makes them think we have no right to Be in this wonderful source of information. I ask you editors of Wikipedia to consider why is it that since we cannot be put in a specific category then we are not worth having? Isn't that the principle of wikipedia, to share the information of the few to the world? We deserve to have our entry with the history of our organization, because from that history we have learned and continue to grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ume Arai (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Ume Arai (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The criteria are those of WP:N, and have nothing to do with being "recognized" by the US as a "registered charity". You appear to have misunderstood the purposes of wikipedia, which are not about the "few" and "the world" but rather, building an encyclopedia. Tb (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-topic comments by User:Ume Arai removed, see diff. Please note the guidance of NOTFORUM. An AFD discussion is not a soapbox to air general opinions and observations, comments of this type will be removed following the guidance of WP:Prune. You may find SPA, COI and SOCK helpful before making further edits where you may have potential conflict of interest.—Ash (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reinstated Ume Arai's comment. It is not acceptable for a deletion nominator to remove comments from an AfD discussion. I'm sure (well, let's say I hope) that the closing admin will be able to determine which arguments are in accordance with policy and guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you point me to that part of WP:DEL that states that the normal interpretation of WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALKNO do not apply here as I have not found any such guidance myself? In the meantime I'll assume you are correct - so could someone else please remove or strike out some of these off-topic comments that obviously violate the standard guidelines for deletion discussions as Phil Bridger objects to the nominator taking any such action.—Ash (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the comment is likely WP:NOTFORUM and maybe WP:TALKNO problematic, but that isn't the question. The correct response there is to explain to the editor that they are in violation of those policies, not to simply delete their comments. In this case, even that seems pointless. I'm willing to assume good faith, and read the comment in that light: the editor is trying to explain why he thinks the page should be kept, which (in his view, not understanding policy here correctly) he thinks is connected to the question of the truth of his ideas and the motives of those of us who favor deletion. In that context, the gentler course would be to let him have his rant, which I expect reduces the likelihood of future misbehavior in this case. Since this is not a vote, it's not necessary to exclude such things as if the closing admin won't be able to figure out what's up. Tb (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The founder of Shangra La Mission has several books published. One of them is coming out on Amazon and can be previewed there. It's at http://www.amazon.com/Way-Know-That-Am-You/dp/0963256408/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258127542&sr=8-1#noop. You will see that it is not a part of the Summit group but rather a set of teachings from the Ascended Masters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IAMBeing (talk • contribs) 16:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether the person has had books published, but whether the organization meets the criteria for notability. Since the books are self-published by the organization's founder, they are not suitable as sources. Tb (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I cannot find evidence that this organization meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. I could only find one independent source mentioning it, and that mention was very brief and not at all useful to demonstrating notability. Those members of the group who are trying to save the article should bear in mind that books by members of the mission are not at all useful for demonstrating notability; what's required are books and articles about the mission in reliable, independent sources, which I wasn't able to find with my own search. In addition, the article is written in a way so counter-encyclopedic that a full rewrite would be required- and there are no sources that anyone outside the group can use to supply information for such a rewrite. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow I have done some research and found the mission was founded on January 10, 2003 in New York. Here is the link.
New York Incorporation
Also, when I go to their website, it looks like they are revising it and that is why it was not showing accessible links before to content, when accessing. the shangra-la mission That data says it is being recreated, and already has a new banner.
The Shangra-la Mission also comes up in the google search as the first listing.
According to back files on Wikepedia, there are also two other major Shangra-la websites one Shangra-la Russia and the Shangra-la Mission Colombia.
Therefore, this mission is not limited to just a few members, but is a worldwide membership. In looking up google cache files, I can also find a cached file of some listings of http://web.archive.org/web/20080611033118/shangrala.org/F_LIVINGWORD/APastConclaves.html conferences put on around the world.
According to Alpheus, an esoteric archive of Ascended Master activities, he has listed the organization there.
http://www.alpheus.org/html/contentindices/ascended_masters_index.html
Taborthree (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Taborthree (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please note that such an organization may exist is not the basis for nomination. The nomination refers to the requirements of WP:ORG which requires notability to be established using third party sources. The links you have provided to date do not address that requirement.—Ash (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words: You get one vote, with one account. So far, you seem to have used two accounts to vote at least five times. -19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I hate to sound like I'm taking the side of a sockpuppet, cuz I'm not. But note that it's not a vote at all, and language about voting tends to encourage sockpuppetry in the future. Tb (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— IAMBeing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. The books listed under "further reading" in the article were all published before this mission is claimed to have been established, so are obviously irrelevant to notability, and the only one of the external links that mentions the subject is its own web site. None of the other sources proposed above does any more than confirm that the founder of this mission has created a web site and self-published a book. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow: the purpose of this page is to provide information as a summary of the beliefs of a particular spiritual organisation. It does not argue the truth or otherwise of a particular opinion on those beliefs, leaving the reader to decide should they so wish. It is therefore, as I would understand it, neutral. The main sources of information for this will of course be the websites and books published by the organisation, as they provide details on those beliefs. Information mentioned above is available to verify that there are members world-wide and it is therefore an actual organisation and not a made-up entry. There must of course be rules on Wikipedia to keep some order and prevent malicious use to ensure that it remains a useful source of information. But these rules must be applied as appropriate to the situation, depending on the type of entry and its purpose. Wikipedia is great precisely because of the vast array of information available, and sticking so rigidly to the rules no matter the circumstances will limit the sharing of information, which is of course its purpose. Please use some discernment in applying the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeIAM (talk • contribs) 21:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— FreeIAM (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Welcome to Wikipedia! I make that 4 new accounts so far created in the last 24 hours which have the single purpose of contributing to this AfD and article. Please be aware of the guidance of WP:SOCK.—Ash (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the welcome. You appear to be suggesting the use of multiple accounts by one individual. Please feel free to investigate that as it is not the case. This also suggests that you are dismissing our points due to being new users. As wikipedia is a resource designed to be edited by anyone, this does rather seem to go against the spirit of it and sound very elitist. I left my comments because the comments by yourself and others on this page may follow the rules to the letter but don't actually make any sense if you think about what people use the site for, and I would hope for reconsideration.FreeIAM (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has policies. Everyone is invited to edit, but it is required that edits conform to Wikipedia policy. Attacking the policies as "elitist" is not really helpful here. Tb (talk) 06:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel DeGuard

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

This page is a fake, made up by my friend. You can see on the internet there is no other references to this person, except wikipedia which anyone can edit, and the article cites no resources. Thank you, HerNameWasLolaaar (talk) 16:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. though a Merge (somewhere) looks like the best idea.... Black Kite 10:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene

edit
3,4-Dichlorobicyclo(3.2.1)oct-2-ene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This chemical compound does not meet notability criteria outlined at WP:N. A search of the chemistry literature shows that this chemical compound does not have any notable use. It is not the subject of any publication, scientific or otherwise. The fact that it is an intermediate in the synthesis of bicyclo[3.2.1]octan-2-one (a compound which is itself does not have a Wikipedia article) is mere trivia - there are literally millions of chemical compounds which are described in the chemical literature whose only purpose was to be an intermediate on the way to something more interesting. There is no reason to have articles on such chemical compounds. ChemNerd (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is at least one source where bicyclo [3.2.1] octenyl halides are the subject of a paper: [20]. Can be the article moved/merged to the end result of the reactions where it is usually used, however? --Cyclopiatalk 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No CID AFAIK FWIW: I tried to look this up in chemical db at pubmed, no luck but sometimes it misses things. There were 200 some dichlorobicyclo compounds but nothing like this. These are closest ,

CID11120418, Diethyl 7,7-dichlorobicyclo[4.1.0]heptane-3,4-dicarboxylateIUPAC: diethyl 7,7-dichlorobicyclo[4.1.0]heptane-3,4-dicarboxylateMW: 309.185620 | IUPAC: 3,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.1.0]hexa-1(6),2,4-triene; 1-[3-(dimethylaminomethyl)-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinolin-1-yl]ethanone; 1-[3-(dimethylamino)-1-methyl-3,4-dihydro-2H-isoquinolin-1-yl]ethanone; 

IUPAC: 3,4-dichlorobicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1,3,5-triene-8-carbonitrileMW:

3,4-dichlorobicyclo[4.2.0]octa-1,3,5-triene-7,8-dioneMW: 201.006280 | MF:

$ more xxx | grep "3.2.1" 2,2-Dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]octane, CID549089 ...IUPAC: 2,2-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]octaneMW: 179.086880 | MF: C8H12Cl2 NSC148271, CID287989 ...IUPAC: 2,3-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-eneMW: (1S,2R,4S,5R)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520 | MF: IUPAC: (1S,2R,4S,5S)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520

(1S,2S,5R,6S)-2,3-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-ene-6-carboxylateMW: IUPAC: (2R,4S,5S)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520 | IUPAC: (1R,2R,4S,5R)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520

IUPAC: (1R,2R,4R,5S)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520

(1R,2R,4S,5S)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520 | MF: NSC148271, CID11275343IUPAC: (1S,5R)-2,3-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-eneMW:

(1R,2R,5R,7S)-2,3-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-3-ene-7-carboxylateMW: 1-butylsulfanyl-7,7-dichlorobicyclo[4.1.0]heptaneMW: 253.231620 | MF: (2R,4S,5R)-2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520 | MF: 2,4-dichlorobicyclo[3.2.1]oct-6-en-3-oneMW: 191.054520 | MF: C8H8Cl2O

Is there something this illustrates or does or is it notable for being excluded from a list of halo-bicycles? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better to look at Gscholar or ISI than Pubmed. --Cyclopiatalk 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when I created the article (quite a while ago) I was under the - incorrect - impression that all chemical compounds were considered inherently notable. I have tried to look for additional sources since then and haven't been able to find any, the source that is given is somewhat questionable. Guest9999 (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe it'll forever remain a stub, but who knows? So long as it's factually correct, I see no real harm in keeping it. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and then think of a merge) per Rifleman 82. Agree with you. Maybe we could discuss about a better target to keep the information, like an article on the bicyclooctatrienes, but there is plenty of WP:RS covering the subject somehow, so no reason not to have it for now. --Cyclopiatalk 11:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Maybe I'm missing something, but if content doesn't meet notability guidelines, wouldn't it be against Wikipedia policy to keep it, just because it is accurate? ChemNerd (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it doesn't meet a guideline, it is not (necessarily) against a policy. It is against policy if it is against policy. Policies and guidelines are two distinct things. That said, the compound somehow technically passes WP:N, since it is cited in dozens of academic papers, that are considered usually WP:RS. --Cyclopiatalk 09:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Also: The notability criterion is somewhat of a tautology- if there isn't enough noted about it there isn't enough to put in a decent article. So, even if they have inherent notability but no sources, what can you put into the article? Most of the inherent things like commercial broadcast stations at least have primary sources that you can turn to, here there is nothing unless you want to include a description of the consituent elements and describe the electron distirubtion in each bond or otherwise engage in writing a review article. I'm not even sure it is a particularly interesting intermediate- some may illustrate a reaction mechanism, or be unusually stable or have some attribute people have written about. It doesn't even seen to have been noted for being absent in a family of related compounds or unnoted. Does it have a lobbiest group or other advocacy or fan club? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it comes up in patents in connection to zeolites or something, skimming ghits. If you can concot an inherent notability finding and dig out enough info from primary sources without doing OR ( the papers that reference this topic point to or note its unique features, " the only chemical that makes this possible" or " prototype of a class" etc). Not clear from article what this stuff is or who cars bout it. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To the best of my knowledge WP:N was created to keep a check on vanity articles of persons, organization, products etc. A chemical compound, structural formula, visualization, various phys-chem properties - presuming straight pass for WP:V - perfectly qualifies as relevant info. Whether it warrants its own article, or if the info should be merged somewhere else with a redirect, is really not something we should waste our time on at AfD. And with Google, either outcome has ultra-marginal impact on the usefulness of the encyclopedia. Straight out deletion of the info would be detrimental, but that is not really what is being discussed here, is it? (btw, I'm impressed with Nerdseeksblonde's research work) Power.corrupts (talk) 12:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it was created to prevent Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate collection of information of all kinds, ensuring it remains an encyclopedia. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And we're not talking of indiscriminate collection. We're talking of things backed up by reliable sources, that's exactly what an encyclopedia should cover. --Cyclopiatalk 09:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indiscriminate information can still appear in reliable sources, it doesn't make it encyclopedic. Telephone directories, electoral roles and OS maps are all WP:RS, but they don't qualify things for notability. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: One more hypothetical question ... Chemical Abstracts lists over 100 million chemical compounds, all of which come from the chemical literature, i.e. WP:RS, reliable sources. Would it be acceptable for any (or all) of those chemical compounds to have Wikipedia articles? I just want to get a handle on how Wikipedia's guidelines/policies should be applied here. From the replies above, it seems the answer is "yes". ChemNerd (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My very personal opinion is a resounding yes. We're not paper, we can do it, there are RS: why not? --Cyclopiatalk 09:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One entry in a chemistry database does not "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independant of the subject" make. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Database? There are several academic papers talking about it. I'd prefer an article on the general family of compounds of course, but it's not "one entry". Do not confuse the rhetorical question above with the RS discussing it. --Cyclopiatalk 00:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:SNOW and WP:NFT: "The origins of National Snack Cake Day started in 2009. Long time friends Mark O and Daniel P were looking for a way to place cheer and happiness in the hearts of all those around them. Their love for snack cakes gave them an idea. Why not create a National Snack Cake Day". NawlinWiki (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National snack cake day

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

No independent source is cited to indicate notability, and searches find none. Wikipedia is not for "days" made up one day. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jollees Cabaret Club

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

fails WP:ORG, hardly anything in gnews [21] despite its claims to fame in the article. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 17:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MP4Box

edit
MP4Box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable tool that gets bundled with other tools of marginal notability. It is mentioned as a tool in multiple mentions on scholar.google.com, but only as an example tool for mp4, not as a source about mp4box. Miami33139 (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 17:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yapei between nomination and listing here. How much content about the boat should be included on the article about the settlement is a matter for editorial discussion on the talk page. This closure is without prejudice to any future AfD or RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yapei Queen

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

Unremarkable boat. Airplaneman talk 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is significantly mentioned in the National Geographic, a very notable publication. However before you listed it here I redirected into the main article which is still a stub. Himalayan 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite 10:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special school

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

When I searched for "special school" on Google, [22] it only relates in the US. The content of the article is not the reason for deletion but about the "differing perspectives on how to edit an ideal encyclopedia." These reasons should be taken as an argument for deletion of this topic. Help save Wikipedia by deleting one more useless education-related article. Rovea (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I have offered arguments that explain why the article should be deleted. Please delete rather redirect. Redirect simply allows the topic to still exist on Wikipedia. I or someone else will add all of the information on Special school to Special education. Rovea (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essentially duplicates information already covered in Special_education but with a focus on the physical building. GreyWyvern⚒ 17:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In order to be a candidate for deletion something needs to be beyond repair. This is not beyond repair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete duplication of effort. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Delete - Could be handled as a DICDEF. This article has lots of issues, notably a lack of reliable sources and rampant original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Special education which already covers this subject and is referenced. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Special education contains three sentences related to this topic, and zero relevant references. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other editors have said that this topic is a duplication of effort. Why should we focus on special school when it is exactly like special education? Wikipedia is not "a dumping ground for facts". We should try to expand special education rather than a smaller article that will only further to confuse the reader. It is redundant to repeat the same information over and over. We can add all of the information from special school into special education. Rovea (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hope for improvement. Like so many other subjects, it is difficult to cover special education in a way that is not country-specific. As a reader in England, Special school seems fine to me as a start-up. Special education is not significantly better sourced, is written in the same style, and (being longer) contains more that is country specific. Sussexonian (talk) 23:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Special school" means "separate school for students with disabilities". It is not a US-specific concept (or name): practically every country in the world has at least one special school right now, despite the trend away from them. They vary in type -- there are residential schools, private schools, part-time schools (common among US schools for Deaf students), schools that specialize in specific disabilities like blindness, schools that take severely disabled students from a given region -- but they exist pretty much everywhere. A simple internet search on the name "special school" is unlikely to be useful, but sources clearly do exist, e.g., ISBN 9780195176032 p 139, which summarizes arguments in favor of them for specific student groups. Wikipedia has dozens of articles at Category:Special schools on individual special schools. It would be odd to decide that the individual institutions are encyclopedic, but what they are isn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we can't find any sources dealing with "special school" in a worldwide view, then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Special school is a school that addresses the needs of disabled students. Doesn't special education cover all that? The term special school is not really neutral. Perhaps the term "special education school" would be better in the worldwide view. Special school can easily be confused with the term "alternative school". Alternative schools can be attended by regular education students. To differentiate between the two, it should be called "Special education school". It is very clear which means a school only for students with special needs. Special school is just very trivial and should be merged with special education. In fact, school articles (elementary, middle, high schools) altogether are trivial but I'm not going to get into that. Special school is just pushing it too far. Not all students are provided with special education. If students really do not want it, then they don't have to. If they get expelled from school, that's that. No special education or compulsory education is required. Life is what you make it. Programs in school don't guarantee any success for students. Wikipedia is not written in a neutral point of view by adding all these trivial school-related articles. A student who is expelled from high school would not be interested in reading about special education or their school. Rovea (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This most certainly meets WP:N stardards. I believe that this does not fall under WP:DICDEF as Scjessey argued. Rovea - special education is a service given in school systems, and when special education services have their own school, this is called a special school. On the other hand, I would have no issue with a move to the name "Special education school", but definitely keep the article itself. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with WhatamIdoing's comments. Furthermore it is completely illogical to propose to delete the article on "special school" but to have a separate school on a "resource room" which only exists within a special school. Special school is an internationally recognised term. I've never heard of such schools being called special education schools, which I suspect is a term only used in the US, so I would not support a page move. Dahliarose (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lindy Scott

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

This article was previously speedy deleted and restored after a deletion review. I don't believe it meets notability criteria either for professors or politicians. Scott's name appears in google scholar and google news a bit because he's co-edited some collections that have gotten reviews. But co-editing is not authorship. Chick Bowen 16:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flower topology

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

Obvious hoax. Contested PROD. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Records

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

No sign of notability. Article appears to have been mainly edited by the founder (User:Ollie K1986) and by Greg Dowell, an artist on the record label. I've looked for sources but can't find any to add.

Note this AfD for Greg Dowell: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Dowell Smartse (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Dowell

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

No evidence of notability, almost entirely only edited by the subject of the article. I can't find any reliable sources that could be added to the article. OK! Records has similar problems and I will also nominate this for deletion. Smartse (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for OK! Records is here. Smartse (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus is likely to emerge to delete, the opposite if anything, and the debate is becoming heated. Guy (Help!) 11:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go! (programming language)

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

Fails WP:N. Most of the article is sourced off the author's own papers and book, and there is no significant third party coverage. The language has been mentioned in only a few papers, and a close looks at them show that the mentions are trivial. In most of these papers, Go! only appears as part of surveys of programming languages. Laurent (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: it is not "entirely sourced from the author's publications", but also from two third party reviews, one in Informatica, a notable journal. The article is about a programming language that has been developed over many years, not about the naming controversy BarryNorton (talk) 14:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well sourced article, the talk page seems to center around the discussion that this wouldn't have been added if not for the Google controversy. Conversely, I believe we wouldn't be having any deletion discussion at all if this article was added in its current form before the Google controversy.--Capnchicken (talk) 14:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and it wouldn't have been created if it wasn't for the Google controversy. Laurent (talk)
      • My argument is that if it was created independently no one would have looked twice. We'll never know if it would have been created without the Google controversy, but that doesn't matter. The nobility is in the independent academic citations. --Capnchicken (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly neither is the controversy reason to keep nor delete the article BarryNorton (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Laurent, is there some policy I don't know about concerning the causality of an article's creation? (And could you please keep your comments at the end of the relevant replies rather than pushing my prior ones down and interrupting, out of turn?) BarryNorton (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I got several edit conflicts at some point so I may have accidentally put my reply above yours. That wasn't intentional. My point regarding the Go naming issue is still the same - if the language is only notable because of Go (Google) then it should be in Go (programming language) and not in a separate article. Having appeared in a list of existing programming languages in one paper is not sufficient to establish notability. Laurent (talk) 15:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's not simply a "list", is it? Not even just a table entry, listing features. It's half page (three paragraphs) of detailed description in a journal 93.152.163.40 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)— 93.152.163.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • But the journal article is not about Go!, it only deals with the language tangentially because of it's existence. Additional sources that are non-trivial are required to sustain notability. brontide (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are tons of academic programming languages. This one seems to have been last updated two years ago, and I can't find any other references to it other than the academic papers mentioned in the article. No one appears to use it. Part of the wiki page is ripped straight from the article's abstract. Definitely not notable. This page is the author's attempt to make it notable, to strengthen his argument against Google. Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for advertising your stuff and making it more notable; it should be reasonably notable in the first place. Marcan (talk) 14:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not Frank McCabe, nor involved in the language. Feel free to Google me BarryNorton (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, you seem to be doing him a huge favor then. Everyone keeps repeating "Go! is the second result on Google! How did Google not bother to Google the name of their new programming language!?" when the second result is this article, which was created yesterday, and there are just about no other hits on Google about Go! older than a few days. Marcan (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anything, the page is not an attempt of the author to "make it notable." The author stated himself on the issue page: I want to make one particular point, some people have suggested that 'I should be grateful' for the extra advertising. My response to that is that I was not actively looking for this advertising."[26]--AM088(talk) 16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most programming languages released to the public are notable; the journal articles and the news coverage vis-a-vis the naming issue strengthen Go!'s claim to notability. WP:N is only a guideline, and I am willing to somewhat disregard it in this instance as it doesn't work particularly well in the field of programming languages. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) While I agree the naming issue is notable (and already appears in Go (programming language)), I don't think the language in itself is. We should document the event, not the subject of the event, in pretty much the same way we don't create article about a person just because they have been part of a notable event. Laurent (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've created at least two random special-purpose programming languages. If I released them, would they be notable? Heck no. I think the defining characteristic of a notable programming language is that people use it. This doesn't mean it needs to be popular for writing applications, but at least it needs to have some form of an user base. For example, Brainfuck is notable because it's a great example of an esoteric programming language and a turing tarpit, and many people program with it for the challenge or to learn about Turing machines, even though it's not practical for real-world usage. Marcan (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note I said "most", not all. Go! is an academic language and has been written up in several journal articles. Your strawman languages have neither academic merit nor any userbase. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Between the two surveys listed there are hundreds of languages that are not on Wikipedia. Does inclusion alone on surveys mean that those languages are notable as well? Neither one of the surveys are about a specific language or even about arguing the merits of a specific language. My personal feeling is that it's like claiming that I am noteworthy because I'm listed in several phone books. brontide (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I agree with the keepers arguments above, I don't need to add a new one) --Gridinoc (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) — Gridinoc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Neutral: It is interesting to see that this article was created exactly when Google introduced a language with almost the same name. It is also interesting to see that some people want to delete this article immediate, while Google got an article for their language without problems. BTW: When you wonder why I made so few edits in Wikipedia: I don't like the way how articles get removed. My user page in the german Wikipedia had a factual explanation of my reasons, but this user page was deleted as well... Thomas Mertes (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who cares? It's not very likely someone is actually going to search for this is it now. I bet the only person who has found it is the author. I vote that you should all find something better to do with your time than arguing about whether to keep an utterly unnoteworthy article. 79.64.177.233 (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only sources for information about "Go!" are from one source, the author. Before "Issue 9" http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9 their was no wiki page because their was no notability. Issue 9 was brought up by the author himself, not even by a third party. This controversy does not create suitable notability for inclusion of a self published work. Without some 3rd party notability of sufficient credibility this page should be deleted. The controversy should be kept, but the language itself requires a source besides the author himself. brontide (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per |Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. Aside from being published in the author's own publications, it has only been mentioned briefly in a handful of publications in the same academic field. There are thousands of thousands of experimental new programming languages, algorithms, and mathematical theories published every year that never become notable, and Wikipedia doesn't need an article for each one of them. Before Tuesday's naming controversy started, there were no mentions of this language outside of an academic journal. --Jonovision (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only reason of notability is the name collision with the Google language. Therefore Go! should be a just section in that article. If something (algorithm, programming language, data structure, whatever) is the topic of just a few very low ranked publications it does NOT deserve a wiki article. Otherwise thousands of scientists in search of citations will fill the wikipedia with their own minimal variants published somewhere. If something is subject of a highly cited work (e.g hundred or thousands of citations), then it is notable, not just because it have been published in some minor conference. Probably we should be careful to do not create a precedent. ALoopingIcon (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The language is notable because of the collision with Google’s widely marketed new language. It serves the interest of the Wikipedia because people may be curious what the “other Go” language is about. The language is also notable because it articles about it have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, namely: Applied Intelligence, Informatica, and Computational Intelligence. Samboy (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The language is interesting enough on its own right, not just because of its association with Google's language. Halberdo (talk) 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quoting Wikipedia:Notability: "Determining notability does not *necessarily* depend on things like fame, importance, or the popularity of a topic—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." The Go! language is cited variously outside Wikipedia; the fact that most citations occur in academic journals is irrelevant, and judging the "quality" of a cited source goes far beyond the scope of the notability and deletion policies. — HaigEK (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)— HaigEK (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Just wondering, do you think all of the dozens of other technologies mentioned in the two survey articles that cite the original author's work also merit having Wikipedia articles? --Jonovision (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Again, this discussion is quickly becoming a "neener-neener" playground game.  :( It goes like this "It's notable because it has been discussed in peer-reviewed scientific journals" "That doesn't establish notability" "Yes, it does" "No, it doesn't" "Yes, it does" ad Usenetium. But Wikipedia is not Usenet. So, again, can you find articles about topics discussed in peer-reviewed scientific journals that did not survive AFD? Can you show precedent here? Being in peer-reviewed scientific journals strongly establishes notability in the Wikipedia. Samboy (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals have been published so the case should be clear. Georg Peter (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are you frickin' kidding me? Kevin Baastalk 17:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why delete existing material because something new came along with the same name? What if someone creates a new language called 'Cheverolet'? Clay Lawrence — C1ay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • I guess you haven't read any of the previous discussion since your comment is completely backward. For your information, the article was created (and not deleted) because something new came along with the same name. And it's nomination for deletion has nothing to do with the existence of another language with the same name. It's being nominated because it's not notable, not because "Go" exists. I'm starting to suspect that many of these votes are done by the same people "supporting" the language's author on issue 9. We are not here to protect the world from Google stealing names but to build an encyclopedia. Laurent (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • For a bit more background, this article was created about 1 hour after someone mentioned on the issue 9 that there wasn't even a Wikipedia article for this langauge, and then the newly written article was in turn posted back to that thread and to various news sites. It seems pretty clear that the article was written to support claims of the language's notability. This deletion proposal definitely has nothing to do with a naming conflict, as Wikipedia has no problem handling ambiguous namings. --Jonovision (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a fairly interesting and unique language that is different from other commonly used languages. If it was just another iterative or functional language, I'd gladly vote for delete, but it's not. The page is well-written, and I think it should be kept. --AM088(talk) 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The original language is technically interesting, and is now notable for its role in the language naming conflict with Google's language. It seems likely that the campaign to remove this page is sponsored by the creator of the more recent language or by an ally. It is a campaign that can be described as bullying or business-motivated aggression. An "evil" campaign if you will, and as such the removal should not be allowed to proceed. 16:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Hawthorne (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. This vote is flawed because it's becoming clear that many people here are voting in support for McCabe rather than because they think the topic is notable. Furthermore there is a link to the Wikipedia article on Issue 9 where the vast majority of users support McCabe. Laurent (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • However there's evidence upon evidence of notability on the page now, completely independent of the survey articles (and certain people's lack of understanding of what these are). Just drop the AfD. Unless you have some ulterior motive... BarryNorton (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I don't have any ulterior motive, but I haven't been convinced with the arguments so far. Anybody having done academic research knows it's very common to be quoted in one or two papers, and it doesn't mean anything. It only starts to mean something when the research is very frequently quoted. Laurent (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As of yet, the article makes no claim to the notability of the language - it has received no significant coverage outside of articles (written by the language's author) in scientific journals. The language is not uninteresting, however that is not the issue at question. Unless sources can be provided documenting the significance of the language, I'm more convinced by the arguments in favor of deletion. My main issue with those advocating keeping the article is that they seem biased by the naming conflict with Google's Go. The conflict in itself does not warrant notability, outside of a mention in the article on Google's Go. The arguments also seem tainted by a desire to root for the underdog. I am not a Google shill and would very much like to see Go! take off. However, until it does, I see no reason to keep the article mikm 18:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you stooges keep repeating "no significant coverage outside of articles (written by the language's author)"? It is pretty clear that there is a campaign here, and that the repetition of lies is being used to try to establish some credibility BarryNorton (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please, there is no need for insults. I am not a Google shill any more than you are a shill for Mr. McCabe. The truth is, there is no significant coverage demonstrated in the article. If you can point me to something, I will be more than happy to change my mind. mikm 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Barry: WP:AGF please. Wikipedia is not Usenet (and, yes, I voted Keep also) Samboy (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So why have you turned two third-party survey articles, including one long write-up in a well-known journal, and a clear statement of influence at an ACM language workshop into "no significant coverage outside of articles (written by the language's author)". Was this an oversight? Would you like to retract it? BarryNorton (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Mention in a journal or survey does not indicate notability. There is no clear evidence that Go! has influenced Erlang in any significant way. Mikm 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - There's been several misinformed comments about why this article was nominated for deletion, so I thought I'd summarize the arguments that have been made in favour of deletion for readers who are new to this discussion:
    1. The naming conflict that is currently being discussed is a current issue, and doesn't meet the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary.
    2. The language in question has only received cursory mentions in a few other survey publications. This language was an academic research project by two people, and hasn't had noticeable influence on later work. There's no indication that it is any more notable than the millions of other research projects undertaken every year by graduate students and other academics around the world.
I believe that the notability issue is key to this discussion, and I hope we can focus the discussion on that rather than make accusations about the motivations of people involved. --Jonovision (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Go! [12] is a multi-paradigm agent programming language, with a declarative subset of function and relation definitions, an imperative subset comprising action procedure definitions, and rich program structuring mechanism. Based on the symbolic programming language April [36], Go! extends it with knowledge representation features of logic programming, yielding a multi-threaded, strongly typed and higher order (in the functional-programming sense) language. Inherited from April, threads primarily communicate through asynchronous message passing. Threads, executing action rules, react to received messages using pattern matching and pattern-based message reaction rules. A communication daemon enables threads in different Go! processes to communicate transparently over a network. Typically, each agent will comprise several threads, each of which can directly communicate with threads in other agents. Threads within a single Go! process, hence in the same agent, can also communicate by manipulating shared cell or dynamic relation objects. As in Linda tuple stores, these elements are used to coordinate the activities of different threads within an agent. Go! is strongly typed, which can often reduce the programmer’s burden, and compiletime type checking improves code safety. New types can be declared and thereby new data constructors can be introduced. The design of Go! took into consideration critical issues such as security, transparency, and integrity, in regards to the adoption of logic programming technology. Features of Prolog that lack a transparent semantics, such as the cut (‘!’) were left out. In Prolog the same clause syntax is used both for defining relations, with a declarative semantics, and for defining procedures which only have an operational semantics. In Go!, behaviour is described using action rules that have a specialised syntax"
  • Please stop pasting that quote. It's a verbose description of the language in a much larger survey. The survey does not deal directly with the language Go! nor does it debate the particular merits of any one of the languages that it surveys. To me this is clearly a trivial mention of the language, not notability. brontide (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"As proposed in [Arthursson et al., 1997] and [Clark and McCabe, 2003] agents are implemented as groups of communicating processes. These processes can then perform specific tasks, such as communicating with other agents or performing computations. This is the natural way to design applications in Erlang and the language influenced the basic architecture of the agents."
  • Barry, I don't consider this to be notable. Academic journals require authors to look for and cite previous work, or risk being accused of plagiarism. For a journal article to have a handful of citations is merely proof that it was read by some other researchers in the same area. An example of what I would consider a notable language publication is something like Golog [27], with over 750 citations. --Jonovision (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jono, (I'm sure that's not your name but it's always so much more patronising to assume that you can use someone's first name, no?) I don't think you understand what a survey article is. Yes, when you write about your own work you are required to consider the related work, but someone writes a survey article deliberately and solely to cover the notable work in a given area BarryNorton (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the survey paper, "This paper surveys recent research on programming languages and development tools for Multi-Agent Systems. It starts by addressing programming languages (declarative, imperative, and hybrid), followed by integrated development environments, and finally platforms and frameworks." It sounds to me like the survey covers all of the recent developments within a very narrow area of research, and doesn't claim that it has chosen to highlight work of great importance. The fact that so many different technologies are included in the article only emphasizes the lack of Go!'s notability. Futhermore, I don't see any evidence that the publications of the "Slovenian Society Informatika" are highly read or influential. It's not like this was published in Nature or Science or The Lancet. --Jonovision (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's try to keep personal remarks about my debating skills out of this discussion. I think my comparison is valid: I consider Golog to be an example of a notable language (Over 750 citations in major publications like AI, Communications of the ACM, IEEE Intelligent Systems, and many textbooks). I don't consider Go! to be notable with 14 citations. Futhermore, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Informatica is not a serious publication in the area of computer languages. Their recent publications include "Late Fertility Trends in Europe", "Improving HTML Compression", "A System for Speaker Detection and Tracking in Audio Broadcast News". It looks like they have pretty low standards! --Jonovision (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you delete this article, you contribute in deleting 10 years work of Francis McCabe, and you help Google squatting the name of the programming language McCabe has invented. Not a wikipedia argument, but a humanist one. Or if your remove this page you remove also the Google Go Programming page until the issue9 is settled Alex Bouthors (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)— Ixtapa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • We don't keep articles on Wikipedia out of pity for someone. Perhaps it's bad what's happening to McCabe (or perhaps not) but in any case it cannot be a criteria to keep or delete this article. Please focus on the notability of the topic not on the naming controversy. Laurent (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm worried about the number of Keep votes done by editors with very low edit counts. I will probably have to mark some of these votes as coming from single-purpose accounts. Samboy (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What makes this language less notable than google's? Google has no outside important references, no journal or conference mentions, and no sign of any useful applications utilizing it unless I missed something. Google being notable does not make its language more notable than some scientist's. --Chrismiceli (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources which directly review Go on Google News - [28]. We can't quite say the same thing about Go! since the few news about it only focus on the naming issue and not at all on the progrmaming language. Laurent (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don’t like how this vote is being handled; having users with under 10 edits come out of the woodwork and vote “keep” is strange (must be some discussion board pointing to this page), and WP:AGF, WP:POINT and other policies are not being adhered to. Please, don’t make this too personal. For the record, the current vote count is 16 keep - 8 delete; for editors with over 100 edits it’s 6 keep - 7 delete (for over 1000 edits, the vote is 5 Keep - 3 Delete) Samboy (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Such single purpose accounts are generally disregarded, as are invalid arguments for/against (eg. some of the fuck google! type comments). As it says at the top of the page, a deletion discussion is a discussion - not a vote. I've seen deletions occur where a clear majority were against, but no valid case made. Jefffire (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That’s not going to happen here. 1) There are mentions in peer-reviewed journals. 2) Keep has a majority at all edit count thresholds 3) The Google naming controversy also helps establish notability. Samboy (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As has been alluded to, this language has a longer and more historic track record than the Google language. I find the soft accusations of sock puppetry to be an ugly example of established editors not assuming good faith. If you want to ferret out sock puppets, there is a procedure for that. Aprock (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability has been established by reliable sources. Even the naming controversy has contributed to the notability, frankly. Listing edit counts and counting !votes is not really appropriate. Nor is it necessary - the reviewing admin will base a keep/delete decision on more factors than simply raw voting numbers. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Mention in a reliable source does not alone establish notability. Oblique mention in a reliable source is a prime example of where the source doesn't predicate notability. I think the argument has been sufficiently made that mentions of reliability are oblique in the references listed. —  X  S  G  00:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — There isn’t, at this point, any chance the article will get deleted unless something radically changes. There’s been a lot of what I feel is pointless discussion about whether the peer-reviewed references are notable enough, which I hope has calmed down at this point. If I were a reviewing admin, I would say while there’s some doubt from a minority about how notable the peer-reviewed mentions are, there isn’t any clear consensus they aren't notable, and close it as “keep” (simple majority says keep, and right now keep has a majority for all edit count thresholds). Samboy (talk) 21:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion about reference notability has "calmed down" in that nobody wants to engage in a real discussion about what is notable, and are satisfied repeating that "It's published in a journal, and referenced a couple of times, therefore it's notable". That's a complete sham, as it would mean every academic's pet research project is worthy of being included in Wikipedia (This is an ongoing issue on Wikipedia, as is being discussed here: Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)). I should be much easier to provide evidence of a journal being notable than of it NOT being notable (since nobody would be talking about a non-notable journal). Seeing as the justification for this article existing depends on a tiny number of secondary sources (3 mentioned here, 2 of which are survey articles), I think it should be up to the folks on the keep side to show that these few sources are really worth something. --Jonovision (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for the record, I feel that every academic's pet project does deserve a Wikipedia article, if published or cited in a notable peer-reviewed journal. If I can find cites for it over at scholar.google.com, my vote for the article is keep. No exceptions. Why does it benefit the Wikipedia to delete this kind of useful knowledge? Samboy (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see from your profile that you're a programmer like me, and I think we have a tendency to overestimate the value of articles from our own area. Do you really think it would be good if every architecture student had an article for buildings they designed but never built? And every physicist with an article for theories they suggested that never were proven? An article for every political science PhD who proposed a slightly different voting system? I think this kind of thinking leads towards WP:EVERYTHING. --Jonovision (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for looking at my profile. I think deletion policy should be used to stop vanity pages, patent nonsense (for example, I removed a lot of nonsense from the Super Audio CD article) and spam. If an idea is physics holds enough water to get published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, it belongs here. I’m not talking about a thought experiment I may have about the nature of the universe while taking a walk; I’m talking about a theory of the universe held by someone knowledgeable about physics that passed the muster of other physicists reading their scientific paper well enough to get in to a peer-reviewed journal. Architecture is (by and large) art, not science, and I can’t see how something like a design for a building getting in to a peer-reviewed article unless it has scientific value. You know, this may be something to bring up at the village pump (I don’t post there, as a general rule) Samboy (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jesus, you let him off lightly there. He jumped from 'peer-reviewed journal' to 'unproven theory' and 'unbuilt building' in exactly the disingenuous style of argumentation that's been used all day BarryNorton (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I don't actually know if architects publish stuff in journals, it was just a hypothetical example. Barry, I don't know why you think I'm being insincere. I'm not just trying to throw out any argument for the sake of getting this article deleted. I genuinely believe that this type of article doesn't belong on wikipedia. Obviously, generalizing my argument to all academic fields isn't helping demonstrate my argument that we'd be allowing too much stuff into Wikipedia by using the existance of peer-reviewed articles as a notability test. So, Let me give some more concrete examples. There are new experimental languages being proposed all the time. Here are a few examples of languages which have a similar notability level as Go!: [29], [30], [31]. I can't begin to count how many of these exist. Furthermore, there are dozens of conferences and journals where new languages, language extensions, language features are constantly being proposed (Just to name a few conferences: Languages, Compilers, and Tools for Embedded Systems; Object-oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, and Applications; Programming Language Design and Implementation; Principles of Programming Languages). If we're going to include every experimental language, why not new language or compiler features that are introduced in journals? Unless Wikipedia is really about everything, the sheer volume of material being produced precludes all of it from being notable. --Jonovision (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Jono', do you think that no programming languages should be included on Wikipedia at all? If not, can you please give some precent on Wikipedia to back up your position on removal, instead of making yourself an authority? Or at least a suggestion for some objective repeatable criterion? BarryNorton (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad this discussion is moving towards working on an objective measure of what notability is. Factors which could affect language notability are: size of the user community; number and quality of implementations; existence of derivative languages; amount of written material about the language; historical value. I think for a language to be notable, it should be strong it at least two of these areas.
  1. An example I suggested above is Golog, so let's look at how it ranks on these measures. User community: at minimum the 20 people listed as part of the core research group. Two versions of the interpreter, at least 3 derivative languages (ConGolog, IndiGolog, LeGolog). Written material: over 750 citations of the original paper; two books published by MIT Press; many recent publications [32]. This language does not have a Wikipedia article, but if it did, I certainly wouldn't oppose it.
  2. Next example: Capuirequiem, an esoteric programming language. User community: no evidence of any user community. Implementations: one, not maintained since 2006. Written material: a description from the original author, a few mentions on language sites. No historical value. This is definitely not a notable language, and doesn't merit a Wikipedia article.
  3. DCWPL, "a programming language for describing collaborative work". User community: no evidence of any user community. Implementations: some papers on DCWPL imply that there once was some type of implementation, but it appears to no longer be available. Written material: About 50 papers citing the original research; no papers from the original author in the last ten years. While the original paper sparked a little bit of interest, it appears that work on this language has long been abandoned. A recent citation of the original paper is a cursory acknowledgement in the "Related Work" section of a master's thesis [33]. I don't consider this to be a notable language.
  4. Finally, let's look at Go! User community: no evidence of any user community. Implementations: author's original implementation, not maintained since 2007. Written material: 14 citations of the original paper, all cursory mentions. Does not appear to have any influence on later work, and no derivative languages. I don't consider this to be a notable language. --Jonovision (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, let me acknowledge that you have tried here. However. I asked for precedent and you've cited two languages with fewer/less notable publications and citations, and not given the details of their (presumable?) deletion from Wikipedia. Could you instead present a language with a similar degree of representation in the academic literature (at least two journal publication as explicit subject, a book, inclusion in two journal surveys, Web mention of a prominent presentation like Frank's at SRI) and the details of its deletion from Wikipedia. That would be relevant precedent. BarryNorton (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no accusations that you are a sock puppet; saying “this user has only 10 edits on the Wikipedia” and “This user is a sock puppet” are different things. Anyway, it’s academic; the article is Keep for all edit count thresholds. Samboy (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were, however, general accusations of sock puppetry and specific ones, earlier, that I was a sock puppet of Frank McCabe BarryNorton (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See what I'm talking about Samboy? We're getting Keep voters that don't even understand why the article was nominated for deletion. Nobody has claimed that this didn't have references to support its existence. --Jonovision (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe they're going on the introduction at the top of this page which: i) lies "the article seems to be entirely sourced off the author's own publications"; ii) suggests that the article is only motivated by the naming controversy. You can hardly blame people! BarryNorton (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the intro. Laurent (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's much point, since many voters already said keep based on the original intro. If there's still people who still want to debate notability (I'm up for it!:) ), I'd rather close this nomination and start a fresh one. --Jonovision (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closing admin will take all of this into consideration. Closing this debate is not going to be taken lightly. Often, an article changes sufficiently during the process of an RfD such that the RfD nomination appears to be patently untrue when being closed, and this doesn't make the nomination nor the debate any less valid. —  X  S  G  00:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I have bumped in to SarekOfVulcan before and have a lot of respect for him as an editor. Samboy (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It appears from the timing of the introduction of this article that the basis for its inclusion in Wikipedia was the coincidental naming of Google's product. I ask myself, "if Google hadn't named their programming language 'Go', would this article exist in Wikipedia presently?" Because the Go! programming language is no more notable today than it was a week ago, I'd be inclined to suspect that it wouldn't. I don't think Go!'s notability is anything but temporary at this point in time: all references are either oblique or regarding the naming controversy (which should be included on the Google Go programming langue page, should that language be notable enough for inclusion), and because Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, we should not be predicting whether it will become notable in the future. —  X  S  G  00:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep for reasons of fairnes" - Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. Also the fact that another article has been kept is not an argument to keep (or delete) this one. Laurent (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This double standards can be seen also for Seed7 which got a speedy deletion at (15 August 2008) although there was new evidence (see Requested articles about computer languages). In the first Seed7 deletion discussion the arguments of the keepers where just ignored. The arguments of Kavadi carrier who was active in deletion discussions and elsewhere for almost 24 hours had a big influence. Later the user page of "Kavadi carrier" said for some time something like (IIRC) "convicted socket puppeteer". Now the user page of "Kavadi carrier" points to Kimchi.sg who (surprise, surprise) did also the speedy delete of Seed7 in 2008. Raise exception (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay on topic, and see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Laurent (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then could you perhaps make a coherent argument for deletion. One that doesn't equally apply to the article on Google's Go in its current state (which you do nothing about, despite your incessant posting on the subject)? BarryNorton (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Laurent? Despite your having already changed the text above yesterday it still says: "Most of the article is sourced off the author's own papers and book, and there is no significant third party coverage. The language has been mentioned in only a few papers, and a close looks at them show that the mentions are trivial. In most of these papers, Go! only appears as part of surveys of programming languages." The Google Go article is entirely based on golang.org, there's only one third party link and it's been mentioned in no papers, surveys or otherwise. Why should Google Go stay and this be deleted? Please answer. BarryNorton (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've brought in three sources during the Go AfD discussion but, for some reasons, you chose to ignore them. I've now put these sources in the article itself so hopefully we are done with the Go/Go! comparison. Laurent (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Laurent, discussing Google Go vs. Go! here isn't very relevant (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS). However, since I've suggested an objective way of looking at language notability, I'll apply it to Google Go. My criteria are: size of the user community; number and quality of implementations; existence of derivative languages; amount of written material about the language; historical value. I propose that a language should be strong in at least two of these areas to be considered notable. Google go stacks up well. User community: many new users current testing out the language (as evidenced by numerous blog reviews). Implementations: two separate implementations, gccgo and 6g/8g/5g, both actively being developed; testing and other side tools also available. Written material: no journal publications yet, but technical presentations from Rob Pike, extensive documentation, widely reviewed by tech bloggers. Historical value: very high, Ken Thompson (Turing Award, National Medal of Technology winner!) and Rob Pike are involved. --Jonovision (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every part of your argument here is much more persuasive than previous attempts based on Go's prominence of the literature BarryNorton (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about writing that up and tagging as an article on notability. It sounds like a good start for programming topics in general, not just languages. Especially for edge cases where "traditional" notability application does not seem to make sense. brontide (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attempted to find precedent, however I couldn't find precedent for a deletion discussion about any previous programming language. Google was helpful with this search: "site:wikipedia.org inurl:Programming_Language inurl:Articles_for_deletion". Interestingly, I do find a bunch of programming languages that exist on Wikipedia that are probably just as non-notable as Go! (again, Google was helpful with this search: "site:wikipedia.org inurl:Programming_Language" and scrolling back just a few (say, 10) pages). Perhaps there's more pruning to be done on Wikipedia? —  X  S  G  21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice find XSG! I'm currently having a look at the MKR deletion debate. I thought this thread was starting to get a wee bit heated, but wow, that one really got out of hand, LOL! I just wanna say thanks to everyone for keeping things civil. :) It's a lengthy debate, and I'm currently reading through it to see if there's any valuable ideas that will help us understand why it was deleted. I'll post a summary soon! --Jonovision (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude. I've got your precedents of deleting programming languages right here. I'm thoroughly convinced that Delete is the right thing to do here. —  X  S  G  22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, 'dude', that's just a list over which you've made absolutely no effort to ascertain the academic notability. I'm thoroughly sick of this argument now and will take a back seat until this decision is made. My last word, though, is that I feel no one would even be trying to delete the article if it weren't for the Google language, and that makes the attempted deletion just as bad as the incorrect assumption that that the only reason I added it BarryNorton (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not much to learn from the MKR debate, actually. About 95% of it is flaming and arguing over procedure. In the end, though, they did agree that lack of good quality secondary sources did matter, and the article was deleted. --Jonovision (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sources There are many sources for Go!, they should be included in the article. One way or another, the article does not fail WP:NOTABILITY. FixmanPraise me 19:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply saying "there are many sources" and "the article does not fail WP:NOTABILITY" doesn't really help the discussion. Not only there are in fact very few secondary sources for Go! but none of them fulfil the "Significant coverage" criterion of the notability policy. Sources should address the subject directly in detail. Laurent (talk) 22:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the coverage of Go! in independent sources is significant. That seems to be the crux. You think it's not, when in fact it is. Aprock (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've been discussing the sources in quite a bit of detail, so it would be helpful if you could actually discuss how the policy could be applied, rather than turning this into a "Yes it is! No it isn't!" argument. See What notability is not. Specifically, "The significance of coverage, reliability of sources and the independence of the sources are all issues which should be explored within a deletion debate, not simply contended by an editor". I've proposed a pretty detailed set of criteria to measure language notability above, and spent a lot of giving examples of how those criteria could apply to different languages. I'd appreciate any comment or counter-proposal. --Jonovision (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't agree with your criteria. It's a special purpose language for a specific ___domain. Within that ___domain, it's been significant enough to be cataloged for future reference, and outside that ___domain it was interesting enough to warrant discussion in the context of developing the Erlang language. Finally, the Google kerfuffle adds to the notability. The language is both historic and a current topic. Aprock (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Erlang reference is a textbook example of non-significant coverage by a secondary source, and should absolutely not be considered as an example of notability. Go! is not even mentioned in the article body, only a single footnote. According to the example from WP:N, a "one sentence mention ... is plainly trivial." --Jonovision (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the one Erlang reference is not enough to establish notability. Aprock (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be a more reasonable interpretation of the situation. If the only citation of Go! were from the Erlang footnote, then I would think it not relevant. But that's not the only citation. Aprock (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Nothing more to contribute. --AndyFinkenstadt (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-referenced, easily satisfies WP:N. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC) More detail: the Informatica reference is by itself sufficient to establish notability according to a source other than the programming language designers. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not decided where I stand on this article, but just to comment on your comment... the Informatica reference is a large survey of programming languages and only has a small section (3 small paragraphs) about Go!. That doesn't necessarily mean it's trivial; it just means that it's understandable why some people say it's not significant enough and other people say it is. So I don't see it as being a knock-down argument; it's something that both keep and delete voters can interpret in different way, while still being perfectly honest. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 01:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Wikipedia is a reference for public. It doesn't matter if "Go" is a good programing language or not. Equally it does not matter if we need a new programing language or not. "Go" is already out there and Wikipeda should have a reference to it. Article may be biased but this is hardly a reason for deletion. 198.53.250.44 (talk) 13 November 2009
  • Keep. Several academic references, some of them with reasonable (10-20ish) outside references. Maybe without Google Go this would not have been created - but a lot of relevant and notable topics are not covered in WIkipedia yet. Certainly without Google Go this would never have been proposed for deletion, either (even if we now may get a number of WP:POINTy followup proposals. The current Go-Go! debate only adds to notability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betcris

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

Non-notable bookmaker. There are very few non-trivial mentions of Betcris. There's affiliate reviews, press releases, and fleeting mentions of controversial betting markets (e.g. "Want to bet that a hurricane will strike the US?"). The only meaningful third party coverage Betcris received was when they were targeted in a Denial of Service attack (along with Blue Square) in 2003. However this should make for a small mention [here], not an entire article on the bookmaker. Hazir (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common tactic for bookmakers to release controversial markets as a way of garnering cheap publicity - this is hardly Encyclopedic material - at most it warrants a line (as in e.g. Paddy Power). The fact that Betcris launched in an unusual ___location (Rwanda) could be added to the article I suppose (I didn't find this reference). I still think we're clutching at straws for a stand-alone article. Hazir (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it doesn't deserve a strong keep. I added a couple more reference with quotes from the articles. I still think it deserves a shot. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw OK I'm happy enough that the article can be saved with the DDoS attack and Rwandan launch. I probably wouldn't have made the nomination had I found the Rwandan article (I really did read through dozens of articles!). I'll clean up the publicity stunt material later. Thanks Panyd. Hazir (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander James Colarossi

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

Non-notable muscician lists only self-published sources. Good faith search turned up no references. Fails WP:N(P) Pdcook (talk) 13:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jurassic Park (franchise). NW (Talk) 20:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park IV: The New Approach

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

Contested prod for a film that fails WP:NFF. This film is in "production hell" and it is unlikely to be made. The part about a new script is an obvious hoax. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reader s

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

I'm not sure that this meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. Its not clear that "Reader s" is an especially significant or newsworthy piece of malware. Quanticle (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Virut and rewrite. A bit of online research finds that Reader_s is a single filename used by the well-known Virut virus. There are plenty of sources showing that Virut is notable. [35] --HamburgerRadio (talk) 02:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  06:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samvel Karapetyan

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

BLP article apparently on a random professional, without a trace of evidence of notability. Wikipedia isn't the white pages. Prod was removed for no reason in particular. dab (𒁳) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment One of those cases where speedy deletion might be okay (BLP, no claim of notability) but AfD might end in no consensus because of WP:BEFORE. The Google search for the exact Armenian name turns up 27.000 results, quite a number of which are indeed about history of architecture. Expert needed to judge his influence. Alas, I cannot even read this apphabet so I will not give a verdict here. --Pgallert (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I also don't read Armenian, I checked a couple of dozen of those links randomly and they all seem to be about this article's Samvel Karapetian. "Samvel Karapetyan" in English also gets 15,500 results. I've just gone through every result in the first 5 pages and they almost all concerned this Samvel Karaperian. I would have thought such a check would have been the very first thing to do before making a RfD. dab, if you did such a check, how can you reconcile its result with this RfD? Meowy 17:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I daresay this is a speedy, already under BLP. But as I say, Cyclopia (talk · contribs) has made this a disputed prod[36] apparently for no other reason than that the existence of this person can be established by a google search. According to "inclusionists" liked Cyclopia, I must assume, the ultimate aim of Wikipedia must be to swallow facebook, and keep biography pages of literally everyone on the planet. --dab (𒁳) 14:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dab, would you kindly stop doing bad telepathy of me? Mocking other editors won't help your cause and does not make you funny -I don't think I have to remind an administrator of basics like WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:NPA. "Inclusionists" like me, simply, prefer a proper community discussion and a proper consideration of what the sources are, if there are, and possibly some "expert needed to judge his influence" as Pgallert correctly says above. I still have no idea if this is to be kept or not, but I hate the idea that someone just tags something with a PROD without even, for example, mentioning all the Gbooks hits that come out. If I tag myself as inclusionist is not at all because I want WP to become the new Facebook, is kind of a reaction to people deleting articles simply because they don't know or don't like what they're talking about -something that unfortunately happens all the days here. --Cyclopiatalk 14:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PROD was added because the rationale was "unreferenced BLP". I (mistankenly, I admit) took the external links as references, and for this reason I removed the PROD. However I would have done it the same after a few minuts of research on Gbooks and stuff. --Cyclopiatalk 14:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's extremely difficult to find Armenian news in English but from the few sources I found he seems like a notable person. He's had good coverage, just from limited sources in English. I provided contextual quotes for the sources. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This person has no publications in any peer reviewed international scholarly literature. His only book with ISBN is published in Armenia. Not enough to deserve a standalone article. Grandmaster 05:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the book gets more notability if it's published in America rather than Armenia. He's won a big prize in Armenia for his work. Would he be more notable if he'd won the prize in the UK? PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gentlemen, systemic bias is in the room. --Cyclopiatalk 14:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Elephants! Herds of 'em! Meowy 16:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a publication in international literature is more notable. This person is just another representative of Armenian nationalistic historiography. Some scholars of this sort such as Armen Ayvazyan are notable because they stirred international controversy, accusing the Western scholars of falsifying the Armenian history by the order of US State Department. But Karapetian is not notable even for that (at least for the time being). Grandmaster 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He is the author of dozens of books (including many substantial academic books btw - not just pamphlets), lots of articles, maps, and is currently the head of an important ngo with branches in Armenia, USA, and Germany. He has been mentioned in numerous books and newspaper articles, and is important enough to have been interviewed and given press conferences countless times. Meowy 16:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is needed though is substantial improvement of the article, such as a listing of the many books he has authored, and some quotes from the sources that have mentioned him and interviewed him. But at least the absence of all that content proves that the article is not a self-publicity article, unlike many BLP articles. Meowy 17:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 20:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiramanek

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

Non-notable fictional character, from videos posted on YouTube and elsewhere. The company that's allegedly going to "distribute" a Hiramanek film is a student theatre troupe. Hairhorn (talk) 12:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 20:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanicsburg HS Marching Band

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

Do we have a policy on high school marching bands? This seems no more notable than hundreds of similar bands. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't provide sources for these, so take my statements for what they're worth- the band marched in the Citrus Bowl Parade in '95, won the Atlantic Coast (marching band) Championships in '92 and '94 (and 2nd place in '93, I think) marched in... I want to say the Rose Bowl parade (I'm not sure on that... whatever bowl is played in Arizona) in... I think it was '93. We also marched in the first innauguration parade for Tom Ridge in 1995. Not that you'd know that from the article, since the creator only seems to go back to 2003. Like I said though, I don't have any sources (well, my old yearbooks, but that'd be primary sourcing) to back up my claims, so unless some can be found, this is pretty much all OR. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I didn't realize it was as notable as it was. Vote changed to Keep. Although I'd still like to see more discussion of the band prior to 2003 in the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wouldn't keep all HS bands but this one appears to be notable. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mechanicsburg HS. Very few of the articles in the category linked above are high school bands, so I'm not sure why Colonel Warden says it is our policy to keep these. This is a local band from the area I come from (central Pennsylvania) and I can tell you that there's nothing that differentiates it from all of the other high school bands in the area. Most HS bands get to march in events such as these, and this usually leads to little to no media coverage of the band itself, just the news of the band being in the event and Wikipedia is not a news broadcaster. The band itself fails WP:N and (if applicable?) WP:BAND as there is nothing which distinguishes it from the ordinary, nor is there discussion of the band in reliable third-party sources. A mention of the band's feats in the article on the highschool would be welcome and appropriate. ThemFromSpace 20:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic is, in fact, covered in numerous reliable sources which make it clear that this band is exceptional, having just won the Atlantic Coast Championship for five years straight. It is our general policy to keep any topic with this level of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snow keep . Article has been almost completely rewritten since nomination, and now easily meets requirements for notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chongqing public trials

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

Very skimpy article with no evidence that the trials are notable in the English-speaking world. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Reason for nomination invalid: there is no "in the English-speaking world" caveat to the notability guidelines. Further, one or two sources in English can be found within seconds, and taking five minutes out of a lunch-break turns up loads more. Can we have a little bit of WP:BEFORE please? --Paularblaster (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing worth salvaging in the current form. The names would need to be in English for the English-language Wikipedia, and at least one significant reliable source should be in English. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Changing to keep based on revamped version of article. Not at all happy about the bullshit comment from Paularblaster though. I know nothing of the subject or the language, and I was simply expressing my opinion based on the article as it was at the time. Paularblaster should consider refactoring that comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thought does occur to me that in the time it took you to type out a "delete" rationale, you could easily have been adding a reliable source in English from the links provided above. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Returning here after Scjessey's little lecture on my talkpage about (oh irony!) "civility", I can only say that my comment was not intended to make him happy, but to make him reflect. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of taking AfD participants seriously, you have chosen to ridicule them if they do not share your point of view. Reflect on that. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest SNOW close, the article has been entirely rewritten and everyone voting has said 'keep'. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Scripted"

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

De prodded. Non notable film. No external references. Shadowjams (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable film that placed third in a film festival which itself has been flagged for notability issues. GreyWyvern⚒ 17:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 04:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati Day

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

no indication of notability. Does not warrant its own article - maybe mention on the main Illuminati page. noq (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Manfred Lartly

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

Contested prod. Pretty obvious (if commendably creative) hoax, though I'm not sure whether it's obvious enough to be G3-eligible, so I opted for the Prod/AFD route. Steve Smith (talk) 07:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd additionally call attention to the fact that the article's sole source was authored by a person with the same name as the article's creator; the subject doesn't pan out with any other sources. And even if we do grant the benefit of the doubt here, the article still fails to demonstrate any actual notability. Delete as a hoax, or delete as a non-notable biography...but either way, delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep the main two articles, but delete the year articles. Black Kite 10:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of wealthiest historical figures

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

Original research. This has now been cited by the New Yorker as "one accounting." Articles likely to be considered highly notable and on subjects with few legitimate sources should be held to the highest possible standard. Kyle Cronan (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding the following related pages to this nomination because they are part of a "series" that suffers from the same original research:

Wealthiest non-inflated historical figures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wealthy historical figures 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wealthy historical figures 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wealthy historical figures 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is probably notable, and the article is sourced. I appreciate the definite substantial concerns over WP:OR and WP:NPOV, but those are better met through a big watchlist (has 48 right now) contingent, vigorous debate on page, and most importantly a clear explanation of the ranking criteria. If it comes out that the page is completely misrepresenting those sources provided, I'd change my vote, but as it is now I think this is a keep, but I wouldn't suffer any suggestions that the nominator was wrong in bringing it here. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Someone should create a running list of similar pages/lists that would be candidates for merge-to/from. I suspect a lot of similar pages already exist. Shadowjams (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. That an article is OR right now (which this article is) is not necessarily grounds for deletion. Anyone supporting deletion should demonstrate that the subject is inherently OR, and that nothing can be done to change this. We do not delete articles based on their current quality, with the exception of unsourced negative BLPs and such. szyslak (t) 15:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Szyslak and Shadowjams. The fact that the article has problems does not mean it has to be deleted. The deletion policy is clear: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. The fact that magazines use WP as a source is irrelevant: it is their problem, not ours. --Cyclopiatalk 15:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:OR. The concept of "wealth" is unclear and, in too many cases, it would be impossible to get an accurate reading if we take the definition of history seriously (i.e., the pharaohs of ancient Egypt). Warrah (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, how does one measure "net worth" when dealing with historic figures whose financial holdings were either never recorded or existing in eras before the establishment of modern currency standards? Warrah (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's simple. You don't include them, because you don't have reliable sources for their wealth. --Cyclopiatalk 17:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all There are absolutely no sources for the rankings in these articles, not because nobody has looked for them, but because the sources that would be required, updated year after year, do not exist. The single Forbes source, which was the foundation for this whole series of articles, stops in 1998 and is limited to Americans: to extend it 11 years into the future, and to add non-Americans (and the exchange rates and inflation deflators needed to enable the list to be ranked) can only be done by original research. To accomplish what the article (and the series of related articles) purports to accomplish, which is a real-time, adjusted for inflation and exchange rates, list, could only be done with original research to populate the inflation deflators and exchange rates. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but Wealthiest non-inflated historical figures, abstain from that. They are inherently WP:OR and WP:SYN because they are computed by combining multiple data sources using an unsound, poorly-defined methodology based on historical GDPs. The lists fundamentally fail WP:V as there's no way to verify that the lists are correct; note omissions between the various lists. Also WP:N - there's no indication that a list of wealthy people sorted by fraction of their country's historical GDP is actually notable. The WP:CITE problems are serious but could theoretically be fixed. The deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wealthiest families in history may be of interest as that article had the same problems. Billgordon1099 (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is this really the second AfD? If so, where is the first? I can't find it. Did the nom confuse a contested PROD (apparently there were two) with an AfD? TJRC (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible answer: I think you are right, TJRC: I don't think there was an earlier AfD. There were multiple PROD attempts, but I think this is this article's first time through this process. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is undeniably of low quality, but (1) the subject matter is highly notable and (2) many, perhaps most, of Wikipedia's articles were once in a similar condition. The three tags at the top do a good job of warning the user about using this data, and given enough time, hopefully the article will be improved. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  06:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern Kingdoms

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

Location within a game, article is pure WP:GAMEGUIDE, no sources exist. Redirection is inappropriate due to potential real world meanings of the title. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I believe the subject is best known as a fictional ___location in books by notable author Raymond Feist and not from a game as nom suggests. The closest I could find to a guideline on fictional locations is this [37], which is only a proposed guideline. Gruntler (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fictional ___location was first in the novels by Raymond Feist then in the game. It is one of the primary settings of Talon of the Silver Hawk. Though far less popular, it is more important in the series of novels than Degobah is to the Star Wars series of films. LA (T) @ 21:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - that's not why we have an article on Dagobah. That article exists because Star Wars has penetrated pop culture to the level that people can know the name "Dagobah" without having seen any of the movies; it can be used as a cultural reference for "remote ___location", "unpleasant ___location" or "place of training". That's what independent notability is all about, and the Eastern Kingdoms doesn't pass that test. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - The above comments make me think sourcing and expansion are a reasonable possibility. If improvement is not forthcoming, a merger would certainly be appropriate. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing references to the Eastern Kingdoms in relation to World of Warcraft and many other topics, but not this usage. I would be happy to reconsider my nomination if sources that analyse these Eastern Kingdoms in any sort of substantive way were presented. You know, I do try to meet WP:BEFORE prior to making my nominations, and I am afraid I didn't find anything worth saying in an encyclopedia. Abductive (reasoning) 02:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable list of fictional places. Doesn't warrant its own article. GreyWyvern⚒ 17:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orgt

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

Student organization that isn't independently notable. Could possibly merge to Georgia Tech article if there's enough notable content. Shadowjams (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 20:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of nascent delta functions

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

WP:CFORK/WP:POVFORK of Dirac delta function. Refer to the longstanding thread Talk:Dirac delta function#Explanation of table removal. First of all, this content was never removed from the article: rather an unorganized list was incorporated into the existing article in a way that gave context to the entries of the table as mere examples of various much more general phenomena. Secondly, the new article includes a paragraph that has already been thoroughly refuted at Talk:Dirac delta function as an overly complicated way of expressing a simple general phenomenon. Thirdly, some of these only approximate the delta function in measure, whereas others do as a distribution, but no attempt is made to distinguish between these two cases (in contrast to the main article, where such a distinction is made clear). Fourthly, it is a hopeless task to attempt to list all nascent delta functions—even all of those that are in some sense "notable" as appearing in the literature (a point which, at any rate, is moot since main part of the article is entirely unreferenced). Le Docteur (talk) 15:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree that the content is in Dirac delta function, and explained in a way that makes it easier to see why these particular examples of nascent delta functions are useful. But I have found myself on several occasions looking for the definition I need (to check the normalization, and to make sure that my definition is conventional) and having to scroll through several paragraphs to find the right one. Surely a list is the appropriate way to collect this information for easy reference.
2. and 3. There are certainly faults with this article, but I don't see that these are arguments for deleting it.
4. You could equally make this point about the article List of integrals of rational functions. Lists can be useful, even if they aren't (or can't in principle be) comprehensive.
Stevvers (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will just comment on point 4. List of integrals of rational functions should be completely rewritten and moved to integration of rational functions. It is not really a list, but rather a somewhat inverted description of the algorithm for integrating rational functions. This, of course, is pure WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it is an excellent example of another "list" that would be better off as (part of) an article. Le Docteur (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is a "nascent delta function". That pretty much takes care of the list. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well let me be the first to say keep and expand. The list is an extremely neat summary of commonly-used distributions used to visualize and study the dirac delta and its derivatives. The fork argument is not valid imo, this list has a different purpose than the article and having some duplication of content is not evil. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Useful content on how to "visualize and study the dirac delta and its derivatives" should clearly be in the main article rather than here. To expand on some of the above objections, there are essentially three ways that nascent delta functions come up in practice: (1) as fundamental solutions of differential equations, (2) by a rescaling of a probability distribution or mollifier, or (3) by a limit of a Fourier transform (what the main article calls an oscillatory integral). Within each of these respective domains, there is an enormous variety of possibilities that are all fairly similar when it gets down to brass tacks. Rather than have an indiscriminate table of nascent delta functions (some of which, by the way, are not even all that common), it would probably be better to have a few choice examples in the main article that illustrate the general principle. Let me add that if this list is to survive the AfD, then given the enormous number of possibilities of nascent delta functions that have appeared in the literature, this should limit itself to content that is not only sourced, but also for which there is an existing Wikipedia article (compare List of numbers, List of mathematical functions, List of matrices). Le Docteur (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If necessary, merging may be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1970 ascariasis poisoning incident

edit
1970 ascariasis poisoning incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As original article author I concede another editor has a good point that the subject may not actually be noteworthy or encyclopedic, and there was little else I could find on it, so I will AFD it unless community feels otherwise. I suggest that perhaps some of the info can just be placed in the ascariasis article. Rolypolyman (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems noteworthy enough, as it helped create a medical standard. fascinating, of course, and rather unique.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ascariasis. This incident occurred in Quebec yet the reference is from a Baltimore-based newspaper. Definitely worthy of encyclopedic mention, perhaps even in Britannica, but I don't think it is important enough for a separate article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My feeling is that this would not last long as a section in the article ascariasis. What I see is that it did set a medical standard, and it was an unusual incident of bioterrorism in 1970, at a time when domestic terrorism in North America was a fairly regular occurence. Going strictly by news stories of the day [38] it might not have met the test if there had been a Wikipedia in 1970, but it has a measure of historical notability in medical journals (the cited NEJM article) and some from this list [39], and in books [40]. I think that the communication to the author by the other editor was more along the line of saying that there should be more sources to demonstrate notability, rather than a statement that no article should have been written. Mandsford (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Topic has third-party notability. Also, I cleaned up some messy sentences, especially in the lead sentence. Angryapathy (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: There are references for this, but the first reference on the page to The Bulletin actually links to a Pittsburgh paper, and the third reference is inaccessible. Personally, I think mentioning this on the Ascaris suum is enough. It is notable enough in the context of establishing a "baseline" for human infection by this worm, but not notable enough for its own article. GreyWyvern⚒ 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my error on the Bulletin reference, I didn't replace the URL with the right one when putting it into citation format. Its fixed now.--Milowent (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We can split hairs on whether or not there was a lack of consensus, but the arguments for retention seem to far outweigh the arguments for deletion here. MuZemike 20:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Cooke

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

Recreation of a prod-deleted article. Historian, no notability established. References are by the subject, not about him. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Despite the large number of military history books claimed to be written by Cooke, I'm unable to find any hint of his (or their) notability while searching "James J. Cooke", "James Cooke military" or "James Cooke Mississippi". Other editors may have better luck but in the absence of reliable independent sources testifying to his notability he failes WP:N and should be deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've turned the original wall of text article into... a wall of text with paragraphs and headings. It's still pretty rubbish but it's not quite so painful to read, which will hopefully aid those wanting to comment on the AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability for an author is determined by how well their books do. Published by unuiversity press and by normal trade publishers (verified on Amazon). Google scholar finds " [CITATION] The all-Americans at war: the 82nd Division in the Great War, 1917-1918 JJ Cooke, 1999 - Greenwood Publishing Group Cited by 8 - Related articles - All 2 versions " meaning his work has been cited by others. Including most of his books. So we have a published author whose books are cited by others. Sufficient. Collect (talk) 12:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unaware of any policy support for the assertion that "notability for an author is determined by how well their books do". As far as I'm aware the relevant criteria area WP:AUTHOR and WP:N, and there's no claim or sources suggesting he passes any criterion at either of those policies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Few academics get published by both university and trade press. The implication is that they sell enough of his books to pay. I was being flippant -- Rowling would be "not notable" had her first book not sold. Academic books do not meet those sales figures, hence ssales are not a true proper criterion of notability. As you note, cites by others are one measure -- and his books have been cited by reputable academics. Abebooks shows 58 copies of his work for sale - I have seen "notable" authors with fewer copies for sale. Books reviewed by Phil. Inquirer etc. so meets "reviewed" status. Frankly, there are a bunch of far less notable authors on WP -- this one to me is sufficiently notable. Collect (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that, and also point out that one review is worth very many citations, as it is actually written about the subject's work rather than merely using that work to support a statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cud Eastbound

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

Non-notable musician. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC standards. Warrah (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability and sourcing are doubtful, page has been a vandalism target, and there are BLP issues. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get Johnny Week

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

Delete. When I first nominated this article for deletion in August 2007, it was kept. However, I feel that Wikipedia has moved on so much, and AfD has become much stricter, that it's worth giving it another look. I feel that this storyline is not notable; it had no cultural impact, no long-term effect on the programme etc. There are also few reliable sources in the article (2 are primary BBC sources and the other 3 are trash tabloids/magazines). Overall, this subject is about as notable as every other soap opera storyline ever, and that's not what Wiki does. Dale 02:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lesbian kiss episode

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

Delete. A random list of television episodes, with minor contextual coverage, that contain lesbian kisses. Some notability concerns and there are original research problems - none of the specific episodes have any third-party commentary. The concept on the whole seems to be notable, so it needs to be mentioned somewhere, but I don't think the issue as a whole deserves its own article. Dale 02:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a well written article about a common television plot device. If each listed episode needs a reference ... it can start by citing the episode itself that anyone can verify that the alleged kiss did in fact take place and was a plot or sub-plot device. And yes, there are indeed plenty of articles and even books devoted to lesbian/LGBT portrays in mainstream media and this subject is a prominent example. Here's quite a few books and a few papers, and at least a few dozen news articles. More can certainly be found by tweaking the search phrase. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What a joke, this is nothing more than a silly collection of television episodes where two girls kiss. Puh-leeez. JBsupreme (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on what Benjiboi found in Google books and Google news search, its a notable topic. Dream Focus 10:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How times have changed. When it happened on Roseanne in 1994, it was seen by some as a milestone on the road of moral depravity, by others as a a landmark in tolerance. [49] Now, it's so ordinary that a new generation sees this as trivia. [50] But it has been noticed along the way by the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe. People still keep track of these things. [51]. Mandsford (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have begun adding sources, and tagging many of the episodes noted in the NYT article. I have found 4 critical commentaries on listed episodes on about 20 minutes. I believe that each episode in the list should be sourced, but this seems like a simple enough prospect. The language in the sources clearly acknowledges this as its own phenomenon, and there are no notability issues. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 15:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Merge with Very special episode and rename the combined article to something conceptual. By combining multiple articles about television ratings manipulation methods into one article, the concept will be better explored and explained. Miami33139 (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete/Merge I am sure that in most of the episodes listed a woman did kiss a woman. I have no idea why this is notable. Ought we have a list of episodes in which characters got cancer? How about a list in which a character bought a car? The sources brought up by Benjiboi refer to individual episodes but show no demonstrable phenomenon, no discussion of any sort of a trend, no evidence that there should be an article documenting every time a woman has kissed a woman on television. - Schrandit (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Schrandit raises no policy/guideline based reasons for deletion. The subject is notable because the plot device itself meets our guidelines for having an article. It has received substantial coverage from multiple, independent reliable sources. An article on episodes where a character got cancer or bought a car would be absolutely appropraite if the same guidelines were met. If you wish the list portion (in the table) removed, that is a content dispute, and would be an appropriate discussion on the article talk page. I see the current list as supporting the article prose, which needs expansion, but discusses the subject directly. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my notability concerns we pretty well spelled out. Again, there are independent reliable sources saying that woman X kissed woman Y on show Z, this I do not dispute. There are no sources saying there is any sort of a Lesbian Kiss Espisode phenomenon or trend. preliminary google results yield no evidence of the use of the phrase "Lebsian Kiss Episode" any where but Wikipedia. This is just a random list of shows on which a woman has kissed a woman with no explaination of importance. We might as well have a list of shows on which people have eaten pizza. - Schrandit (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire first reference is multiple pages from the New York Times on the phenomenon that also includes a researched list of a dozen examples. It goes on about the history of these episodes. Several of the other sources cited also refer to the entire genre of episodes in their commentary. One (ref #8 from the New York Post behind a pay-wall here) even goes so far as to call it "the obligatory lesbian-kiss scene" in the headline. The fact that in less than a decade it went from ground-breaking to "obligatory" speaks directly toward the notability of the subject itself. Considering the additional book references that BanjeBoi has linked above, it clearly surpasses the requirements of all of our guidelines. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 21:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: and rename to "Television episodes featuring lesbian kissing". This is certainly notable given the prevailing attitudes of the day toward this type of display. GreyWyvern⚒ 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notability indicated by sources. Everyking (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, but rename to "List of television episodes featuring same-sex kissing" (or something like that) because reliable sources aren't really supporting the "lesbian kiss episode" phrase and the article could easily be expanded to include gay kissing. Comment: I dunno why this has to be such a big deal, frankly. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, its a topic which has been noted and analyzed by reliable sources, such as the 2005 NY Times piece cited in the article.--Milowent (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've seen several articles on this phenomenon over the years. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - since not all of these were lesbians but some were just females kissing... –xenotalk 21:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but give it a better name. Joe Chill (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those calling for a rename please know that sources cite these as "lesbian kisses" regardless of the sexuality of the characters or actors. That they may or may not actually be lesbian likely should be spelled out in the lede but does not necessitate a name change. Also Same-sex kiss might be a good article in and of itself as two men kissing has certainly been covered in a similar way. Likely Gay kiss episode could be folded into Same-sex kiss episode with a summary of this article included there. -- Banjeboi 00:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources prove notability. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 14:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (article creator/main author) - Sources that existed before the AFD was opened (NYT article, AfterEllen article, the books, etc.) support the notability of the topic, as do the sources on some of the individual episodes which have their own articles (especially Don't Ask, Don't Tell and Sugar & Spice). Additional sources found during this discussion indicate the likelihood that the topic can be expanded upon, not deleted. As side notes: I don't agree that these episodes may be reasonably classified as "very special episodes" as that term is used and understood so merger or linkage to that article is not appropriate. I titled the article as I did because the article is about the phenomenon of this sub-genre. There is not to the best of my knowledge a similar phenomenon regarding male-on-male kissing and I have never seen a source that even discusses the idea that there is a "gay male kiss episode" sub-genre, so I disagree with genericizing this article by including male-male kisses. Since sources use the phrase "lesbian kiss episode" in discussing the phenomenon it is reasonable to use that phrase in the article's title. The article could be renamed to "List of lesbian kiss episodes" if feelings run particularly high on emphasizing the list portion of the article but I don't see the need for it. Otto4711 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Itoo am eskimo about this article becuase of its seemingly narrow scope and clumsy phrasing in some small areas. However, the depth and rbeadth of the sources and citations makes me thing that i tshould stay. If even a 1/4th of those sources are real (not dead links, Google searches, or other such nonsense WP:RS-violations) then they should stay. Otherwise, I recommend pruning and deleting until this raticle is more encyclopedic than fancrufty. User:Smith Jones 17:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep is discussed non-trivially in mainstream news media.--RekishiEJ (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am against retitling this article to Television episodes featuring lesbian kissing or in any way to broaden it for gay male kisses. The sources, seemingly mostly reliable, that Benjiboi provided clearly use the wording "lesbian kiss episode." If any episode featuring a lesbian kiss could be added to this article, the article may become too long. Not that I am sure how many lesbian kisses have been carried out throughout the history of television. But my point is that this article defines this "term" in a way that is not only about two women having kissed in an episode; it is more so about "an episode in which a seemingly heterosexual female character engages in a kiss with a lesbian, possibly lesbian or bisexual character" and where "[in] most instances, the potential of a relationship between the women does not survive past the episode and the lesbian or suspected lesbian never appears again." And as to my other objection... I object because this type of gimmick is not as prominent with gay male kisses, due to most of society typically being more comfortable seeing two women kissing than two men kissing. Flyer22 (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No real encyclopedia, and no serious scholarly resource, would harbor this kind of salacious trivia. The fact that people are showing up to !vote "keep" only proves that this "community" doesn't mean to build an encyclopedia, but something else, and that a result based in "consensus" is completely different from one based upon policy and its original intent. We will not see "Lesbian kiss episode" or anything like it in Britannica anytime soon.67.160.100.233 (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not Encyclopaedia Britannica. We can afford a much wider scope than paper encyclopedias. Please read WP:NOTPAPER for a start. If you want an encyclopedia like Britannica, please use Britannica. --Cyclopiatalk 10:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to support notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as somewhat of a pov-fork from Media portrayal of lesbianism, see [52] Siawase (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not seeing that WP:Fork actually applies here? -- Banjeboi 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The acronym for what I was going for would be WP:POVFORK, which yeah, may not apply in the strictest sense. But the way i see it, the very focused scope of this article as it stands right now is based on a premise so narrow it goes into POV territory ("lesbian antics are great for a quick ratings grab, and not much else"), ignoring other aspects of media coverage of displays of lesbian affection, even going so far as to ignoring different points of view that exists for some of the specific episodes in the list. (ie: the article here only describes it as a great ratings grab, ignoring both the pioneering aspects of some the episodes (several of these are the first ever portrayal of any sort of lesbian affection in the medium or genre) as well as how the creators/producers have described how from their pov it certainly wasn't an easy ratings grab, but something they had to argue at length with studio heads to even get on the air. (sources for this at the archive link I provided). It also (out of necessity due to its scope) ignores the inevitable flipside of the coin, ie episodes/shows that do portray lesbianism, but where kissing or any sort of physical affection was excluded due to, basically, homophobic attitudes of the powers that be. The article could probably be expanded/amended to be more neutral, but then the very narrow scope of it would lose much of its meaning, and the contents would be better covered within the context of the article where it was previously housed. For example these episodes and broader commentary on them could be covered alongside other tv portrayals of lesbianism in a chronological order. And, like I said at the link, certainly include the "lesbian kiss episode" phenomenon in that article as one aspect of tv portrayals of lesbianism. But it is just one aspect of many, and as such in my opinion not best suited to a separate article. Siawase (talk) 11:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the year and a half since that discussion took place the list has doubled in size. A merger would throw the portrayal article out of balance. The article focuses on the ratings ploy aspect because that's what's included in the source material I've found. The article does not state the ploy as fact; rather, it reports the conclusions of The New York Times. If there are sources in which the non-ratings aspects are discussed then I certainly encourage that this information be added. Otto4711 (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is the list in the form it is now really of much encyclopedic value? First, I fail to see how the inclusion of a kiss specifically is significant enough that it needs to be separate from the already existing Lists of American television episodes with LGBT themes. Second, what is the intended scope of this list? Right now it appears to be the beginnings of a list that if completed will include every episode in which a female-on-female liplock appears. But there are a lot of these episodes. [53] is a fairly comprehensive site, and after parsing their alphabetical listing I found 466(!) entries for episodes listed as "Mainstream TV-series", not all of which contain kissing, but certainly the vast majority. Would this list really be appropriate for wikipedia if it was expanded to include hundreds of entries? If instead it was trimmed back to episodes where relevant commentary exists in reliable sources, then it would likely come down to a much more manageable size and would not need to be in a separate list format, but could be included in a broader prose coverage of notable portrayals of lesbianism on television. Also, the fact that this article is based largely on a single NYT article rather than broader coverage in academic sources is problematic in and of itself in the first place. Siawase (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is currently restricted to American broadcast series because the sources discuss LKEs in terms of American broadcast television. I am unaware of sources from outside the US that discuss LKEs in terms of ratings pops or anything else. If there are such sources then the article can certainly be revised to reflect it. The restriction to American broadcast series eliminates the vast majority of the externally-linked list. If you are dissatisfied with the NYT serving as the supposed basis of the article then add material from the various sources linked above. If there has been an evolution in how LKEs are presented and/or received then write it and source it. I'm still not seeing the problem with this as a stand-alone article. Other types of LGBT-related episodes could also probably serve as the bases of standalone articles, including the "coming out episode", the "AIDS episode", the "gay wedding episode". These have each been the subject of separate scholarly attention. Otto4711 (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the list right now includes several cable shows, which I guess should be removed then? In the interest of getting a clearer view of what we're talking about exactly, I parsed and sifted through the listings on the site I linked to and came up with a list of approximately 100 entries from American broadcast shows. I haven't done extensive research on each entry right now so there may be some abberations, but if the article is kept and an exhaustive list is deemed to be appropriate for inclusion, I can look into each entry and verify that it contains a kiss and that the actresses are identified correctly. Verifying that they're broadcast shows and which exact date they aired should be fairly straight forward (if time consuming) cross referencing work. Siawase (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Break for long table

edit
Series Title U.S. air date Kissers
All My Children 2009-02-13 episode 2009 Eden Riegel and Tamara Braun
All My Children 2009-02-16 episode 2009 Eden Riegel and Tamara Braun
Ally McBeal "Happy Trails 1997 Calista Flockhart and Jane Krakowski
Ally McBeal "You Never Can Tell" (2x09) 1998 Calista Flockhart and Courtney Thorne Smith
Ally McBeal "Buried Pleasures 1999 Calista Flockhart and Lucy Liu
Andy Richter Controls the Universe "Little Andy in Charge 2002 Irene Molloy and Paget Brewster
Angela's Eyes pilot episode" (1x01) 2006 Joy Tanner and unknown
As If Season 1, Episode 12 2001 Jemima Rooper and Caroline Chikezie
Birds of Prey "Devil's Eyes 2003 Ashley Scott and Mia Sara
Blade: The Series "Monsters" (1x11) 2006 Jill Wagner and Jessica Gower
Blood Ties "Deep Dark" (2x10) 2007 Gina Holden and unknown
Bones "The Con Man in the Meth Lab" (4x08) 2008 Nichole Hiltz and Michaela Conlin
Boomtown "Inadmissible 2003 Vanessa Williams and Rebecca DeMornay
Boston Public various episodes 2000 Michelle Monaghan and unknowns
Buffy the Vampire Slayer "The Body 2001 Alyson Hannigan and Amber Benson
Buffy the Vampire Slayer "Entropy 2002 Alyson Hannigan and Amber Benson
Buffy the Vampire Slayer "Seeing Red 2002 Alyson Hannigan and Amber Benson
Buffy the Vampire Slayer "The Killer In Me 2003 Alyson Hannigan and Iyari Limon
Buffy the Vampire Slayer "Touched 2003 Alyson Hannigan and Iyari Limon
Cashmere Mafia "pilot episode" (1x01) 2008 Bonnie Somerville and Lourdes Benedicto
Cashmere Mafia "Conference Call" (1x02) 2008 Bonnie Somerville and Lourdes Benedicto
Cashmere Mafia "Dangerous Liaisons" (1x03) 2008 Bonnie Somerville and Lourdes Benedicto
Cashmere Mafia "The Deciders" (1x04) 2008 Unknowns
Cold Case "Best Friends" (2x22) 2005 Samantha Streets and Tessa Thompson
Cold Case "Stand Up and Holler" (4x20) 2007 Unknowns
Coupling "Nine and a Half Minutes 2004 Gina Bellman and Sarah Alexander
Crossing Jordan "Born To Run 2001 Jill Hennessy and unknown
CSI: Crime SceneInvestigation various episodes 2000 Elkin Antonio,Amy Carlson,Elena Lyons,+ more
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation "Big Shots" (7x19) 2007 Laura Vandervoort and Robin Sydney
CSI: New York "Grand Master 2004 Symba Smith and Shi Ne Nielson
Dark Angel "Shorties in Love 2001 Valarie Rae Miller and Tangelia Rouse
Desperate Housewives "The Story ofLucy and Jessie" (5x17) 2009 Eva Longoria,Teri Hatcher and Swoosie Kurtz
Eastwick "Mooning and Crooning" (1x05) 2009 Sara Rue and Lindsay Price
ER "The Greatest of Gifts 2000 Laura Innes and Elizabeth Mitchell
ER "A River in Egypt 2002 Laura Innes and Lisa Vidal
ER "Bygones 2002 Laura Innes and Lisa Vidal
ER "I Don't" (13x21) 2007 Parminder Nagra and Julia Ling
Farscape "Won't Get Fooled Again" (2x15) 2000 Gigi Edgley and Claudia Black
Farscape "Twice Shy" (4x14) 2003 Gigi Edgley and Paula Arundell
Fastlane "Strap On 2003 Tiffany Thiessen and Jaime Pressly
Fat Actress "Holy Lesbo Batman 2005 Kirstie Alley and Kelly Preston
Femme Nikita, La "Open Heart 1998 Peta Wilson and unknown
Firefly "The Train Job 2002 Morena Baccarin and Jewel Staite
Firefly "Our Mrs. Reynolds 2002 Morena Baccarin and Christina Hendricks
Firefly "War Stories" (1x09) 2002 Morena Baccarin and Katherine Kendall
FlashForward "Gimme Some Truth" (1x05) 2009 Christine Woods and Navi Rawat
Friends "The One WithRachel's Big Kiss 2001 Jennifer Aniston, Winona Ryder and Lisa Kudrow
Friends "The One WithPhoebe's Rats 2003 Melissa George and Carly Thomas
Fringe "Bad Dreams" (1x17) 2009 Anna Torv and Kelly Briter
Gossip Girl "Dare Devil" (1x05) 2007 Nicole Fiscella and Nan Zhang
Grey's Anatomy "Losing My Mind" (4x15) 2008 Sara Ramirez and Brooke Smith
Grey's Anatomy "Freedom" (4x16) 2008 Sara Ramirez and Brooke Smith
Grosse Pointe "Passion Fish 2001 Lindsay Sloane and Sarah Michelle Gellar
The Handler "Dirty White Collar 2003 Lola Glaudini and Emilie de Ravin
Heroes "Hysterical Blindness" (4x04) 2009 Hayden Panettiere and Madeline Zima
House M.D. "Lucky Thirteen" (5x05) 2008 Olivia Wilde,Angela Gots and Helena Barrett
In Plain Sight "Let's Get It Ahn" (2x13) 2009 Sherilyn Fenn and Kelly Hu
Just Shoot Me "various episodes 1997- Laura San Giacomo,Wendie Malick+ more
L.A. Law "He's a Crowd 1991 Amanda Donohoe and Michele Greene
Las Vegas "Blood and Sand 2004 Unknowns
Las Vegas "Sperm Whales and Spearmint Rhinos" 2005 Sharon Leal and unknown
Las Vegas "Fleeting Cheating Meeting" (4x10) 2007 Nikki Cox and Vanessa Marcil
Law and Order: Criminal Intent "Courtship" (7x04) 2007 Lola Glaudini and Amanda Detmer
Life "Dig a Hole: Part 1" (1x10) 2007 Sarah Shahi and unknown
Masters of Horror "Sick Girl" (1x10) 2006 Angela Bettis and Misty Mundae
Masters of Horror "Pelts" (2x06) 2006 Ellen Ewusie and Melissa Gonzalez
Masters of Horror "Valerie on the Stairs" (2x08) 2006 Clare Grant and Suki Kaiser
Melrose Place "Pilot" (1x01) 2009 Katie Cassidy and unknown
New Adventures of Old Christine, The "Playdate with Destiny" (2x07) 2006 Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Wanda Sykes
New Adventures of Old Christine, The "Unidentified Funk" (4x11) 2008 Julia Louis-Dreyfus,Megan Mullally and Wanda Sykes
North Shore pilot episode 2004 Brittany Daniel and unknown
North Shore "Ties That Bind 2004 Krista Kalmus and Marika Dominczyk
O.C., The "The SnO.C. 2004 Olivia Wilde and unknown
O.C., The "The Ex-Factor 2005 Olivia Wilde and Emmanuelle Chriqui
O.C., The "The Lonely Hearts Club 2005 Olivia Wilde and Mischa Barton
O.C., The "The Rainy Day Women 2005 Olivia Wilde and Mischa Barton
Once and Again "The Gay-Straight Alliance 2002 Evan Rachel Wood and Mischa Barton
Once and Again "Experience is the Teacher 2002 Evan Rachel Wood and Mischa Barton
Outer Limits, The "Caught in the Act" (1x17) 1996 Alyssa Milano and Sarah Strange
Outer Limits, The "Lithia" (4x17) 1998 Kirsten Williamson and Nadia Capone
Over There "Situation Normal 2005 Nicki Aycox and Cathryn De Prume
Painkiller Jane "Portraits of Lauren Gray(1x10) 2007 Kristanna Loken and Meghan Ory
Party of Five "I'll Show You Mine" 1999 Neve Campbell and Olivia d'Abo
Passions 2005-08-31 episode 2005 Cathy Jeneén Doe and Jossara Jinaro
Picket Fences "Sugar and Spice" (1x21) 1993 Holly Marie Combs and Alexondra Lee
Quintuplets "Shakespeare In Lust 2005 April Matson and Danica Stewart
Relativity "The Day the EarthMoved 1997 Lisa Edelstein and Kristin Dattilo
Rescue Me "Believe" (2x08) 2006 Callie Thorne and Brette Taylor
Saturday Night Live Season 28, Episode 12 2003 Jennifer Garner and Rachel Dratch
Saturday Night Live Season 32, Episode 14 2003 Maya Rudolph and Amy Poehler
Scrubs "My Best Friend's Mistake" (1x03) 2001 Sarah Chalke and unknown
Scrubs "My Cold Shower" (6x19) 2007 Sarah Chalke and Judy Reyes
Shark "Love Triangle" (1x08) 2006 Caitlin Wachs and Mycale Guyton
Shark "One Hit Wonder" (2x15) 2008 Mädchen Amick and Lisa Sheridan
Smallville "Facade 2004 Kristin Kreuk and Brianna Brown
Spin City "She's Gotta Habit 2001 Heather Locklear and Denise Richards
Stacked "Two Faces of Eve" (2x02) 2005 Pamela Anderson and Jenny McCarthy
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine "Rejoined" (4x06) 1995 Terry Farrell and Susannah Thompson
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine "The Emperor's New Cloak 1999 Nicole de Boer and Nana Visitor
Star Trek: Enterprise "Rajiin 2003 Jolene Blalock,Nikita Ager and Linda Park
That '80s Show "Pilot Episode 2002 Brittany Daniel and Tinsley Grimes
Tru Calling "Star Crossed 2003 Melissa Lee and Rachael Bella
Twilight Zone, The "ep: Sensuous Cindy 2002 Jaime Pressly and Tiffany Knight
Ugly Betty "A Tree Grows in Guadalajara" (1x22) 2007 Rebecca Romijn and Rebecca Gayheart
Will and Grace "ep: Hocus Focus" (4x23) 2002 Glenn Close and Debra Messing
Will and Grace "The Kid Stays Outof the Picture 2002 Debra Messing and Megan Mullally
Wire in the Blood "Shadows Rising: Part 1" (1x03) 2002 Doon Mackichan and Lou Gish
Xena: Warrior Princess "The God You Know 2001 Renée O'Connor and Alexandra Tydings
Xena: Warrior Princess "Friend in Need, part 2 2001 Lucy Lawless and Renée O'Connor

Break for long table

edit
  • Comment When this article was tightly focused on the Ratings Stunt phenomenon, it seemed to me to be a very reasonable article. Others have expressed concerns that this is expanding into an indiscriminate list. There are 2 days left in the AfD, and I may reconsider my thoughts about whether it meet policy or not. As an article about a specific form of ratings stunt, with its history and purpose and cited examples, it makes sense to keep it. If it expands to anything beyond that, it will end up failing WP:INFO. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 16:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. That is exactly how I feel, JimMillerJr. For example, Tamara Braun and Eden Riegel, as Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery (shown above on the table), kissed plenty on All My Children; their characters' relationship was obviously not a simple lesbian kiss episode type of thing, regarding the physical intimacy they were allowed to have. I suppose some people would still call their relationship a ratings stunt (just read their article), but it is not the same thing as the Lesbian kiss episode article is currently detailing. As I stated above, to expand this article to an article about lesbian kissing on television in general rather than the lesbian kiss episode phenomenon turns it into a completely different article. Perhaps, this article would be best turned into an article about lesbian kissing/intimacy on television or even same-sex kissing/intimacy on television...and then have the lesbian kiss episode as a subsection of that. But the lesbian kiss episode is certainly a notable topic. Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MuZemike 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Cross Foundation

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

Delete Prod disputed by article creator. No evidence that the foundation has notability independent of Shelley Lubben. Both refs in article (1&2 are the same) only discuss the foundation in passing, being primarily about the AVN convention or Lubben respectively. GNEWS [54] has no usable refs. 3 of the 6 are press releases, the others only mention Pink Cross in passing. Xbiz [55] similarly has nothing useful. I don't even think it's usable as a redirect due to the unlikeliness of anyone searching for it instead of LubbenHorrorshowj (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vling

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

Ridiculously long article about a conlang with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StoneNotes

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt. — ξxplicit 05:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Angel Ortiz

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

Non-notable (Windows Movie Maker user) and promotional (third paragraph). It barely passes A7 by asserting notability. Mm40 (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Midkemia. No rough consensus for deletion, but there is clear consensus that this doesn't warrant its own article. MuZemike 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triagia

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

No secondary sources can be found for this fictional place. Article makes no attempt at encyclopedic coverage of the topic, instead describing the place in in-universe terms, and listing the books in which it appears. Abductive (reasoning) 01:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cubensis

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

When the puffery and promotion is removed [57], what remains for this band is an unsubstantiated claim that they are a notable band, covering/tributing for Grateful Dead. They may turn out to be notable, but there is no evidence backing it at present. A second concern is that at present there is no evidence of neutral sources to write an article.

So at present, the article is a date of formation, a bit of name-dropping, plus a bunch of uncited, possibly non-neutral, positive "rave" quotes. The article lacks evidence/references from reliable sources evidencing both notability, and ability to sustain a neutral article.

I don't know enough of the topic to evaluate notability and reliable sources on bands, hence listing at AFD to obtain review of this article from those who can. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlogMe

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

I can't find significant coverage for this programming language. Joe Chill (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but probably merge. Discussion of a merger can continue on article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Push–pull workout

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

Topic does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This is a basic bodybuilding training theory that can be summarized in 5 words (much like 5x5 or 10 sets of 10 programs). Quartet 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:The nom has now removed the merge request I was referring above (see diff. --Cyclopiatalk 15:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom (merge suggestion aside). Borderline notable bodybuilding training theory with a few Google book hits that are passing mentions and whole lot of self published website hits. --Yankees76 (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have about a dozen books treating the subject in some respect. It's quite more than "borderline notability": it passes well WP:GNG. I would endorse a merge, but for sure the subject is notable. --Cyclopiatalk 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few book hits establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Because an old time bodybuilder and a few "fitness for dummies" books devote a couple of paragraphs to it, does not make it notable. This coverage isn't really significant and not significant enough for a standalone article. Any article on this subject would probably end up reading like an instruction manual. --Yankees76 (talk) 14:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have the following book titles: Exercise in rehabilitation medicine, Spinal cord injury:management and rehabilitiation, Fitness programming and physical disability, among others. It doesn't seem a random thing made up one day by a bodybuilder, it seems consistently used in the field's literature. To say that "would probably end up like an instruction manual" is kind of a unproven prediction and prediction for prediction,for example, there could be coverage of benefits of such exercise, etc. -for example, its use in physical disability is interesting in itself and surely not manual stuff. --Cyclopiatalk 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have no way of seeing the depth of coverage in those books. Is there a chapter? A sentence? A paragraph? Again, this is not significant coverage worthy of a standalone article. I'd propose a new article be created that has numerous split routine workout methods that are similar but have subtle differences (Push/Pull, Upper/Lower, etc. etc.) That's all this is one split-routine approach to training. --Yankees76 (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see, coverage is of a few paragraphs where accessible. Anyway it seems to indicate the subject has some notability -it has been covered by independent RS several times.
I agree with you that a merged article would be better, but if you're going to propose to merge articles together, you're not proposing deletion -because at worst the article would become a redirect. The article is better to stay until its content is merged, I'd say. --Cyclopiatalk 16:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fred Figglehorn. MuZemike 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Hackin' Christmas With Fred

edit
AfDs for this article:
It's Hackin' Christmas With Fred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references to third-party sources/coverage to establish notability. --EEMIV (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fred Figglehorn. — Jake Wartenberg 00:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Cash

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

Wholly non-notable web content/music. --EEMIV (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well spoken, you closet fan.--Milowent (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch! Mama, Milowent is being mean! Drmies (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heehee. Currently this song is #34 on itunes music video chart. Will it be another (Do You Wanna Date My) Avatar?--Milowent (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent, you are obviously a young person with nothing better to do or an older person who is disregarding their duties. How do you know this stuff? Don't tell me you actually care... Drmies (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its a long sordid story involving children who love fred and a supposed adult who still tries to crack jokes about Mahir Çağrı --Milowent (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I know Fred Figglehorn is YouTube's #2 most subscribed and all, but I think this album isn't very notable, and songs for a non-notable album would be pretty failish... Jeremjay24 23:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and set redirect without prejudice toward recreation as an individual article at a future date. Interestingly enough, the Christmas Cash video IS getting independent coverage... though yes, currently this in connection with Lucas Cruikshank (Fred) and his other works. Worth noting as well is that it first aired on November 10 and within 6 days received nearly 1.5 million views. Quite impressive, actually, as the song (and article) are only days old. As it receives more coverage, an independent notability may be easier to assert and cite. NOTE: I am declaring a COI, as I had the role of Santa in the video. Though offfering a (hopefully) neutral opinion here, I will not be touching any Fred articles that include my acting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you're kidding right? Drmies would have killed for that role! --Milowent (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Not kidding. Though I'd never heard of Lucas Cruikshank or Fred's Channel before the booking, on set, I found Lucas to be well-mannered, well-gounded, quiet fellow... quite the opposite of his Fred alter-ego. Then researching before commenting at this AFD, I found that Christmas Cash might quite soon qualify as individualy notable per WP:GNG [59], [60], [61]... which is why my own thought is toward no prejudice toward recreation by someone. Its coverage is growing daily. But do you really think Drmies could have fit in my Santa Suit? Ho ho ho. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantity (metadata)

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

A search for references did not find support for the term "Quantity" to have any significant meaning in Metadata. Searching the page Metadata does not find the word used in any context. It appears to a WP:PROD candidate but there is sufficient possibility that a larger community review may lead to something I missed or am not aware of, so bringing it here. Jeepday (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2009_November_12&oldid=1142643624"