Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 24

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 23 September 25 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Deeon

edit
DJ Deeon (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 credible ("most prominent and prolific" notwithstanding) suggestion of notability; search identifies no indication either. Bongomatic 23:22, 24 September 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 as G7; page was blanked, and tagged for G7 deletion, by creator. TerriersFan (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren patten

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

Malformed AfD by User:98.248.33.198. Listed now. TerriersFan (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Song (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep-:If you believe it should be deleted go ahead , what harm is the page doing. Its all true. But you are the wikipedia gods right ,so go ahead delete it. I am only a teenager , and this was the first time creating this page so it wasn't exactly perfect, but it seems wikipedia has a rule for everything you type or put. But i still believe it should be kept , because this person will gain more notability in the next months to come. Its not exactly harmful to have this page and it isn't costing wikipedia anything ?This person deserves to have notability , try and put yourself through the 7 years of m years of medical school to try and achieve what he has . (User talk:Krishen94)25th September 2009 20:10 (UTC) — Krishen94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Sartain

edit
Jesse Sartain (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 not a person of import. It is a salesman who has added himself to the Wikipedia. He actually is not a chef, he is a salesman pretending to be a chef, but basically selling flim flam. Additionally, all of the information on this page is incorrect: Jesse Sartain has won no awards, and all the businesses he claims to have founded are no longer in existence, having been taken apart by the IRS, or tangled in courts over laws broken around payroll and taxes. This man should not be in the Wikipedia, he is simply a criminal boosting his Google juice. Also, he edited his own biography. Vonguard (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - All of the things the nominator is saying may be true, although I'd like to see some sources for that. But none of those are reasons for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For reference, here is an archive of over 130 comments from his former employees. It's not pretty, but it's basically 150 comments detailing his shady business practices and discussing his reputation as a flim flam salesman. There are not "official" sources on his editing his own biography. But I can provide witnesses of that act. cache of comments on Sartain from former employees -- vonguard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.81.52.25 (talk)
  • Comment - I used to work for him also. I can attest to his use of the Web for his own gain. I know this article says he is a famous chef, but he is not. He is infamous, not famous. He was once thrown out of Emeril's first restaurant for throwing a temper tantrum. If that makes him worthy of inclusion, so be it, but I know for a fact he was paying his employees to set up fake blogs and a Wikipedia entry for himself. Notice the Beard award is not a valid link, and the "Hall of Fame" he's in is just a Web site, not a real Hall of Fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.187.71 (talk)
  • Delete No WP:Reliable Sources sighted. Link to Beard Website is broken, and would only link to "Who's Who," not award winners. WP:CoI is also clear, as page was obviously derived from other sites owned by Sartain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.62.88 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:41, 2 October 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elecard MPEG Player

edit
Elecard MPEG Player (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. Unremarkable software. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 21:18, 24 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OneFinger

edit
OneFinger (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) 21:08, 24 September 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. I'm disregarding what seems to be random blather from random people from the Internet and focusing on the arguments that are made in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Except for JeffyP's opinion, all of these conclude that the article has severe WP:BLP and WP:SPAM problems and that the subject does not appear to be notable at any rate.  Sandstein  11:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James N. Sears

edit
James N. Sears (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 steaming pile of WP:BLP violations. There are loads of references and external links, but none of the amounts to a reliable source, and the person does not appear to be notable as defined by WP:N or WP:BIO. All references are either to blogish-type stuff, youtube, or this person's own websites. Indeed, the entire article reads like an attack page against this person, using their own websites and a few blog entries as the sole sources for it. This has really got to go. Jayron32 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Shawn. I am Dimitri The Lover's manager. I am in a conflict of interest, so I am relying on senior Wiki staff to deal with this matter. We were not concerned about the lies strewn through this Wiki entry when the hit volumes were low, however, when traffic to it started to accelerate I had to make the necessary edits. EVERY SINGLE EDIT HAS BEEN SOURCED.

As for whether or not Dimitri The Lover deserves to be in wikipedia, I would rather have his entry REMOVED ALL TOGETHER than have it packed with bullshit lies. For example, there is a dead link to a Toronto Star article which is used as a reference for a lot of derogatory statements. I left it alone. Dimitri is very, very notable and worthy of an entry because ...

1. His voicemails messages to Olga (whether you beleive they are viral marketing or not) are one of the most popular viral videos of all time 2. He is a notorious member of the sedution community, which has its own wiki 3. He was voted #2 supervillain in the country in 2008 4. He was the key star in the documentary "The Great Intoxication" 5. If you Google, in quotes, "Dimitri The Lover", look how many hits you get 6. It was noted that radio and TV stations reported point #1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.9.122 (talk • contribs) — 149.99.9.122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. I would say this is almost in G10 territory. In any case, it's probably at least a BLP violation. Besides the two paragraphs of "background", the article is pretty much about what the guy's done and how it got him into legal and ethical trouble. He appears to be your run-of-the-mill "Look at me, my voice is on Youtube and now I think I'm famous!" person. He's not notable, and indeed most of the sources in the article are unreliable. And how do any of the above 6 points make him notable anyway? Xenon54 / talk / 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look. We expect Brad Goodman's IMDB page to be updated within the next week to read "Dimitri The Lover movie". If you go to http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0329021/ you can see that he was a key producer for Borat, Religulous, and Bruno. I suggest that we put the page on the backburner for now. I will email when Brad's IMDB is updated so that you have PROOF that the movie is in production and the voicemails were staged.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.99.9.122 (talk • contribs) — 149.99.9.122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - obvious G10 issues and BLP; the manager wants us to help him publicize this sleazeball, so G12 is coming into it as well (I just wasted fifteen minutes of my life weeding out some of the external links and other SEO crap from the article). Just kill it on one or both of those grounds, or let somebody who cares monitor it. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, calling Dimitri The Lover a "sleazeball" makes you unqualified to deal with this matter because you obviously have bias. That's the problem. He pulls people's strings and they react the way you do. That's why I suggested just locking the article down. I just got off the phone with him, and he has advised that if you cannot maintain a balanced integrity in the article, with both good and bad points about him, then you are to take it down immediately.
Furthermore, we will concede the paragraph about the voicemails being viral marketing for the film FOR NOW if you lock down the article to prevent vandalism in ITS PRESENT STATE. You give us 10 days to come back to the table with proof that a Hollywood film about Dimitri The Lover is being produced by Brad Goodman. The request to updated the IMDB was just submitted and they say it takes "up to 2 weeks". Once we come back with proof, we add a section about the film and the voicemails being viral marketing then we protect it again with only editors being able to make changes.
Orangemike is entitled to call the subject a "sleazeball". This is an open forum, designed to gauge the community's opinion. He can't do it in the article, but here it's perfectly acceptable, as far as I know.
I did not say that Orangemike wasn't allowed to express his opinions about Dimitri in this forum. Rather, I said that his opinions made him unqualified to edit the article.
You don't seem to get that articles cannot be "locked down" to a preferred version. Only in cases of extreme and repeated vandalism will editing be disabled. Usually, it's only disabled for anonymous editors, but sometimes is extended to all editors. In any case, the version that is displayed is the latest "good" version.
You say that he will soon become an actor - that's great, but it is a lot harder to be a notable actor. A notable actor has to appear in several well-known films or have a "cult following" (to be determined by reliable sources). I just don't see how notability can be established in the near future. Xenon54 / talk / 21:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you seem to be a reasonable person. Why don't YOU look after the article? The version up right now is fine. Everything is sourced and it is balanced and neutral, with both derogatory stuff from his past, and positive stuff from the present. Parts that are even slightly open to interpretation say "Sears claims". I'll even allow the parts with the dead link to the Toronto Sun article to stay up. Just give me 10 days to PROVE that Dimitri is worthy of maintaining his Wiki entry. As for the "actor" part, that's not true. The film is ABOUT HIM. There is no acting. It is a documentary about him by a notable producer because he found Dimitri The Lover a notable subject.
  • Delete - Issues with NPOV, possibly G10 and G12. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Dimitri/James is not a "notable" person usign the criteria we use on Wikipedia, and is unlikely to become so in the near future. As for protecting this article should it be kept, unless there is persistent vandalism then that will not happen - and even if it does, generally (as pointed out elsewhere) that stops unregistered editors from editing. It's good that you are declaring your COI here, but that does not give you any more rights over this article than any other editor has - you don't own the article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not asserting any "special rights". I offered full disclosure about who I was. I asked the wiki community to humbly ensure that the article was neutral, fair, and unbiased. When I edited it a while ago, it was a total hit piece. Now it is at least balanced. As for notability, undisputed knowledge of the film will be out shortly, so that point will be moot. We are merely asking for some time lattitude, which is far more efficient that killing the article then having to build it up from scratch again.
If in the future he meets the notability guidelines, you can request that an admin undelete the page, which would save you having to write from scratch. But we should not keep an article in anticipation of notability. Also, the BLP/G10 concerns raised here would still need to be resolved. ∙ AJCham(talk) 22:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL : I guess this would be an interesting case- can you make someone notable by a series of unrelated events of local/passing note ( that in this case seem to be unified by sex). Assuming you could get primary sources that substantiate the claims, are there enough secondary sources to show anyone already cares about the events or person? The issue here is not to moralize but determine notability and encyclopedic value. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These types of arguments are never valid in AfD discussions. Larry is much more notable than Dimitri can ever hope to be, what with being the cofounder of Wikipedia and all. Xenon54 / talk / 10:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know that I would necessarily say "ever be" - it might be that in the future Dimitri will actually do something that is universally counted as being useful and notable - however, I would certainly agree that Larry will be much more notable than Dimitri for the foreseeable future! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As far as I can tell, this guy is only known for one viral recording (creepy answerphone message). Everything else is either from his own website or his appearance in a record of "Discipline Committee Decisions". Therefore, I think WP:BLP1E applies. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Don't give this guy any more airtime. What a loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.46.136.230 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 September 2009
  • I was directed to this discussion thread from a blog. I kept an open mind. Personally, as a female, I find Dimitri The "Lover" vile. However, I am studying library sciences, so I am able to keep an open mind regarding notability from an encyclopedic perspective. What disturbed me most was that on doing research by going back to the edit history of his page I noticed that when it was heavily biased against him--basically a hit piece--Wikipedia accepted his notability and defended the article's insertion in the database. Those discussions are duly noted in the discussion thread for the article. However, the moment his manager edited it to include some of his "positive" contributions to balance it out and make it neutral (all fully sourced), you quickly move to delete the article because the "sleazeball" (as Organge Mike refers to him) is painted in a neutral light and no longer mocked. Also, the paragraph that caused the delete/undelete war between Dimitri's manager and another individual was only faulty in mentioning the Borat/Bruno people being involved, which has not yet been confirmed from the looks of it (which is why Shawn the manager asked for 10 days). Word of the Hollywood film being the reason for the viral marketing voicemails is duly reported in the Progressive Advertiser site as CONFIRMED THROUGH CONTACT WITH THE PRODUCTION COMPANY. Why shouldn't I beleive the web site for a company that reports news from the advertising industry? Why must I wait for the New York Times to report the story? The paragraph regarding the viral marketing campaign should have stayed. I think Dimitri is scum, but he is NOTABLE SCUM. He is notable for making a career out of misogyny and homophobia. He is notable for using those voicemails for viral marketing purposes. I searched Google for "Jimmy Wales" in quotes and got 640,000 hits. I search for "Dimitri The Lover" and got 1,180,000 hits. For a laugh, I typed in "Dimitri The Loser" and Google corrected me. If you search for "Dimitri The Stud" (the voicemails) you get 967,000 hits. I will lose all respect for your "encyclopedia's" objectivity if this article about this sorry excuse for a human being is deleted due to your own biases. Shame on the lot of you!208.113.46.52 (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)— 208.113.46.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I guess I would point out some issues with encyclopedic content and an arguably unrelated content of getting at the truth or merit. Encyclopedic content here needs to have some non-frivolous notability - this tends to be a bit subjective with the qualification of "reliable sources." I get 10k+ hits on my name just from mirrors or petty posts I've made on various lists ( "how do I turn my computer on") but I'm not sure that 100 years from now people will care about me and my travails and I'm not even sure an attorney would have any reason to care about this ( unless I said I was trying to do something illegal or bad vis-a-vis his client ). On the other topic, you need to examine data and claims without immediate regard to implications for you or your biases. Untestable adjectives ( can someone be shown to be "vile" or not?) and various "phobias" in particular ( a phobia or real fear may not be determinable but risks can be stated ) often just detract from things of substance. Often, various cultural trends run counter to constantly looking for things which do no affirm your own biases but that is the essence of various forms of progress- If you catch that show on CNBC about the mortgage crisis they guy who really profited from it is constantly doubting and checking his conclusion but presumably he wants to believe it once invested. It is only through proactive searching for things you don't want that you can be confident of anything. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your points are valid, but based on Wikipedia's own criteria for notability, even if strictly applied, "Dimitri The Lover" still qualifies for notability and inclusion in your database. I spent the last hour analyzing both the general notability criteria and the notability criteria for individuals. Even with every phrase in your notability criteria interpreted as biased as possible against Dimitri's inclusion, he still qualifies under enough criteria to squeak in. You people are NOT being OBJECTIVE. He is NOTABLE by your OWN CRITERIA. Furthermore, it is my humble opinion that if notability is in doubt, you are better to err on the side of inclusion in order to make the information available to the public. Also, the hit volumes to his article mentioned above are important. They may not go toward proving notability, but they do defend keeping the article up as a public service to those individuals searching Wikipedia for information on "Dimitri the Lover". There are enough people searching your encylopedia for information on him to in essence create self-fulfilling criteria to keep the article up. Anyway way you slice it, the article should stay.208.113.46.52 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)— 208.113.46.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I'm not really arguing against you but I'm not sure I ever found the sources that struck me as reliable covereage of, another subjective qualifier, significant coverage of his life. I guess you could merge the relevant parts into other articles if in doubt- docs who lost license due to sexual misconduct, churches based on sexual activities, etc. If you just want page views, put terms like "Erin Andrews" on each page, raw counts like this aren't always in keeping with various other objectives and it isn't hard to get page views with any sex associated terms. I would especially agree with keeping the doubtful pages and never expected to want to delete anything when I first got here. I guess if you look at it from exclusion criteria- hoax, frivolous or nonsense, advertising, threatening, objectionably illegal, etc- and it can pass all of those I'd be inclined to vote keep. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To use your own point, most doctors who lose their license due to sexual misconduct do not found churches based on sexual activities, and most churches based on sexual activities are not founded by doctors that have lost their medical license for sexual misconduct. The story here is the man. He is both a lightening rod for controversy and the creator of much to be scorned, but not maligned. The "sex cult", professional controversy, "seduction guru" work, "medical-legal" work, #2 standing after Prime Minister Harper as a supervillain, creation of likely the most popular viral voicemails of all time, etc., all have one element in common--Dimitri. He is the common bond for all of them, making him notable. Individually, some of these elements are notable, but when the man as a whole is considered, he caused all of these events/entities to be created. Enough said. I stand by NOT DELETING the article.208.113.46.52 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC) — 208.113.46.52 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Could you possibly quote specific parts of the notability policy (general, and for individuals)? Which WP:RELIABLE_SOURCES could be used to prove his notability? As for keeping the article as a "public service" - that is not Wikipedia's job. Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Hits on other sites are not an indication of notability, as you point out. Hits on this article are also not an indication of notability - especially if those hits are the result of canvassing outside of Wikipedia, which I would guess they are. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 08:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE ON ETHICAL GROUNDSPlease visit the YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/HushUpDoc. I have been warning the general public in Toronto about Dr. James Sears' illegal activities and sordid sexual history for over a year. I participated in creating the Wiki article on him. I check up on this article every so often to confirm that his criminal history has not been edited out by his publicity people. I was disturbed to see that the article is now more "neutral", giving him de facto legitimacy. Furthermore, the fact that he has a movie coming out disturbs me greatly in that he may become a household name and spread his homophobic message of hate to the world. Every so often I see him parading around the city of Toronto being approached by fellow misogynists like some sort of a psychopathic rock star. I once mustered up the nerve to approach him and tell him how disgusting he was. I agree with the library scientist that he is notable enough on several grounds to be included in Wikipedia (like Hitler or Saddam Hussein); no one that can read and comprehend English can argue with that. TECHNICALLY DIMITRI QUALIFIES FOR AN ENTRY. However, from an ETHICAL perspective, to thwart his misogynistic rise to power, the entry must be deleted. I let the entry slide for over a year because it was slanted toward his disturbing past and acted more as a warning to any potential seduction students, lovers, or medical-legal clients. But now, it is too "balanced", humanizes him way too much, and must be deleted. I know that the other individuals that have referred to him above derogatorily know that he is NOTABLE ENOUGH for inclusion in Wikipedia but for the WRONG REASONS. I am confident that in their hearts they want to stop this man as much as I. Wikipedia, please do the right thing and delete this scummy excuse for a human being!209.202.78.3 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although I think this article should be deleted for the reasons I gave above, I would disagree with your comment. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge I always speak honestly and call a spade a spade, Steven. You don't seem to want to for fear of coming across as biased. I've lost a tad of respect for you. This whole facade of article deletion for some elusive technical reason is bullshit. You're censoring ... not that there's anything wrong with that because I agree with what you are doing wholeheartedly. At least I'm expressing the reason for what we are doing overtly, providing a web site dedicated to stopping this man, and advancing my reasons for doing so as a feminist and survivor of abuse. I hate people that mince words. The fact that neither you nor the other men objecting to this entry right now were anywhere to be found a year ago was because, like me, you agreed with the entry existing because it hindered Dimitri's agenda. Now that it advances his agenda of hate, it must be deleted. Anyway ... wink, wink, nudge, nudge ... as long as in the end it is deleted, thereby advancing my goal of stopping this man, I am happy! 209.202.78.3 (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop assigning motives to people's behaviour. One of our core guidelines for editors is to assume that other editors are just trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Personally, I had no idea the article existed until this week. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have every right to "assign motives". I have every right to judge you. Those are my opinions based on the tone of people participating in this discussion. I want Dimitri deleted from Wikipedia because he's a scumbag. I am being honest about my motives and yes, I am accusing you of NOT BEING HONEST ABOUT YOURS. Accept my opinion. Live with it.209.202.78.3 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL-SOAPBOXING?: I had a more a-la-pointe comment arachived on another board for less soapboxing than that. While 209.202.78.3 may not be soapboxing in the sense of adbancing a position, he is advancing a personal attack of questionable factual content and moralizing. Demonizing and memorializing don't server a purpose- even if you don't like the guy, the scholarly attitude may be something like "know your enemy" unless you have ever found ignorance or deception to be an asset. If you make a factual documentary on the topic, other people are able to decide or do original research. Go to the holocaust museum some time or watch any movies in Hitler, I doubt it they will take the tone you have suggested. PC-phobias, "misogynistic rise to power" are themselves value judgments and concerns about implications or the article and not its topic Indeed he may state various attitudes that have certain unfaborable implications towards others but we are not hear to determine if his fears have merit or not or add unhelpful adjectives. On a personal note that may be helpful, your attitude has prevented solving problems in many fields for a long time and personally this is why I like considering encyclopedia entries- being able to first look honestly at information, determine what it says and doesn't without regard for how it effects you personally is the first step in doing anything worthwhile. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the "soapboxing" is secondary to the fact that I am expressing my opinion that this wiki entry should be deleted. Secondly, nobody here is doubting that the "information" contained in Dimitri The "Lover's" Wikipedia is accurate. Rather, we are all collaborating in order to ensure that it is not disseminated any further to the general public from this medium. My motives may be very different than yours as to WHY the entry should be deleted, but in the end, we have a common goal. I am being HONEST and CANDID in saying that Dimitri is indeed notable and the information appears to be reasonably sourced and accurate, but that his entry must be deleted for ETHICAL REASONS. Stop attacking my motives and let's agree to disagree.209.202.78.3 (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, expressing opinions is fine with me and indeed can help the article but not everyone is receptive to that- expressing or disclosing motives is important and I do that myself when I happen to think about it but usually it is disclosure and not intended to draw support ( " I admit I don't like the whos down in whoville") .Normally soapboxing is using the forum to advance some position that may not be related to the article ("US out of Iraq") but the extent of irrelevant moralizing seems more to be more relvant to prosecuting some agenda either against the politically uncorrect, bad doctors, or sham religions or just this person- and I'm not attrtibuting motives just explaining likely conclusions one could draw from the text. I'm generally neutral- I guess if you took all the coverage of the person that extended beyond local interest you could write an article about him so notability may be possible. The article in any case should include all relevant verifiable facts with no attempt to promote any conclusion beyond that which already exists elsewhere. I'd imagine you are sincere if I had to read your mind or speculate on motives, but that's quite of topic. I'm really not sure what wikipedia objective or large social or scholarly objective you hope to achieve by suppressing this any more than the holocaust deniers think they are doing something useful. On my soapbox, bad bio's help remind us what more people would probably look like if they came out of the closet and that information would let everyone formulate more reasonable and sustainable policies and attitudes . There, how's that for moralizing? Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep First off, too many people here are arguing that the article should be removed for ethical reasons. Wikipedia does not and should not take a stance on the ethics of an article. Wikipedia is compendium of note worthy information. So all votes that are based on the ethical argument should be void. This notwithstanding, I would argue that he is most definitely note worth at this point, as there has been mainstream national news about him[1], significant YouTube traffic to his "voice message" (which I will grant in and of itself does not indicate notoriety), he has been featured in the documentary The Great Intoxication. He may be greatly disliked, but that doesn't affect his notability. JeffyP (talk) 20:40, 1 October 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) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hakeem (professor)

edit
Abdul Hakeem (professor) (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 biography of a living person without any references Snowman (talk) 20:47, 24 September 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 deleted by Nyttend per author's request below. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of school districts in Del Norte County, California

edit
List of school districts in Del Norte County, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary list - one item and a redlink at that. No activity since 2005. ukexpat (talk) 20:34, 24 September 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 nomination withdrawn

ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy

edit
ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy (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 and WP:RECENT Soxwon (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still WP:RECENT, won't be relevant two months from now... Soxwon (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree - more likely that ACORN won't be relevant two months from now. Ronnotel (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're joking right? If illegitimate relations were all it took to make something irrelevant than why do I still keep hearing about Bill Clinton? Soxwon (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really buy the analogy to Clinton, but believing this controversy is going to be forgotten in two months is hardly realistic. Republicans plan to queue this up as an issue for next year's election. Plus, ACORN has filed a lawsuit that promises to make headlines for months as the discovery process proceeds (if it's not kicked out of court first). Far too much here to discard as WP:RECENTISM. Ronnotel (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not just me saying that ACORN's viability is in question. See this USA Today article: For ACORN, controversy now a matter of survival Ronnotel (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course it is notable. Several major government agencies (Census Bureau and IRS) have taken significant action as a result of the documentary film released. Furthermore, both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives have taken substantial majority votes to cut off Federal funding. All of this is documented in hundreds of news stories from the durably-archived major media. N2e (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re the proposer's assertion of WP:RECENT as one of her/his two criteria for AfD:
The Wikipedia:Recentism essay is a guideline that explicitly states that "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion—lack of attributability and notability are". In this case, both notability and attirbutability have been clearly established through two weeks and hundreds of edits on the topic within the ACORN article section where this material first came from. N2e (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see keep- the problem with arguing about whether its encylopedic and/or just trivial news is that nobody here has the perspective gained from looking back on it from the future. We just don't know whether or not the appearence of being more than just news is just appearence, or substance, and we can't for some time. The reason I'm going with keep over delete here is that I do believe there is some encyclopedic merit to this article. I am however, prepared, if this afd is re-opened in a couple of months to re-evaluate my opinion. For what its worth, and I can't remember the exact story, but congress' knee-jerk vote to remove federal funding from ACORN over this (of which it receives none anyway), may actually wind up accidentally cancelling some millitary spending as well. If true, this would certainly show the encyclopedic merit of this story. In summay- It seems encyclopedic, lets wait until we have a better viewpoint to decide for certain. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two asides- One, I'm actually surprised it took this long to get an article on the subject. Its been kicking around for weeks now with no sign of letup, and two: If kept, the article will need to be really re-written. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Hell this is a rather big deal if there was an actual US Congress vote against them, keep this it will be of historical importance as well as current importance. --WngLdr34 (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However, if need be I'd support a merge into the Acorn article proper, but for now keep it and give it another month till the hype dies down, then put it up again. --WngLdr34 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You have got to be kidding me. Of course, if this were some radical right-wing group, it would be kept.--Carolinapanthersfan (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - masses of sources to meet WP:GNG. The point about recentism hangs on whether there are longer term consequences. Already a number of significant political actions have been taken and and my judgement is that the implications will still be covered by reliable sources in future months. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Not notable? How does someone justify "not notable" for this one? Frotz (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's huge in the media, and I don't recall a case of so many federal agencies (and Congress) yanking money due to a privately done undercover operation. Citing WP:RECENT is beyond silly; it's an essay, an opinion, not a policy, guideline, or consensus view, and, besides, it says to consider overall perspective, not ban recent material. How can anyone seriously claim this is non-notable from a wider perspective? Calbaer (talk) 02:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly notable. In time, as others have noted, this might do better as a merged section of the main article, but for now it should stand on its own. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If the alleged misconduct is true, it will be a major blow, maybe even a fatal one, to an important 39-year-old nationwide advocacy group. If it's mostly or entirely false, it will still be notable as a major slanderous attack, just as the Killian memos remain notable despite the fact that they were proven to be largely forgeries. As a practical matter, this article was the first place I found that provided a fairly clear explanation of what the controversy was about. Please keep it. Pirate Dan (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously very notable. A lot of secondary source coverage, and growing daily. - Crockspot (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - likely search subject, useful to readers. Tom Harrison Talk 00:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not everything that makes the news is barred WP:NOTNEWS, and not everything that is recent is barred by WP:RECENT. I think the only strike against this one is that it could use a better title. Mandsford (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see keep - per my past statements at AfD and per Umbralcorax. I could easily argue that it is not notable: it is just a flash in the pan and another example of conservatives kicking a dead horse named ACORN. I'd tag it for WP:POV and WP:UNDUE, move on, and nominate it again in two months. Bearian (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obviously notable, since it involves multiple theaters and many significant players in American politics. Similar in content and notability as articles discussing other such controversies. Dragoneer (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tremendous keep. This video business (I don't want to say "incident", as it's gone far beyond that in my mind) has by now led to at least two votes in the United States Congress, one in the Senate and one in the House. I don't think it's stretching a point to say that the videos helped drive both votes in the direction in which they ultimately went. I know it's a tad early to say, but I don't see this going away for ACORN any time soon. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One damn big event. Done with two kids whose ages add up to 45, a camera and grandma's fur coat. Take on a huge, influential organization, shake it up like a massive earthquake and maybe even bring it down, get an article on Wikipedia. The innovation in combining cheap but concealed video (a $1,300 operation in total, right?) and somewhat daring concept, done by newbies (or amateurs) is deeply innovative and sets one heck of an example. It's impossible to think that this will be forgotten years from now. It's easy to imagine others doing this and shaking up American and world journalism. It's now impossible to ignore ACORN's problems. The subject easily meets WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:WHATEVER JohnWBarber (talk) 19:52, 26 September 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 The Inferior. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peadar Ó Guilín

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

Non-notable author of one book... fails WP:AUTHOR... Adolphus79 (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary: I did not see significant coverage of the subject of this AFD per WP:N nor was there evidence that would qualify the subject under either WP:PEOPLE or WP:AUTHOR. There may be sufficient coverage The Inferior that would warrant merging some of this bio into The Inferior. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and Don't Merge. Isn't the fact that Peadar wrote a popular, influential novel reason enough to keep this article? His book has recieved wonderful reviews, and this reflects his skill as an author. Peadar deserves his own page. GrandMattster 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:AUTHOR? The book is notable, yes, but the author is not... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I change my vote to Merge. GrandMattster 17:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But how would you merge the two without being awkward? I haven't read an article on a book yet that includes information on the author on any significant scale... GrandMattster 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this situation is rare and so I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Author is not notable but the book is. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book is not glaringly notable, it only barely passes notability guidelines because it has received a handful of reviews... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with The Inferior. Adding a paragraph entitled "Author" with brief but complete coverage maybe, until more sources come out. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the other two articles (the notable book --it's not borderline, SLJ+Kirkus is enough, they are both extremely selective)-- and the "series" which at present consists of only the one book) into the article for the author. An author can write more books. If the first is successful, they usually do. In doubt, this should be the place to put the material, The one thing we should not have at this stage is >1 article--where we put the single article is less important. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 30 September 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. There is no agreement here as to whether or not ordinary editing can resolve concerns or if this topic is inherently unsuitable for an encyclopaedic list.  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dictators

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

Inherently POV title. To pluck a few examples: I think one can find at least some who say the following are not dictators: Maumoon Abdul Gayoom (who, I might add, lost power in an election after this list was written for Conservapedia); Hugo Chávez (a debate that belongs, perhaps, here - not in trite capsule form telling us how he "banned The Simpsons"); Ruhollah Khomeini (not quite so simple); Slobodan Milošević, Getúlio Vargas (repeatedly won elections and allowed an opposition, even if autocrats), and so forth. - Biruitorul Talk 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article is ... well its not neutral and needs cleanup. We can't just delete it, this list might be useful as a first source or guide to research. --WngLdr34 (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate the sentiment, but there's a conundrum here. If we find a reliable source with, say, a table of dictators, then we privilege that POV over others. And if we find dozens of sources each labelling every one of these individuals "dictators", then we are left with a mass of disparate POVs in entirely different contexts all rolled up into one list, and are also going to be privileging one set of POVs over another. Either way, I don't see how this could be done neutrally. A far better solution is to have coherent articles on each of the individuals discussed, and therein, in the proper context, paraphrase whatever relevant remarks a reliable source or sources have had to say about a particular individual being a dictator. - Biruitorul Talk 21:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently POVed (I can't help but parrot Biruitorul here - though I assure him it's more a case of "great minds think alike") and not that useful for structuring the many and diverse interpretation of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Maybe it's not a case of "opinion" in n cases, nut it is so in n+1, and n+1 may turn out to be the POVed majority on such flawed lists. Focusing on just those cases that are, for the sake of argument, beyond doubt as a means to preserve the list is just not constructive in the long run. Also note that the corresponding category was deleted and deleted and deleted. Dahn (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree, this is inherently POV. I did a spot check of some of the people listed. Out of the 14 entries I checked 3 of the articles called the person a dictator. One of them it was only in the title of one of the references, no where in the text of the article was the word dictator used. This is just a subjective listing of people who someone calls a dictator. I do not see any hope that this will be a neutral listing. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looking again at this again in the new day, I just am not sure my recommendation is correct. I still have concerns about the POV nature of this list, but is that a reason to delete it, I am not sure that it is. I think the lede needs to be reworked with a very specific inclusion criteria so that the list can be cleaned up and only those people who are dictators are left. That is the major problem with this list, the inclusion criteria is so generic that it is easy to justify a large # of questionable people on the list. I believe the first step should be the article on each person. The person should only be listed on this page if the consensus on the article is to call them a dictator. I will start a section on the article's talk page to discuss this. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of dictators for the previous AfD. See also List of modern day dictators (deleted), a category deleted, and, on a lighter note, with many of the same arguments, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supermodels Wizzy…☎ 10:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As already said, unavoidably POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the last AFD should have been closed keep, I don't understand why it was not. Well researched article, which may need cleanup. Why not change the name nominator, and remove the questionable sections to talk first, instead of putting this entire article up for deletion? Ikip (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was involved in this the last time it came up. The problem is that people want to add George W. Bush and others - there is no good reference to say who is or is not a Dictator. Wizzy…☎ 09:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then through consensus we can make sure the article doesn't have entries like George W. Bush. There are vandals and fringe editors on many pages, that is no reason to delete those pages, it just means the community must be more valiant. I would be happy to help vigousously police this article with you Wizzy, and I will remove any names right now you feel are inappropriate. Partial protection from new editors is another option too. Ikip (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I contacted all of the editors about this AFD who participated in the last AFD. Ikip (talk) 09:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, off course, it is well-researched, it is 95% original research New seeker (talk) 09:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The examples the nominator cites can be addressed by editing. There is probably no reliable, third-party source that would claim that people like Hitler or Stalin were not dictators. So they can be in such a list. That there are people on it where there are no such sources only means that those should be removed or sourced. Not that the whole list needs to be deleted. SoWhy 09:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I quite agree that most every reliable source will cal Stalin or Hitler (or Mao, or Mussolini, or Idi Amin, or Ne Win) "dictators". I merely contend that the appropriate course is to discuss that in their respective biographies, not to have a list combining disparate POVs that will (because of the absence of a single standard on what constitutes a "dictator") forever be subject to shifts in what entries are included and why. - Biruitorul Talk 13:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not a valid reason for deletion though. If we call them dictators in all other articles, how is it more POV to list them? Compare this to List of current monarchs for example. The term "monarch" is equally POV because it has no standard as well. Is the Pope a monarch? Are only people with crowns monarchs? Only those who rule a monarchy? What about the Co-Princes of Andorra? Such lists have their place, they are encyclopedic. Issues with inaccuracies are subject to editing, not deletion. Regards SoWhy 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The term "monarch" is equally POV because it has no standard as well. That's simply not true. In fact, the assertion is ridiculous. Countries have constitutions that describe their ruling systems, which are either explicitly indicated as monarchies or outlined in such a manner as to fall in the universally accepted description of monarchies from an institutional point of view. Very few dictatorships are formalized into organic laws, and usually not even there explicitly so. The two cases you mention are a flawed analogy. For one, they compare two supposed exceptions with an infinity of uncertainties, and claim that it's "the same thing". It's not. The dictators list relies on a subjective denominator that has been used and reused in conflicting definitions; the lists of monarchs have not been interpreted either, particularly the ones where the object of the definition is occupying a certain throne. There simply is no comparison here. Furthermore, the exceptions you claim are in fact not exceptions, of any kind. Yes, both the popes and the co-princes of Andorra are monarchs - the world has this thing called elective monarchy. Finally, you are comparing controversies on the definition of "dictator" proven to exist in the outside world (among scholars etc.) with something you yourself believe is ambiguous (even when it really isn't ambiguous). Dahn (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yet you will not find the term "monarch" or "monarchy" used in our article Pope because the Vatican is not a traditional monarchy, but rather a dictatorship with elected leaders (like in Ancient Rome) or maybe an oligarchy (since only a few people elect the Pope rather than all members of the Church or all citizens of Vatican City. But that was simply an example of another list and its entries that might be disputed. We have an article about dictatorship that lists some of those on the list discussed here and defines the term. Your logic does not mean that the list needs to be deleted. It only means that it should only encompass people that have been universally accepted to (have) be(en) dictators. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and the likes have their place on that list. Chavez or Bush don't. Regards SoWhy 19:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't know what I'll find and won't find in the wiki article on Pope, not do I trouble myself with that. In general, I think very little of arguments that rely on judgment calls made in other articles instead of references to the outside world. I note however that you will find "The politics of Vatican City takes place in an absolute elective monarchy" in Vatican. For just cause, because the main element your argument is missing is awareness of the notorious issue of the pope's separate powers as a sovereign, in addition to his powers as a church leader and, in theory, sovereign of sovereigns (something that the history of Europe revolved around down to the 19th century, and is represented in the three crowns symbol of the papacy). The pope is an absolute monarch of a state, but that is only one of his powers, and is secondary to his status as a pope. Whether or not the wiki articles address that or not is ultimately of little relevancy. So is the claim about what is being done in the article on dictatorship, for two reasons: an article can by definition expand on an issue without prioritizing a claim out of several; an article doing something stupid now is not a reason to replicate that stupid thing elsewhere. And yes, we know that the keep votes like to refer to the cases of Stalin and Hitler, but below, above and throughout, several users, including I, have presented many cases in which the application of the term is neither that obvious not that common. Pretending that there's nothing between, say, Mussolini and Chavez is simply absurd - everything is in there as far as that list is concerned, cases of people who have been deemed dictators by some sources but not by others. And in fact, to point yet another paradox, Chavez has been deemed a dictator whether you approve of it or not, just like others who are on the list have been deemed dictators by some but not by all - the difference is that you would think Chavez's inclusion is frivolous, based on your own POV. Incidentally, I myself think Chavez is a dictator, and I can cite just several sources who agree. The difference between my inquiry and your proclamation is that I know what is factual and what is subject to interpretation, and claim no absolute solution to a thorny issue that not even people in some area of scholarship can agree on. That is the point of this discussion. a list of people who I or you or someone thinks are dictators is not. Dahn (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The above was only an example. No, such a list should only include such examples that are generally agreed to be dictators and not such examples like Chavez or Bush that are disputed. Would you please elaborate why this list, if it only included names like Mussolini, Hitler or Stalin, would have to be deleted? Regards SoWhy 21:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm afraid this is becoming an issue of logic. For one, who is to say what is "generally agreed" upon in thins case, maybe beyond Hitler, Stalin etc. The whole issue I tried to outline above is that the majority of inclusions you'd think belong there would be disputed, just like that, based on sources debating this in the real world. At the end of this process, you'd be left with a list with names not like Stalin and Hitler, but exactly with a list grouping Stalin and Hitler and some others, that you might just as well call "List of Stalin, Hitler etc." Because, as long as there's no special authority at all to decide who isn't and is a dictator, there's nothing in the title that would prevent users from adding a huge numbers of names that have been associated with the notion of "dictator". In fact, Biruitorul explained this paradox above, in more eloquent terms than mine: "If we find a reliable source with, say, a table of dictators, then we privilege that POV over others. And if we find dozens of sources each labelling every one of these individuals "dictators", then we are left with a mass of disparate POVs in entirely different contexts all rolled up into one list, and are also going to be privileging one set of POVs over another." The issue is not to satisfy my POV or his by removing those entries we prove are questionable, but not to create lists that provide no info beyond conflicting or whimsical POVs. And lastly, your type of questioning poses a Loki's wager on all of us and walks away smiling. Dahn (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Again, I agree that there are certain people that only are viewed as dictators by certain sources. But as you yourself agree, there are those who are universally agreed to (have) be(en) such dictators. A list with 10 entries is still a valid list and one could add the other names as "list of people labeled as dictators" or similar. The very idea that we need to delete a whole article because some people will certainly use it to push a POV is, frankly, ridiculous. Of course they will. But we can make that argument with every article. No, if someone uses an article to push a POV, then we punish them for it, not the article. If there are conflicting sources, we can point that out in the article (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship). It's not our job to prevent people from knowing such POVs, it's our job to clearly label them as such where there is encyclopedic interest to include them. If a large share, but not all, scholars say "X is a dictator", we can include X and add "note: Notable scholars Y, Z and A disagree". Or, to use your metaphor: Your solution to Loki's Wager is to simply take the whole of Loki because that way you will get the head for sure. But that way you also take what is not rightfully yours. Regards SoWhy 12:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are called Dictators in the news media aren't they? Its an appropriate list. The Parade section of the Sunday newspaper in America shows some of them every year on its worse dictators in the world list. Dream Focus 15:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we can verify that someone called them a dictator. If someone from the news media calls someone the greatest football player of all time, does that make it correct? Or is that actually POV opinion being stated by a third party? The media in Iraq didn't call Hussein a dictator, but ours did. Whose POV is right and whose is not? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone doubt that the former Iraqi leader was a dictator? His media was controlled by him, and he raped, tortured, and murdered anyone that spoke out against him as well as their family members to terrorize them more so. Coming to power by force, having fake elections or no elections at all to remain in power, makes you a dictator. Inheriting leadership from someone who had it before you, for a few generations at least, makes you a king. Dream Focus 16:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Again, it is a bad and unconstructive idea to start discussing from the cases where you think the term does apply and moving your way "up" (continuum fallacy). It is also a bad idea to appeal to what we may agree to in a subjective, if probably correct, assessment (argumentum ad populum). The point here is not about the "obvious" cases - which don't validate the list -, but about the fact that the term itself is inoperable in the long run, and that there is actually no set of given objective criteria that make one a dictator beyond doubt. Many inclusions or potential inclusions on that list may be what you find justifiable, but: a) wikipedia is not structured around an opinion; b) this does not anything for the others, which are debatable and debated. Invariably, these complex issues are best addressed by articles and sourced third-party statements in those articles, not by the pop culture theories of "I heard it through the grapevine" and "I saw it on the telly".
Let's take your statement: "Coming to power by force, having fake elections or no elections at all to remain in power, makes you a dictator. Inheriting leadership from someone who had it before you, for a few generations at least, makes you a king." The variables contained in this phrase alone would require a case by case assessment that is better addressed by referenced texts. There are plenty of people who were deemed dictators and did not come to power by force - Stalin, Hitler, Zhivkov, Ceauşescu, Antonescu, Tsedenbal, Pétain etc. In fact, the very concept of "dictatorship" was coined for people who were assigned the office by some form or collective or even participative and legitimate government (from Ancient Rome to the 19th century caudillos, this aspect of the name responds an entirely different political culture). In many cases, the power of a dictatorial regime is shared by a collective leadership, whose members are not individually known as dictators (as is the case with concepts such as junta, dictatorship of the proletariat, democratic centralism, Committee of Public Safety, Derg, The Colonels etc.). As for monarchies not being dictatorships and being "absolute" as the only such option, the example is notoriously questioned by institutionally monarchic dictatorships which were by no means absolute, and whose leaders were often known as dictators to the outside world: Napoleon, Carol II, Boris II to name just a few. The very term of absolute monarchy corresponds to a different institutional reality, and, in modern times, was only applied to states where the constitutional order did now allow for any representative bodies - Saudi Arabia, Selassie's Ethiopia, Bokassa's "Empire" etc.
In other words, the list we're discussing is a narrow interpretation of a very complex reality, ans such issues are simply not addressed by lists. Just how many times need we go through this? Dahn (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is Hugo Chávez a dictator? Oliver Stone says no. Pejman Yousefzadeh says yes. Whom do we believe? What about Vladimir Putin? A Russian casino manager says yes. McFaul and Goldgeier say no (or did, at any rate, in 2005). Do you really want to play this silly game? Or would you rather just keep it within the confines of the entries' biographies? There, provided reliable sources have something to say on the matter, at least the debate has contextual relevance; here it has none. - Biruitorul Talk 17:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Biruitorul's nomination is on point. I don't see how it's possible to concretely define "dictator" when there are so many POVs from various sources across the planet. The discussion directly above me illustrates this well, and why a simplistic definition simply doesn't work. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many terms which have varying definitions, and this is no worse than any other political term. There's a definition on the page, and I think it's a pretty good one for Wikipedia purposes in making a list. The political question is more likely to be whether a person is considered a benevolent dictator. The actual contents of the page are almost all unambiguous. If Chavez is ambiguous, the question can be discussed, and consensus followed., The page does more than most such pages, is actually summarizing the evidence, and people can then judge as they choose. I think the concept of "inoperable in the long run" is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia--we deal with individual situations as they arise, not the fact that sometime in the future the page might become unmaintainable. The argument between dictator and king is besides the point. Is there any doubt Stalin was one, and Louis XIV was the other? There will always be borderline situations. There is one set of truly ambiguous cases in the list--Napoleon I and III. This is no reason to invalidate the list as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ambiguity here, as was endlessly pointed is not "borderline", it is at the core of the matter - this does invalidate the list as a whole, as I believe I have shown with my comments above. Let's also note that arguments such as those above mix the criteria for the definition: nobody is discussing the nature of dictatorships ("dictator" as a cuss), and whether or not it is PC to call someone a dictator; that is your straw man fabricated by the "keep" votes from the "delete" vote. What we are discussing is the institution of "dictatorship", and it was shown that the definition of this institution differs not in respect to benevolent or malevolent, but in respect to the attributes a national leader must use/usurp in order to be a dictator. As for the monarchs thing, note that I was answering to someone who claims, with the same optimism you display here, that there is an innate difference we all can see between an absolute monarch and a dictator. All of these are arguments from personal belief, and they don't address the issue. So is the absurd claim that we should vote on who is and isn't a dictator. Dahn (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note That is obviously not the issue. Dahn (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was not the issue then why did the nominator make these names the central argument for deletion? My five minutes working on this article shows that there was no effort to improve the article before this article was put up for deletion. I am reading a lot of slippery slope arguments above. Example: "The point here is not about the "obvious" cases - which don't validate the list -, but about the fact that the term itself is inoperable in the long run". Instead of deleting the entire article, why not work on cutting the article down to the "obvious" cases? By taking five minutes to remove these names, I negate these slippery slope arguments also. Ikip (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the central argument was (and is) that the term "dictator" is inherently POV and endlessly subject to shifting definitions, and cannot be presented in neutral form as part of a list. And removing the examples doesn't improve the list one bit - after all, you can find many sources indicating those individuals (Milošević, anyone?) were dictators. Or why isn't Putin on the list? Shouldn't he be? And if he is, are we sure we want him there? I don't think this is a game worth playing. - Biruitorul Talk 21:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It got here before I had a chance to do that, so I left well enough alone. The point is to have a discussion & get a decision. NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. To me, the average Wikipedia reader should have an expectation that a list like this is supported by the detailed articles in Wikipedia. When I ckicked through to articles in the list, I only sometimes found information that this leader was a dictator or led a government that used any dictatorial methods. If the article about an individual does not give sourced facts that support he was a dictator, then my conclusion is that this list has a point of view issue. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with this article is to find a NPOV definition of a dictator. It is the same problem as that one man's rebel (or terrorist) is another man's freedoms fighter. Whay are the characteristics of a dictator? I would suggest that we might consider: totalitarian tendency (which probably excludes Oliver Cromwell); attained power unconstitutionally (but I am not sure about that); (What else?). What is the difference between a dictator and a monarch - except that monarch tends to be hereditary and may be subject to constitutional restraints on their power. I think the solution to this debate is Close as keep and continue discussion on talk page with a view to getting an article dictator with a clear definition. Having done that, it should be possible to edit the article into a robustly justifiable list. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is fine. Individual entries may be contested but deleting the entire list for this reason would be contrary to our editing policy. To resolve individual entries, we discuss them on the article's talk page and establish consensus by reference to reliable sources which we weigh according their authority, preponderance and quality. This is just what we have to do for all other articles which can be disputed in just the same way, if you want to be difficult. For example, see List of rivers by length or List of highest mountains which have numerous practical difficulties of measurement and definition. Per Voltaire and Ted Kennedy, "never let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Colonel Warden (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're missing the main point: the problem is not individual entries (though many of them are certainly problematic); it's that "dictator" is a subjective standard over which there is much debate among scholars for a proper definition. There is no special authority to decide who is or is not a dictator, and we can't assume that role ourselves (which the list claims to do). - Biruitorul Talk 23:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scholars debate the scope of applicability for almost every useful descriptive term, we cant allow that to force us to delete such a valuable article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to give an example? For instance, the list of current monarchs is not under serious debate: scholars have agreed on what sort of typology constitutes a monarchical system. Same with parliamentary system, presidential system, semi-presidential system: not set in stone, but more or less agreed upon. Not the case with dictatorships. - Biruitorul Talk 14:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is trivial to dispute the list of current monarchs as a moment's inspection reveals that this list contains Nicolas Sarkozy, not commonly considered royalty. He is there because he is nominally joint ruler of Andorra but this makes him a duumvir, not a monarch which, by definition, is a single person. No doubt there are more such corner cases in the list, such as the Sultans of Malaysia, who rule in rotation, and so on. One can nitpick like this about anything but it's not what we're here for. BTW, I was browsing a bookshop earlier and saw a book entitled Great Dictators. It was about Bokassa and the like. Writing extensively on this topic seems easy as there are numerous good sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may not have heard of the joint monarchs William and Mary, or of the concept of an elective monarchy, or of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (ruled over jointly by the King of the United Kingdom and the King of Egypt), but the fact that not all monarchies fit precisely one model does not make them non-monarchies in the eyes of political scientists. (See here, for instance.) I'd be curious to see any expert argue that the President of France is not the monarch of Andorra, or that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is not the monarch of Malaysia, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a useful list for finding articles on different dictators. There are several books about dictators as a whole, this is very much an encyclopaedic topic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories too are useful for finding stuff. But Category:Dictators has been deleted again and again and again. Sort of makes you wonder, doesn't it? And yes, of course books have been written on dictatorship. That's a valid concept in political science, and worthy of our attention. But a list of dictators, given the absence of a neutral standard for "dictator", is beyond our scope. - Biruitorul Talk 14:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No new reason(s) for deletion since previous AfD have been given. Content disputes over list entries are not a valid reason to delete entire list. Deletion policy or precedents have not changed enough since last AfD to warrant hearing this case second time. jni (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, this is not primarily a content dispute; the crux of the matter is the lack of a standard, neutral, commonly accepted definition of "dictator" that we could be reasonably expected to apply here. (Note that none has been proposed, either.) Second, procedurally speaking, you've got it backwards: previously deleted material recreated in substantially the same form (and it was previously deleted) is subject to speedy deletion, not to the debate we're now having. - Biruitorul Talk 16:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We do not have a commonly accepted definition of emotion either but we still have list of emotions. Should we delete it as well? As for procedural matters, you are right: I remembered only after voting that the previous Afd of List of dictators was closed as DELETE against concensus with dubious comment "Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy." It should have been taken to deletion review as out-of-process deletion but apparently was not. Therefore I'm not deleting it per CSD G4 and recommend other admins to decline doing so. Letting this normal AfD process to run its course is likely the most efficient way to resolve this issue. jni (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is an important difference between list of emotions and this listing, consensus and contentiousness, the consensus supporting core policy outweighs the unverifiable assertions of editors of newspapers and talk pages. 38 kilobytes of discussion with no improvement says a lot. cygnis insignis 19:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Referring to other Wikipedia articles to back up one's argument isn't recommended (since we're not a reliable source), but OK. The list of emotions makes clear that the entries are the POV of particular scholars, who then go on to list the entries. It doesn't make up a definition from thin air and then apply that definition (see WP:NOR for that). - Biruitorul Talk 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Category:Dictators has been deleted, and Category:Dictatorship is not for dictators I fail to see how this list can ever achieve NPOV status. Both the right and left wing love to label people from the other side dictators, and the also love to argue about it. This article does not and can not serve Wikipedia's purpose of creating an encyclopedia based on consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem lies in defining the list as including people who are "commonly regarded as modern dictators". A list of world leaders who have referred to themselves as dictators would be appropriate because this can be proven without a doubt in reliable sources, but this list is inherently subjective and therefore is a breach of NPOV. We can't define people to be dictators, nor can we set an arbitrary line as to who is or is not a dictator. That is beyond the scope of this encyclopedia. ThemFromSpace 22:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NPOV categorically does not require that this list be deleted, or even renamed as a matter of fact. The term Dictator is attributable to muliple significant reliable sources for many many figures. Contradictory opinions are not barred from the List, but FRINGE views are, and there is a difference. MickMacNee (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're saying, "let's call X a dictator because A said he's one; let's call Y a dictator because B said he's one; let's call Z a dictator because C said he's one". I find that a flawed argument. First, this is tantamount to mixing a large number of disparate POVs expressed in widely divergent contexts and forcibly applying them into this one list. We should have neutral agreed-upon definitions applied by scholars, which of course hasn't been done for dictators (in the sense that who is and isn't a dictator is still widely contested by political scientists). Second: what if one reliable source calls someone a dictator and another one specifically negates he's one? Whose POV prevails? Why not realise no standard quantifying dictators (as opposed to presidents, prime ministers and monarchs) actually exists? - Biruitorul Talk 06:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is my suggested replacement for this list: Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin. Please explain why this three element list is "inherently POV" or "against non-negotiable core policy that cannot be overridden by concensus". Would any reasonable man really contest labeling any of these people as dictators, that is, is there a valid non-fringe POV against their inclusion? If the list can be reduced, then there is no reason to delete it. jni (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your idea that we have to choose who is right, is just wrong. Your idea that we have to define ourselves what a dictator is, is just wrong. Your idea of what NPOV says, is frankly, just wrong. You can think my argument is flawed all you want, but it's based on what the policy actually says. MickMacNee (talk) 11:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course it is problematic but surely a list of Dictators is encyclopedic? --Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (no prejudice against delete votes) but trim to modern dictators. Maximilien Robespierre and Oliver Cromwell don't belong there. NVO (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NPOV policy outlines what is possible in articles; context, attribution, verifiability, etc. This is list, a collation of names based on a highly subjective term, it is currently an unreferenced synthesis. Even if a citation for a list could be found, what reliable source would publish such a contentious list. As a self-identifying term, I can think of only one example:

    A man went to a party dressed as a potato, someone said, "great costume, but did you know your ... "

    His answer would qualify him for inclusion here, the rest of this is a joke. cygnis insignis 12:22, 30 September 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 Close as this is a redirect. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L is real 2041

edit
L is real 2041 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sign in SM64 supposedly says 2401, not 2041 Funky on Flames (user;talk;edits) 19:28, 24 September 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 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dipanjan biswas

edit
Dipanjan biswas (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, unsourced, possible hoax. There are only two Google hits for his "famous" poem "Ei Chotto Meye": the page up for deletion, and a mirror of wiki histories. The article and the talk page comments make it clear that he's a very young undergraduate.

Completely unsourced. After a long talk page exchange, the only source offered has been a list of students which includes his name. Nothing to suggest notability, nothing to even suggest he's a poet. (He's a student in "Electronics & Telecommunication").

While I don't expect a huge number of English sources about this sort of thing, not even Bengali language sources are being offered after much prodding.

I'm guessing either hoax, overactive imagination, or a complete misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. Hairhorn (talk) 19:23, 24 September 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) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Cardone

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

Repeatedly prodded, bio of physicist with non-standard theories. Nominating to get representative opinions and community decision. My own view is Uncertain at this time. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was latest prodder and was unaware of previous prods. My concerns are not with non-standard theories at this time but rather that this bio does not meet WP:PROF criteria. Furthermore article seems to be created by Fabio Cardone himself which brings up WP:COI issues. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found it in articles needing wikifying. After consultation I think he doesn't meet WP:PROF. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Article is basically a not too impressive CV, indicating that he is not notable, at least not under WP:PROF. So, unless proof is presented that Cardone's row with Santilli generated significant press coverage, I'd say delete. (TimothyRias (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Weak delete as TimRias. He wrote books, which usually makes me lean towards keep, but they don't look notable at all. Not notable under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sufficient to meet notability criteria. Jim Carmel (talk) 16:54, 26 September 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 21:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding sheep

edit
AfDs for this article:
Exploding sheep (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 seems to be mainly a topic in video games. Exploding sheep, I am sure, make for notable visuals, but the topic in its own right is not notable. That a bunch of games have exploding sheep, and that there's a band called "Exploding Sheep," that doesn't make for a notable topic, and I note that the references contain only mentions of exploding sheep, not significant in-depth discussion of the concept and philosophy of exploding sheep. I do not believe this to be a cultural occurence of any importance, and have not seen any evidence of the cultural, social, or anthropological significance of this phenomenon, if indeed it is a phenomenon. While the existences or non-existence of other articles is not always relevant, I would like to point out to defenders of this wiki that Exploding house is not a notable topic, and anyone who has seen The Longest Day knows that houses explode as well as or better than sheep, and, in the movies and in video games, with much greater frequency. This suggests to me that the present article is little more than a convenient cover-up for those seeking an outlet for childhood and adult frustrations they believe to be incurred by exposure to these lovely, woolly creatures (or possibly lack thereof? had to settle for a dog or a cat?). Drmies (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: after looking over the previous AfD, I would suggest to editors that the mere occurence or mention of an exploding sheep is not enough to establish notability for this topic. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The fact that several independent groups have kept it, unlike my vote to delete the Donkey article means we should keep it. --WngLdr34 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as well. I mean sure it has happened in lots of games, and some of it is referenced, but it is notable? Anything can be blown up. Has a sheep ever blown up and killed somebody in real life? Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or merge The article needs help, but the concept has been around long enough to have played a significant plot element in the novel Far From the Madding Crowd, written in 1874. If exploding sheep have been covered in media for 125 years, it's not just a videogame thing. The article could use a lot of expansion and work, but as a subject matter, its probably worth keeping around. As an alternative idea to deletion, per WP:PRESERVE, the article could be merged partially with Bloat, which is the actual medical problem leading to exploding sheep. --Jayron32 19:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Its most certainly not a "cultural occurrence of any importance" but it seems to be a cultural theme significant enough for observation. Exploding houses are not as inherently as amusing; this is closer to the lines of More cowbell. --Milowent (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Exploding animal. Notable for sure, but a better place to put the material. A previous AfD has been rapidly withdrawn and merged Exploding toad within that same article. It seems to me that a robust article on these phenomena is better than a scattered collection of articles on single exploding animals. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable aspect of popular culture. Dream Focus 10:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is original synthesis (WP:SYN). Yes, there are citations to reliable sources showing that each game has an exploding sheep in them. But no, none of these sources show that there is any kind of meme here. Strip away the synthesis, and we basically have a "List of video games that include exploding sheep". Marasmusine (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Marasmusine's argument should be considered by the aye-sayers above: sure there are plenty of sheep, but that those are cooler than exploding buildings doesn't make it a more suitable encyclopedic topic. I'm still waiting for someone to produce a reference that helps this topic be notable. Remember, this pedia of ours relies on reliable secondary information, and so for there is none to be found, only mentions of instances. If this were merged with Exploding animals, one could possibly get away with such original research (i.e., counting videogames with exploding sheep and counting exploding sheep in those games), but for a free-standing topic, we need more. Dream Focus, if this is such a notable aspect of popular culture (a rather vague and probably Western-centered statement--it probably discredits any culture not spending so much money on video games), can you produce a significant, in-depth discussion of the topic? Drmies (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If they're used this much in video games, they;re notable. There is a preconception here that significant memorable background elements in popular culture cannot be notable--agreed that their appearance in any one game isn;t enough for an individual article about that, but overall the element seems to be. The article properly avoids OR about what the appeal of this might be, but I wouldn;t be surprised if there were even sources for that. In fact, looking, there does seem to be one GScholar article that's relevant and could be added as an earlier example--and a discussion of the underlying humor behind that one. [2] . Looks like nobody on either side bothered actually checking, even though the GS hits are right at the top of the AfD. Sometimes I wonder at the quality of these discussions --we're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia based on sources, and nobody looks at them even when it's arranged to be done automatically. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 30 September 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 a7, nonexistent group with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Conservative Alliance

edit
Modern Conservative Alliance (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 as an unremarkable group of a multiplayer computer game. A little insignificant talk to me! (please!) 18:46, 24 September 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 Agni. NW (Talk) 03:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abhimani

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

Article about a Sanskrit term, not used in English, that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Agni for now, as that is the most common use. There may be other meanings that may justify a disambiguation page at some stage, but keeping the article in the current state is not useful. (I'll reconsider my !vote, if someone creates a disambiguation page before this AFD closes). Abecedare (talk) 01:06, 30 September 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 List of Christmas films. This is not an administrative action, but rather an uncontroversial editorial decision; therefore, it seems reasonable to speedily close this. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas films worldwide

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

Random list of Christmas related films. Largely OR. Orange Mike | Talk 18:41, 24 September 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 Exploding animal. Nomination withdrawn with intent to merge, so closing early. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding donkey

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

It's cute to have a bunch of articles on exploding animals, but this one shouldn't be one of them. That it was a donkey (or mule) to deliver a bomb in one or more cases does not make the subject "exploding donkey (or mule)" notable, and the complete lack of sources doesn't help. Note to possible exploding-donkey (or mule) rescuer: adding newspaper articles that mention that a donkey blew up a checkpoint does not help: we need solid sources that provide in-depth discussion of the donkey (or mule) as a bomb-delivery mechanism, including analysis of its history, the culture of training donkeys (or mules) for explosive purposes, the bond between handler and donkey (or mule), and yes, a controversy section. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per above and common sense. Just because something happened to explode once doesn't mean it's a notable concept; although it might warrant a mention as part of a broader article. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what, I am going to take all this as a hint and merge the thing. Julian, care to close this as withdrawn? I invoke boldness--actually, you know what, I'm going to wait until you tell me that it's not too early to close this. I'll be here with my finger on the trigger, ready to blow this donkey (or mule!) into Exploding animal. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 24 September 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 Same-sex marriage. NW (Talk) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same-sex marriage and procreation

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

Article isn't really an article, as the first sentence makes clear--and "Same-sex marriage and procreation" isn't an argument, of course. The article is cobbled together from others; for instance, the "Controversy" section is lifted out of Same-sex_marriage#Argument_concerning_reproduction, sources and all. I see nothing here worth saving: the contents are covered under the various articles linked to in the subsections, as are most of the references. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Same-Sex Marriage The content is good but it should be streamlined and merged with Same Sex Marriage, I am curious, was this original part of the same sex marriage article, just split into this? --User:WngLdr34 (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was my suspicion that this was a POV fork, but that's not exactly the case. The first version starts "In the long struggle to fully legalize same-sex marriage..." Sure, that's POV enough in its very language; the rest of the article basically consisted of a long, long overview of case history in the US with tons of quotes. Later, User:Gorillasapiens added the "controversy" section, here, which appears to be pasted from Same-sex marriage. It is because of that reason (what I think is of encyclopedic value in this article is already found elsewhere) that I proposed delete rather than start a merge-discussion--but I would not oppose a merge. I do want something to be done to this article that is not an article, something that is not just cleanup or a rephrasing. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevent and non-redundant information with Same-sex marriage and leave a redirect behind. Per WP:PRESERVE, that is likely the best way to handle this one. --Jayron32 19:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - I tried to clean it up (see talk page) but even so it was a big POV mess as written. I found myself wondering why we had a page on that one argument within the debate, which seemed to be better placed in the article on "same sex marriage" as a subsection. I didn't list it for merging, but I'd agree if someone else has now done so.

    All the article can really do is rehash the stances of different groups in that discussion, and their rationale. Although the argument is notable and POV alone isn't a good deletion reason, I have concerns whether its actually capable of sustaining a topic on its own, or that characterizing a specific argument in the debate like this can be fairly done in a stand-alone article. The thin-ness of the existing article tends to add weight to this concern. Better merged back into its parent context at this point, without prejudice if someone feels a useful subarticle could be fairly written in future on this one narrow point in the debate. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Same sex marriage. It's a weird synth of info and goes all directions, but there's some data that can probably be merged back into the main article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above and past consensus to delete; salt to prevent further vandalism. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - certainly this is an important aspect of the legal discussion, in fact the child-rearing argument was central to (and rejected in) one of the first same-sex marriage cases to garner national attention (in Hawaii in 1993) but the material can be covered neutrally in an "arguments against" type section in the lead article. Or perhaps an article that lists the various legal arguments advanced on both sides would be possible. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Abysmal sourcing and lacks neutrality, reads like a POV fork even if it isn't. Merging might be appropriate in conjunction with a full rewrite. Rivertorch (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: we have articles on Abortion, Pro-choice, and Pro-life; maybe, as we have an article on Same sex marriage and a section on Reproductive_technology#Same-sex_procreation, we could have an article on 'anti/pro-same-sex-marriage/reproduction', which this could be transformed into? it's a large issue, so presumably there'd be demand for articles on the pro-/anti- stances? --Arkelweis (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong don't merge. The Same-sex marriage article is huge and right in the middle of trimming and spinning out subarticles for just this sort of content. We don't need AfD damaging that article all because people don't like to delete. SSM marriage already has a better section than this on procreation arguments, and adding more detail would cause undue weight. What do people think should be merged: "having children is the underlying reason for marriage"?! People shouldn't vote merge without actually reading the target suggested. Instead Delete or redirect, as NPOV essay, with no predudice against recreation of a better article in the future.YobMod 13:13, 29 September 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. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of teachings attributed to Aristotle

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

Fork of material better included in Aristotle Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 24 September 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) 03:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green fundraising

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

Article on non-notable topic by s.p.a. whose website http://www.go-green-fundraising.com engages in, guess what, "Green Fundraising". Orange Mike | Talk 17:08, 24 September 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) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trampball

edit
Trampball (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 madeup game. PROD denied by anon IP. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No third-party evidence whatsoever of notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:11, 24 September 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) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Durham University Engineering Society

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

Google searches, in scholar, books, and web, show no reliable sources which demonstrate notability. No indication the organization meets any of the criteria at WP:ORG, either. lifebaka++ 16:18, 24 September 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) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iyuru

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

Lacks sources to show notability, and all indications are that such sources do not exist. The paper in which the theory will be contained has yet to be published, according to the article. PROD tag was removed without substantive comment. lifebaka++ 16:14, 24 September 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. NW (Talk) 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist genocide

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

Other editor edit conflict prevented production of normal tagging for AfD discussion. POV of this article is irreparably flawed. There is no improvement in article since closure of last AfD (talk page listed previous AfD as being in August, not 1 week ago). Simonm223 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and dispute this AfD process. This nomination is against WP:BEFORE and I believe is an attempt to forum shop. It is against WP:BEFORE because the article is currently under a request for move, which should be closed by an admin any time now (7 days after original posting) - with 11 editors in favour of moving, and two against. (the nominator of this AfD "conditionally" for, although that may be a position borne out of sarcasm). It's forum shopping, as an RfC was called earlier today by one of the other opposed editors, with as yet no impact on the consensus, and not even that has been allowed to run its course. A lot of work has been done to get agreement on how to move forward, and the title change is the first step.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second this, per the above. Pure forum shopping, and not constructive. --Anderssl (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing but a WP:SOAPBOX for anti-communist rhetoric, incorporating WP:EXTREMIST views. It should be Deleted and salted. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I invite others to take a look at talk:Communist genocide#Requested move II and the discussion to re-write the article based on good RS, removing the contentious word genocide, and the ambiguous grammar of "communist". This discussion is based on how to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, and a consensus has emerged. (as for salting, another editor opposed to the article's existence/move has unilaterally salted the destination article title while discussion was ongoing.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found more evidence of forum shopping and canvassing by Simonm223 (talk · contribs). In addition to holding this AfD just as consensus on how to improve the article had formed (and while there was an RfM and RfC still open) he has also opened a discussion at the NPOV noticeboard calling for speedy deletion and mentioning this AfD. He did not notify the Communist Genocide talk page of his discussions there. Seriously, is this not all rather against policy?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The forum shopping charge is baseless -- there is currently an ArbCom case surrounding off-Wiki canvassing and other policy violations on a number of articles, including the last AfD for this article. As demonstrated on the evidence page, the previous AfD was probably illegitimate; just looking at the numbers it is quite likely that without this orchestration by a "cabal," the previous vote would have been "delete." csloat (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - are you arguing that it is baseless because some other people were canvassing in a different AfD? That doesn't make sense. As for the article in its previous state at the time of that AfD - I would have voted for delete as well, all too happily (and the e-mail list helps to make sense of the number of keeps, which surprised me too). However, I am arguing "keep" now because we have changed the focus of the article from "Those damn Commie bastards" to "What analysts say about the connection between ideology and mass killings" (while trying to bat away the POV warriors) and are trying to reflect the RS that is there - RS that had not been brought up until recently. If you read the talkpage, you'll see that those who are doing the re-write are generally those who were opposed to the article's old content rather strongly.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was confused about the charge of forum shopping as Simon223 corrected me below. Sorry about that. The problem with this article is that the changed focus leaves nothing but a POV SYNTH essay - stringing together three obscure sources (at least one writing outside of their area of expertise) to make a claim that we then support with numerous examples of genocidal actions that are not connected to the discussion among the three sources (who actually aren't talking to each other either). Now, if there was a focus of academic discussion on the question of "is Communism ideologically connected to mass killings?" among more sources who actually talked to each other, even debated this topic at conferences, etc) that would be one thing, but that's not the case here. After months of trying, the best people have been able to come up with is three sources who aren't even talking to each other, and are not treating the question as an external question that is academically debated anywhere -- hell there is more academic focus on the question of whether democracies cause war and yet we don't have Warfare under democratic regimes. If we were to remove all OR from this article there would be those three quotations left and nothing else, and even with that those quotes' connection to each other (and to a verifiable scholarly discussion) is tenuous at best. csloat (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The supposed "forum shopping" in question was mentioning the AfD on two relevant noticeboards; the NPoV one (as this article, even in it's current form is a big PoV violation) andthe Fringe board, as another editor suggested on the talk page that I take up my WP:EXTREMISM concerns regarding a source used in the article when I decided to post the AfD (since removed) there. I am sorry but I don't see listing an article on two noticeboards, neither of which are politically oriented, as being "forum shopping" looking at WP:CANVAS I don't believe I acted incorrectly. Simonm223 (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is a rather strong form of forum shopping because there was an RfC and the RfM that both showed that people wanted to re-write the article. Posting messages to noticeboards about an AfD would be fine, if done neutrally - such as "There is an AfD regarding Communist genocide." - without any attempt to push it one way or the other. However, your post to NPOV noticeboard reads "The PoV of this article is irreperable. I am sure that if a Genocides perpetrated by Democratic States page were created it'd probably get speedily deleted as such it has been nominated for AfD. The whole article is one big WP:SOAPBOX for WP:EXTREMIST anti-communist positions." This is just the same as "Come and vote to delete this article. It's really bad!" i.e. campaigning. Your post to WP:FRINGE noticeboard is better, although your bald statement "it involves WP:EXTREMEIST" is curious, as you have been one of the people obstructing the attempt to get rid of WP:extremeist language in the article - i.e. the removal of the word genocide from the title. ("Communist" and "mass killing" are not WP:Extremist.). Extremist language in any case is not grounds for deletion, but for changing. You also did not leave any courtesy notices on the talkpage or here about your notifications.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly. Whenever one nominates an article for Afd it's because they have an opinion about it. And citing the fact that people are willing to improve an article that exists as a reason deleting it is "forum shopping" is also silly - if we have to keep the article we might as well improve it but that doesn't mean I think it should be kept. csloat (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article has been moved to Mass killings under Communist regimes Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - (editconflict) I can't understand how this had to come for a second discussion. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, upon learning of the canvassing in the previous AfD, I know understand what happened here. This article only exists because of a Cabal's actions. If it is not deleted, I think that this might be an excellent first article for WP:PSRP to take a look at. (The formation of the group was inspired by my thoughts that the articles might be savable, which changed upon learning of the cabal action.) Irbisgreif (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your reasoning. That was a different AfD. As far as I know, there has been no canvassing to "keep" this time; and the article is vastly different from what it was. It's regrettable that a cabal interfered (and made the article worse), but I believe we've got the POV people under control now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's been nothing of the sort this time, I'm not saying there is. I simply get annoyed at the idea of a cabal like that getting what they want. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and dispute this AfD process. as well. This article is factual, but the nominators seem to be suffering from Wikipedia:I DON'T LIKE IT Keep it for now, and let's have more debate before we delete this content. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Entirely disinterested in result 01:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Close this process early and unresolved The article is tripe. However, the article deserves at least 14 days, if not 30 days, after the move, to allow for rebuilding out of the located academic sources that explicitly theorise a link between Communist thought and mass killing. The purpose of the move was to rebuild the article on the basis of RS's theories, instead of on SYN/OR. Revisit an AFD after 14-30 days. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strike that...let's give it some time...at least this AfD attracted attention to trigger some re-write-efforts. On my watchlist now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have started a re-write - removing genocide from the centre of the article, as that was one of the key SYNTH issues. I have also taken out a lot of the basic anti-communist stuff, and phrased the lede to indicate that it is certain specific events that have attracted academic interest.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination was a bit premature as editors should have a chance to fix the newly renamed entry. However, it looks rather grim, especially under the new supposedly more neutral title. If there is a notable concept linking communist political ideology to genocide it certainly is not known as "mass killings under Communist regimes". How about "mass killings under ..." feudal monarchies or theocracy or republican regimes or etc. If it were acceptable here to structure entries like this we'd have over 30 million instead of 3 million. We can't just start listing mass killings that were sponsored by regimes identified as communist and pretend like it is meaningful. Is it factual, sure, but part of what WP:V and WP:N give us is a standard by which to judge concepts as meaningful. We assume to some extent that if something is covered by reliable sources then it is meaningful and therefore fodder for an encyclopedia. Using sources to actually show that "Communist genocide" is a meaningful concept (if that is possible) would have been the right way to go about this.PelleSmith (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and delete as WP:SYN if no serious effort to rewrite is being undertaken. "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is not a term that is commonly being used (8 hits on Google, none at Google books), so it cannot "refer" to anything (as the article's first sentence asserts). The quote containing the assertion that Friedrich Engels was talking about "racial trash" (which he apparently never did), taken from a book that is characterized as "controversial" by its own publisher, must either be removed or put into context. The most important step is to ascertain whether there is any scholarly term for what the article calls "Mass killings under Communist regimes" or not.  Cs32en  17:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to be a synthesis, and the subject itself doesn't appear notable. These regimes have little in common, so grouping them like this is pure bias. I'm British, and sad to say we used to be pretty good at genocide. Verbal chat 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verbal, you're not the only one, but you appear to have overlooked the recent talkpage discussion on how to get rid of the WP:SYNTH. I agree that "communist genocide" was a POV synthesis, which is why I and others have moved to get rid of genocide and the use of "communist" as a way to blame communism in general, and have co-operated in trying to find decent RS. Here is a starting list (aka what we could find on google books) of RS that specifically link the three regimes (USSR, PRC and Dem. Kampuchea) as special cases worthy of analysis. While not all of them agree with the proposition that a specific kind of ideological zeal was a key element (rather than dressing on straightforward repression), they all agree it's a pertinent question.
  • Valentino, Benjamin (2005). "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801472733.
  • Kiernan, Ben (2007). Blood and soil: a world history of genocide and extermination from Sparta to Darfur. Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300100983. which analyses each of the three countries in question, referencing Valentino.
  • "Explaining the Onset of Mass Killing:The Effect of War, Regime Type, and Economic Deprivation on Democide and Politicide, 1949-1987" (PDF). International Studies Association. March 2005. {{cite web}}: |first2= missing |last2= (help); |first= missing |last= (help). Argues that communism is not a big explanatory factor, and critiques various statistical analyses that have claimed it is. Note that this source does not treat the idea as extreme, but a reasonable suggestion, but rejects it on the grounds of data.
  • Chirot, Daniel; McCauley, Clark R. (2006). Why not kill them all?: the logic and prevention of mass political murder. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691092966. emphasises the role of utopian fanaticism in communist leadership in the three countries, but places this in a larger theory of mass killings, with the leadership in those countries fulfilling those criteria.
  • Gray, John (1990). "Totalitarianism, reform and civil society". In Ellen Frankel Paul (ed.). Totalitarianism at the crossroads. Transaction Publisher. which argues that the purges, the great leapforward and cultural revolution etc. cannot be explained by historical context, and reference must be given to the development of communist totalitarianism. Note that the nominator has called John N. Gray, a retired and eminent professor of European thought at the London School of Economics a "crackpot".
Basing the article on these sources means that (a) the article is not a random collection of anti-communist diatribes and (b) has an organising principle based on RS: these killings as an object of historical analysis. It means that the article has a narrower, less grandiose focus, which will be easier to keep clear of OR SYNTH and POV.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's just go through these sources one by one, shall we?

  • Valentino, Benjamin (2005). "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801472733.
Does not argue for this category nor does he discuss a preexisting academic debate over "communist mass killings." He uses the title but does not define them nor indicate how a mass killing differs from other mass killings by being "communist." In fact, one of your own sources, the conference paper you link, admits as much -- it doesn't disagree with Valentino as you assert, and it doesn't treat "communist mass killing" as an idea being debated in scholarship -- quite the opposite, in fact: it takes Valentino to task for using a category ("communist" mass killing) that is inconsistent with his own arguments and that therefore invalidates his conclusion. The authors of this paper never study "communist mass killing" and they do not debate the question of whether such a thing exists; they are taking Valentino to task for sloppy scholarship, and his use of that category is one example of how he is sloppy. This is no more notable or encyclopedic than any other scholarly errors a random scholar makes.
I don't see any evidence that Kiernan studies a category of mass killings referred to as "communist mass killings." You appear to be claiming that because he mentions several examples cited in the article he is endorsing the concept? That begs the very question that remains to be proved.
See above, this is the source you claim argues with Valentino and treats his category as legit but in fact they dismiss his category summarily and they don't bother to discuss it; they simply use it as an example of his poor scholarship.
I don't understand this one. The page you link to discusses the "four main motives" for "mass political murder" but never mentions communist mass murder. The motives have nothing to do with communism in fact -- convenience, revenge, fear of pollution, and we never get the fourth in the preview you link. Nothing about "communist mass killing" here.
  • Gray, John (1990). "Totalitarianism, reform and civil society". in Ellen Frankel Paul. Totalitarianism at the crossroads. Transaction Publisher.
I don't see any evidence that Gray argues for a theory of "communist mass killing," though all we have is the one quote in the article from a third party. But what we really need here is not just one source that argues thus but some kind of evidence that this is part of an ongoing scholarly debate on a particular issue or topic. That simply is not the case here. You cite these articles as proof that this is not just "a random collection of anti-communist diatribes" but that is not what the issue is. It's not that they are diatribes; it's that there is no group of academics actually studying this concept in a visible way. csloat (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, but that doesn't address my point in support of deletion, hence I still think the article should be deleted. Remove the communism label and include all mass killings/genocides, etc, and I might change my mind. Or just delete, per all good arguments here. Verbal chat 19:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if I understand you correctly, you would only be happy with a SYNTH article that attempted to find common ground in all mass killings? Surely not. The whole point is that there is RS highlighting as qualitatively significant specific phenomena and their relationship not with communism per se, but a specific type of communist utopian radicalism, as the lede says. I agree that even the new title isn't perfect, but this AfD isn't helping people find a way of moving forward with genuine reflection. It was called hours before the RfM was procedurally due to be closed (an attempt to close it earlier due to clear consensus was spiked by one of the other few opponents to the move), at which point the re-write was due to begin. Consensus already was to move away from Communist genocide as POV - and yet half the delete votes are based on a reaction to that old title. The AfD looks like stalemate; I'd be far happier with a consensus to keep for the moment.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, you don't get me correctly. I'm glad you admit this article is violating SYNTH though. Still should be deleted. If you want to write a different article, write that different article - userfication is a possibility. But this article should go. Verbal chat 19:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a right of reply - I've not admitted SYNTH at all in how we are trying to re-write the article, quite the opposite; I've no idea what your motivations are for saying that I have. I've honestly tried to address your concerns about the RS I provided above. However, it's also your right not to explain your opinion further.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I don't understand people who first seem to claim that there were no Communist genocides, and now seem to claim that there were no Communist mass killings. More than 100 million people were killed, there's a definite pattern, claimed in good academic sources, e.g. "The Black Book of Communism." If reknowned French historians can write on this - why can't Wikipedia? Smallbones (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem isn't that these things didn't happen. They did, and they each get their own article. However, they are grouped here together for one reason, to try and glue communism and genocide together as concepts, the POV that this pushes is both obvious and ridiculous. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it dropped the "Communist" bit, and was a collection of notable mass killings/genocides/whatever that would be fine with me (be they communist, democratic, capitalist, third world, Martian,...). It's the synthesis which is the problem, as Irbisgreif says. Verbal chat 19:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some folks are completely misunderstanding WP:NPOV here. Some extracts from the policy:
All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.
... Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV".
The folks above say that the article is POV. But it is not the editors' POV. The Black Book of Communism has the POV you are complaining about, the Lost Literature of Socialism has a very similar POV, even the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe seems to have a similar POV (from the NY Times [7] " a resolution passed in July by the parliamentary assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe equated Stalin with Hitler for regimes that “brought about genocide, violations of human rights and freedoms, war crimes and crimes against humanity.”") These POVs are from significant scholars and organizations. They MUST be included in Wikipedia articles if we are to write about Communism, about Genocide. Other POVs of course should be included as well. Smallbones (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People are starting to use the wording of the POV policy to defeat the POV policy… Equating Stalin with Hitler is one thing, but equating a political system with Hitler is another. Feel free to mention, in the Stalin and Hitler articles, that people equate them. (I'll bet, if I searched, I could find similar consensus equating Mao and Stalin.) This doesn't mean that there's an established theory linking communism and genocide. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the changes to the article since the AfD began, the phrase "genocide" is slowly being relegated to a minor aspect (except in direct quotations) It's not in the lede at all now, and the holodmor section needs re-writing too (these things take time, you understand). This is precisely because no general RS link between communism and genocide was ever sustainable, a point I myself argued in the talk pages. This is also why genocide has been taken out of the title, and why the article does not focus on communist states in general, but only on those where RS analysis has suggest either that there is one, at least insofar as a radical utopian version is concerned. So your objections are at least in part being met.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if these points of view are notable, then we would create an article about these POVs, not about the subject that these POVs refer to. Otherwise, the article is a POV fork at best.  Cs32en  05:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait until the good efforts that are being made currently to rewrite according to RS's. This nomination was clearly premature, and not constructive. --Anderssl (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (for now) Still the same issue before. No notable, widely accepted link to the ideology and the "mass killings" in non-fringe sources. Furthermore, some of the incidents are not widely considered "mass killings", or their status as such disputed, so it is POV to present it in an article titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes". As such, this article is pretty much propaganda. Triplestop x3 00:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Agree that in the old version of the article, a lot of material was not actual genocide (let alone mass killings). However, in the re-write, the topic is limited precisely to those things which have been called mass killings by RS (and linked by RS to radical ideology), and indisputably are (purges, Cultural revolution, Khmer Rouge), with the notable exception (but noteworthy mention) of the holodomor, which has been considered as part of the "social experiment" by some authors, but is disputed by just as many.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead states "The extent to which these killings can be attributed to the ideological commitment of the governments (and thereby be a product of a certain kind of communism) is in dispute." Is this even a notable concept? The page just seems to simply list out certain events. Triplestop x3 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a re-write. This AfD interrupted productive discussions on what to do once the article moved, and a few of us have been editing in haste (that lede is my fault). I cannot stress enough that consensus on moving forward had been achieved to salvage what had been an awful article - with the exception of a couple of editors, one of which proposed this AfD just as the move was about to take place, while the other unilaterally reverted/salted an earlier attempt to move (and start rewriting) based on already clear consensus.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets take a look at a random one of the sources. "George Watson, veteran anti-communist[3] a historian of literature holding a fellowship at St. John's College at the University of Cambridge,[3][4] claims in his book 'The Lost Literature of ...". That sums up the problem pretty nicely. I just don't see how there can be any actual substance to this page without it being ridiculous POV. Triplestop x3 15:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Communist genocide] Random split

edit
  • Speedy close - we just had this discussion last month & nothing has changed since then. This should be closed and the issues taken to the talk page so that they can be addressed. This article has been through an AfD, a merge discussion, and 2 rename discussions in the last 45 days, and now a 2nd AfD??? Enough already! Let's try actually working on the article instead of just putting it through one debate after another and wasting everyone's time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom, all described genocides have their own articles, joining them under this umbrella article has no encyclopaedic value and serves certain political purpose (POV) New seeker (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Give them some time to rewrite the article. It certainly is salvageable. ƒ(Δ)² 11:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While it's undeniable that there've been mass killings under the Communist governments mentioned in this article, what about the US-backed Central American death squads of the 1980s? Not to mention that the anti-communist Nicaraguan contras were considered death squads too! So are we going to hold all governments to the same standard and start new article about "mass killings under democratic regimes" etc.? And then we have Augusto Pinochet, whose free-market policies were also accompanied by the Caravan of Death? Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a soapbox filled with WP:SYNTH. While there have been communist "genocides", the idea of a communist genocide movement is nuts. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article is no longer called communist genocide.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll rephrase then. WP:POV-y (by its very nature) synth that fails to portray world history in context. Better? Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really (sorry). How is an article about the academic analyses of the three great communist purges POV? There is RS that is clear that these were unusual events whose common ideological radicalism makes them stand out - whether or not the radicalism is a product of the forces that also led to the mass killings, or a contributory factor. These are analyses that seek to compare them to other acts of oppression and terror (your world context for you there). That is, it's a topic of serious academic debate. It's not mudslinging against communists (it was Soviet-backed Vietnam that stopped the Khmer Rouge). I and several others now trying to improve the article were dead against "Communist Genocide", as it's clearly POV. A lot of the arguments in this AfD apply to how the article was. We are honestly trying to put in place an article where such concerns can be addressed and balance achieved.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's synthesizing those three events into some ideologically linked category that brings about the POV. Each of the three events is notable and deserves a separate article with separate treatment but lumping them together as Communist genocide or mass killings under communist regimes is no more appropriate than lumping together The Holocaust, the Indian Wars, and the Phillipine-American War under Democratic genocide or mass killings perpetrated by democratically elected regimes. Please note I understand WP:POINT and would be just as likely to AfD such an omnibus Democracy related article as this one. I would, however, support an article on Politically Motivated Mass Killing. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, it is completely irrelevant whether you think these three events are related or not. The question is whether this kind of connection is made in reliable sources. If you think it is not, then you need to address the sources that are given in the article, one by one. If you manage to firmly establish that no such link is made in the sources, and/or that the sources don't count as RS, it should be no problem getting consensus to delete the article. For now you and those who support this AfD have not done this - and this is probably not the right place for doing it, since that discussion is well under way on the article's talk page. Which makes it quite hard to understand what purpose this AfD is supposed to serve. --Anderssl (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that these events are not connected in reliable sources and therefore it is pure synthesis to connect them. If you believe that these events are connected then you should have your original thesis presented in academic literature, gain consensus in the academic community and then cover them in a WP article. But it is not the role of Wikipedia to present original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you lecturing me as if I didn't know what synthesis and original research is? There is a legitimate discussion going on about specific sources on the talk page of the article, while you are just throwing out general remarks about Wikipedia policies. Engage constructively with the central issues in the debate if you want to help bringing this discussion forward. --Anderssl (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not lecturing you merely pointing out that we should "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This article basically combines different sources in order to develop a general theory of communist mass killing which is not presented in any of the sources. So far we have Gray and Valentino who both advanced a connection between communism and killing but their theories are different. We also have numerous fringe theories, which again have no consistency and anyway are better presented in their own articles. None of the editors seem concerned about the various theories and the article is merely an attack page that lists isolated incidents that present communism in a bad light. But that goes beyond what Wikipedia is supposed to be as a tertiary source. It is not supposed to publish original thought but to report thought published in reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, specifically, is the "general theory" that is developed in the article, and that doesn't exist in the sources? --Anderssl (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The theory that there is a category "communist mass killings" that is qualitatively different from non-communist mass killings and that is the topic of some kind of scholarly or encyclopedic focus in reliable sources. csloat (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Involved editor here (but neutral on the AfD): Could you examine the debate over the George Watson source at talk and the article. Both Watson and the Black Book claim a qualitative difference (but I'm not convinced these are RS, or that Watson and Black Book's introductory claim that Communism is evil are actually academic or notable). Fifelfoo (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either constitutes an RS for this article; Watson perhaps, though his expertise is not in these matters, and he bases his conclusion on an argument that is entirely discredited within "Marxist" intellectual circles. Most people do not think this obscure essay by Engels represents "communism" per se. But even if these 2 sources stand alone, they are not in dialogue with each other or with anything else -- building an entire article based on a concept drawn out of two unrelated articles like this is still WP:SYN. csloat (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) "Mass killings under Communist regimes refers to the use of large scale mass killing, carried out by some Communist regimes, notably the Soviet Union under Stalin, the Chinese cultural revolution, and the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. These killings are commonly attributed to the regimes' Communist ideology, for example in The Black Book of Communism, though the extent to which these killings can be attributed to the ideology is disputed." The Four Deuces (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That lede is currently disputed and has changed several times in the past 12 hours - as the four deuces knows perfectly well because he's been on the talkpage recently (trying to include JFK conspiracy theories and accounts of 1980s serial killers and other such AGF activities.)
To the substantive point, The Four Deuces has stated that "these events are not connected in reliable sources" and in his next comment "Gray and Valentino...both advanced a connection between communism and killing". (Gray and Valentino are both impeccable RS). I struggle to reconcile these two statements. That two authors have different views on the connection is called a difference of opinion; the disagreement is on how necessary/deep the connection is (and the article, as editing develops, I intend to include those RS that dispute the connection. The aim is to report on the academic (not polemical) debate.) Four Deuces' comments here and on the talkpage are difficult to follow if they are meant seriously.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TFD goes to the article and adds lists of events that fall clearly outside of the topic (such as a whole section on "Soviet serial killers") - and then s/he goes to the AfD to complain about how the article doesn't establish the connection between "isolated events"... And then he wants us to still assume good faith about his edits? --Anderssl (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two conflicting theories: one states that communist idealism meant that the ends (utopia) justified the means (mass killings). The other theory states that communists deliberately targeted minorities and implied no altruistic motivation. Furthermore, we have theories that killing is part of the ideology written by Engels (although in the lost literature) and of course there are conspiratorial theories that have no academic acceptance. The article does not even mention whether it is about small "c" or big "C" communism and does not take definitions of communism or mass killings from sources. Common to all these theories is that they have not entered mainstream academic theory even as minority or fringe theories. While all these theories deserve coverage they really belong in their appropriate articles, and it is synthesis to combine them in one article when no reliable source has drawn any connection between them.
To make matters worse, the article hardly dwells on these theories and instead duplicates details of events that are covered in other articles. It does not seem to matter either whether these events are covered in the mass killing theories.
You state that you wish to include RS that dispute these theories. The problem is that they have not received sufficient attention for there to be sources disputing them. Furthermore Gray and Valentino are really primary sources for their own views rather than secondary sources which are required for an article. (I do not dispute that there are reliable secondary sources for the events described in the article.) So basically the article is original research. Could you please read the appropriate section WP:OR and ask yourself whether any article could be written that does not violate that policy.
The Four Deuces (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken on sourcing policy (and out of innocence again?). Personal opinion pieces are not the same as respected academic analyses. Furthermore Valentino has received hundreds of citations in the five years his book has been available, so has Gray's work. I suspect you actually know this already. (If it was your version of events, everything would be opinion. Peer review is just opinions of a few other people, after all). Now, your problem is that there is material that duplicates material elsewhere. I absolutely agree. That's why we need to re-write the article to avoid the content forks that were there. Your arguments are not grounds for deletion, but grounds for an overhaul. It's a shame that you've been awfully good at blocking that overhaul, no matter how much that's been out of your claimed ignorance of procedure, technical matters, citation policy, or indeed discussions on the talk page of which you were and still are a part.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if instead of questioning other editors' intentions and understanding of policy you would actually explain what your points of difference are. An article that combines two different theories is synthesis. Using sources that have not entered mainstream sources is promoting fringe theories and the fact these theories are heavily quoted by polemical writers of makes the article inherently biased. Your statement that Valentino and Gray have received mention in other sources is not helpful: who mentions them, do they mention their theories of communist killing and what do they say about them? As I stated the correct place to cover these theories is in other articles. For example we have an article called The Black Book of Communism, which I believe you agree is a fringe source. It may be that communist mass killings will develop into a generally accepted but controversial theory within the academic community. WP articles are not supposed to provide credibility to theories that have not been accepted by the academic community or to publish original research that is not published in reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Black Book is certainly not fringe but it is controversial, which is why we are discussing its removal from the lede as inappropriate. Analysis of the question in general has been going on for several years, not yesterday. The article will reflect future scholarship as and when it becomes available. As for your intent, how about this and this?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mass killings under communist regimes is a vague title that implies no agency or reason, and the standards we appear to have accepted allow controversial theories to be included. There is nothing in the title that prevents the inclusion of mass killers who lived under communist regimes at least one of whom was a Communist Party member. It is not even original to see crime as a result of social conditions brought about by economic systems. The theory that Communists killed Kennedy was proposed by Nathaniel Weyl and assassinations by Communist officials is part of the theory advanced in The Black Book of Communism and there are even proven cases. On the other hand I do not know why you are defending an article that clearly violates WP policy, but I concentrate on discussing the policy rather than why you do not follow it. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I shall stop feeding you.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again it would be more constructive to discuss issues of policy and article content rather than making unrelated comments. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

genocidal communist regimes have often escaped detection and comment. Until recently, few people knew that for political and economic reasons, communist elites ever since the Russian Revolution have sanctioned the genocide of between 85-100 million people (Courtis 1999). Until relatively recently, intellectuals and politicians with socialist leanings, including French communists such as Sartre, have refused to address the occurrence of genocide in communist activities because this fact would challenge their ideological commitments.

--Termer (talk)

The quote you gave is not by White and Marsella but is from an article by Rebecca Knuth, Chair of the Library and Information Science Program at the University of Hawaii and a noted expert on libricide, who as your reference shows draws her information from the Black Book of Communism. (Already I can see some problems with this source.) Foo's claim appeared to be a criticism of the motives of fellow editors. However the opposition to the article does not stem from a denial of specific events but from the synthesis and reliable source issues in the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the article had WP:SYNTH and WP:RS issues, which it doesn't, such allegations would not be bases for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy but is something that should be addressed at the articles talk page.--Termer (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Termer, have another look at WP:DELETE. And denial has nothing to do with it. There is no-one on either side of this issue who are denying that communist regimes have committed horrible crimes. By arguing like this you are handing free points to your opponents. --Anderssl (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, under its current title (Mass killings under Communist regimes). It's a valid topic to explore in an article, whether or not the conclusion is that the instances are linked by an ideological factor. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia article. It should not be an essay with a "conclusion." As explained here. csloat (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kinda familiar with WP:NOR; I've been around here for a while. I'm not suggesting an essay, nor a conclusion determined by WP editors. But it's perfectly possible to have an article that explores whether a certain notion is or is not true. Consider Life on Mars or Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact or whatever. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For topics where there is notable ongoing academic and popular discussion of, sure. The alleged inherent connection between political economic systems and genocide is not one of those topics. csloat (talk) 20:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd happily have supported deletion if this was still under its old title ('Communist genocide'), but now it's been moved to 'Mass killings under Communist regimes', I feel it's acceptable. As Wasted Time R says above, this is a valid topic and the subject of genuine academic analysis; and I don't believe we have any other article on the subject. While I expect it to remain a magnet for partisan editors on both sides of the 'Communist history wars', that in itself doesn't justify deletion; and besides, it's already improved a great deal from the mess of POV/SYNthesis it used to be. Robofish (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the specific improvements? All I've seen is a slightly different set of POV/SYN problems than we had before, but the same underlying problem is clearly there. csloat (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A new section called "Academic analyses" has been added, which discusses the treatment of the topic in three RS. A bunch of unrelated events and nonsense has been purged from the article. There is lots left to do, but we will get it done if the extremists on both sides will allow us to implement actual improvements, instead of focusing on procedural debates. --Anderssl (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks to me just as I said - a slightly different set of POV/SYN problems than we had before, but the same underlying problem. Sorry. csloat (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well thank you for that incredibly specific rebuttal. And good luck with the AfD. --Anderssl (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell more do you want? You cite a section that is completely bogus as proof the article is getting better? Anyway I took apart the sources cited one by one above. csloat (talk) 09:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want something more specific than "completely bogus". The only specific arguments by you I have found above concern Watson and the Black Book, there are more sources than those in the Analyses section - the most important seems to be Gray. And you cite "Most people think" as the basis of your argument - how about a reference? That would actually be something constructive.--Anderssl (talk) 17:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refuted Gray and Valentino above as well. The problem is you're pointing to information that doesn't constitute evidence of what we're talking about and calling it "evidence" and then challenging me to prove that it's not "evidence." Consider burden of proof here. For Watson just go through the discussion on the talk page from a couple months ago; I provided more than enough references there and I believe you were part of that discussion, so you already know this. Or do the damn research yourself, it's pretty easy to use google books on Watson's interpretation of the Engels essay. Or you can avoid all this by meeting your burden of proof in the first place; show that Watson's evaluation of an obscure essay is damning for "communism" as a political or ideological system. And, finally, show that "communist mass killings" is a specific category of mass killings under consideration by a community of scholars or analysts or commentators. We still don't see this anywhere. csloat (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall laying claim to "evidence" anywhere, can you give a diff? I also cannot recall taking part in a discussion about Watson months ago, and I can't find it in the archive. (the latter mainly because I can't actually find the archive - anyone know how to browse it? Somehow i can't find the link...) There is one discussion ongoing on the talk page now, but I haven't noticed you contributing any sources there. Given that the discussion earlier was dominated by extremists (on both sides), whereas the current discussion seems much more focused and reasonable, it would be great if you can provide the references one more time, since it is kind of hard to trawl through all the chaotic arguments from before. As for burden of proof, that seems kind of weak, given that this AfD was called before the article was even moved to its current title and the current rewrite effort was begun. Give us a month or at least a couple of weeks to work on it, and then we can talk about burden of proof. What would be the damage in letting fair-minded, balanced editors make an attempt at improving the article before we discuss deletion?--Anderssl (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you "laid claim" to "evidence"; but if that's not the point of referring to this information, I'm not clear on what it is. It looks to me like you are arguing these sources constitute evidence of a phenomenon with academic standing; if you're not doing this, what is your point? I can't find the archived discussion either so I know what you mean, but let me recount the discussion (I believe my primary interlocutor was Termer there but I thought you came in for a comment or two; perhaps that was AmateurEditor? My memory fails me)... Anyway using google books, we can get into the nitty gritty of this -- we can find multiple mentions of the quote from Hegel that is used in the Engels essay which is misattributed to Engels by Watson. We have Ian Cummings pointing out that "later Marxist thinkers" specifically refuted Engels' Hegelian notion and that "a people without a history" could still have a future. We have Bereciartu arguing that this remnant of Hegel in Engels makes for an "incoherent" account of the national question in Marxism and that ultimately in Marx himself "the colonial problem presupposes an evident modification of the thesis of the peoples 'without history'." (p69). We have Nimni arguing that "the most common interpretation" of the dissonance between this passage in Engels and the more common Marxist approach to the national question is "that Marx and Engels had no theory on the national question and so were inconsistent in their discussion of it." (p. 34). You can read a lot more at the google books link and see for yourself, as I advocated earlier. The problem is that Watson takes this essay and assumes that because it is by Engels it therefore represents a core principle of "communist" doctrine - yet it was not at all articulated that way and was in fact simply repeating the analysis of Hegel in the context of sentiments extremely common in that day and age. It would be as if I started an article on Mass killings under capitalist regimes with a quote from Thomas Malthus advocating murderous population control policies and argued that these views show an inherent ideological connection between capitalism and mass killing. What Watson is doing is taking an obscure bit of material from Engels and interpreting it, without looking at what Marxist scholars have done with this material over the ages since it was written. You say that the burden of proof is weak because you need a few weeks to work on the article - I'm not the one who chose when this article should go up for deletion, but the issues and arguments have been bandied back and forth for months, and so far the best you guys have come up with is this feeble quotation from a literary theorist and something called the "black book" of communism. Look, there either is an "academic" analysis of this as a real phenomenon or there isn't. If there is, there would be books, journal articles, conferences, and other academic forums focused on this question. How long does it take to unearth this material? I don't mind giving you another few weeks to get your act together but I'm not convinced that more evidence will materialize that is more substantial than what we've seen so far. csloat (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out) So a bunch of people disagree with Watson. Thanks for providing these summaries. Some of this should certainly be added to the section where Watson's claims are discussed. But it's not our job to referee - honestly, in the way you are concluding, it really sounds like you are doing a little OR? Shouldn't we just note the criticism and leave it at that? I honestly don't think you have provided convincing arguments that all of the source in the article are "bogus". As for "you guys" I don't know who you mean. I'm not among the ones pushing the claims put forward in the article, I'm just arguing that there should be a proper process where the various viewpoints and sources are properly discussed before we decide whether to delete or keep - in other words, an reasonable attempt at building consensus, rather than just screaming at each other. --Anderssl (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard for me to believe you are serious. I'm not suggesting we "referee" and I'm not suggesting doing any OR. As I said, there either is an academic analysis of this problem or there isn't, and it is clear from the sources that there isn't. There isn't any "screaming" going on; just an attempt to look closely at the sources "you guys" - that is, those people advocating "keep" -- are pushing as some kind of proof that this topic has some salience. csloat (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, try. Unfortunately it is not "clear" that there is no academic analysis of the problem - unless you want to assume that all those voting 'keep' are either doing so in bad faith, or we're just stupid. Otherwise, there is a need to make it clear to us how this subject is not worthy of an article. This has not succeeded so far - there is objective evidence to that effect on this page. --Anderssl (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try what? I really can't keep arguing with you as you completely ignore the substance of my arguments over and over and then slip into borderline attacks. I never called you stupid. I'm explaining what the "objective evidence" actually says, and it clearly turns out not to be "evidence." You ignore my arguments and accuse me of calling you stupid -- I don't think your approach is helpful. csloat (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to take me seriously (you were indicating that you found it hard). About the substance of your argument: You are listing a bunch of people who are arguing against Watson's claims about Engels (if I understand you correctly). That might well be an indication that Watson is wrong. But I don't think we should try to judge whether that is the case or not, since this discussion is about WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability, not WP:Truth. It also sounds to me that your notion that the sources need to "talk to each other" is a little too strict - I can think of some good examples of very important academic works within my own fields of speciality, which do not really talk to each other. They would still be notable for mention in an article like this, including appropriate criticism. If I am misunderstanding or misrepresenting you, please feel free to correct me. --Anderssl (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As an academic it is perfectly acceptable for you to take different sources and evaluate and compare them and synthesize information in them. Even journalists do this. But encyclopedia articles are different, and should not contain synthesis. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you're misunderstanding. I didn't cite articles that mention Watson. I googled the phrase that Watson quotes as "evidence" of a connection between "Communism" and "genocide". Watson attributes the phrase to Engels; Engels was actually quoting Hegel. The books I chose to cite were just the top three hits on Google books -- just a random sampling of what actual scholars (not "veteran anti-communists") who do talk about this passage discuss. None of them even address such a dispute over the relation between communist ideology and genocide because it's just not a serious topic. The things they do discuss are very different, as I cited above. Sure, they do show Watson is wrong, but not by actually addressing Watson - his thesis is not even on the radar screen for most of them. See for yourself - this search turns up 40 books, while this one turns up only one (and that's a different "Watson"). So yeah the Four Deuces is correct; it would be synthesis to create a "debate" out of these sources. csloat (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:AGF on the good faith issue; it may help. As for the "myriad of valid sources" - the problem is that these sources are not all talking about the same thing, and they are being interpreted as evidence of a category of analysis they do not support. Having multiple sources does not make this less of a synth violation, unfortunately. You claim that the "article has been improving by leaps" but that isn't the case at all. It has become a substantially different article, but it has not been improving in the sense of addressing the issues raised in this AfD. csloat (talk) 21:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Synth has nothing to do with deletion policy. Please name one of the 13 reasons for deletion that are part of WP:Delete. Smallbones (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(out)

While the article meets 6 of the thirteen reasons for deletion, the one that most clearly matches WP:SYN is the restriction against original theories and conclusions which links to a page discussing among other things WP:SYN. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - this is supposed to be an article "that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources"?!! Please look at the 1st 16 footnotes. They include The Great Terror, The Black Book of Communism - very well known books that say Communists committed mass murder as part of their commitment to Communism. You don't like these sources, but that is irrelevant. You tried to get the "Lost Literature of Socialism" removed because it didn't fit your prejudices, but the WP:RSN said it was obviously an RS academic source. It's patent nonsense to say that the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources. Smallbones (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do you use terms like "it didn't fit your prejudices". You should assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The statement that "but the WP:RSN said it was obviously an RS academic source" is incorrect. The RSN did not attract much outside comment and there was no agreement among the people commenting on it as is obvious if you read it.[9] A non-academic book by an academic writing outside his area of expertise is hardly "obviously an RS academic source". None of these books are acceptable as secondary sources for college papers or theses at reputable universities or for peer-viewed papers in academic journals. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of accusing others repeatedly in bad faith and personal attacks please read what WP:GOODFAITH is all about The Four Deuces!: Accusing others of bad faith Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Termer, I did not accuse Smallbones of bad faith. Please read my comments again. (You may have misunderstood me because the English verb to assume can have two meanings: in this case I am asking someone to assume that I am acting in good faith rather than asking them to act in good faith.) The Four Deuces (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have ignored the last but saying "You should assume good faith and avoid personal attacks" is very clear and it fits the pattern: in the context of this article it's at least the 7th accusation of a personal attack against you. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] If you think that by accusing other editors repeatedly in personal attacks against you is helpful in a content dispute, sorry but you're mistaken.--Termer (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find your comments inappropriate and ask that you strike them out. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, as long as you strike out all accusations of personal attacks against you, (I left the diffs for your convenience) I'm more than willing to strike out me reminding you that It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New split

edit
  • Keep for now, to give article time to improve. Nomination feels premature in current situation.--Staberinde (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:SYN which despite a very odd suggestion above is clearly one of the most primary reasons we delete entries. Some argue that improvements have been made but I see none. If anything a recent name change has been a step in the wrong direction per WP:NAME which the entry regulars avoided entirely in their misguided good faith effort to reduce POV.PelleSmith (talk) 04:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please don't start lawyering about name changes and WP policy, this is an important topic and all of the energy spent arguing here could have been spent improving this (or other) articles. Thanks, Horlo (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it unfortunate that "wikilawyering" is so often used as a meaningless catchphrase used to dismiss policy suggestions. You may be better served changing or deleting WP:NAME. Why have guidelines if people dismiss them? Anyway the naming issue is not so much a violation of policy as an example of what is wrong with the entry. If the entry is truly not an original synthesis, as it appears to be, then there should be a cohesive subject matter to discuss based on reliable sources which recognize it as such. Under the old name there was a cohesive subject but it wasn't clear if this subject was discussd as such in reliable sources. The new name makes matters worse by moving away from specificity thereby inviting the addition of a broader and even less related set of information. There is no wikilayering just a suggestion that matters have gone from bad to worse.PelleSmith (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called specificity was actually POV. It depended on a POV reading of the word genocide (which does not have a stable definition), which basically allow any old POV shit to be thrown at the door of communism, and a presumption in the title that the killings were perpetrated because of something essential to communism per se (and there was an anti-Soviet cabal organising themselves to this effect). The relationship between communism and what happened in the three countries we are now focussing on is debated in the literature, ranging from the Black Book and Watson which see communism as essentially evil, through historians that see a certain kind of ideology as a key component, others who identify the political system as producing the conditions for mass killings (and thus the totalitarian aspect is key), and others who say that there is nothing distinctive about these killings to make them separate from other similar events in non-communist countries. It's POV to have a title that presumes only one of those views is correct. I would have thought that was obvious.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if "Communist genocide" is a valid topic, then there need to be quotable references that actually discuss "Communist genocides" as a topic in its own right. If we find that the phrase "communist mass killing" is just used incidentially for a few individual cases, such as "mass killings in the Soviet Union", we will write an artile about mass killings in the Soviet Union. Horlo's opinion that "communist mass killings" per se are "an important topic" is completely irrelevant. this is a textbook case of WP:SYN, what the article is in fact doing is presenting a collection of "here are mass killings we found that were perpetrated by regimes that also subscribed to communist ideology at the time". As long as we do not have the references to establish a notable theory to the effect that mass killing is somehow an inherent feature of communism, this is not a valid topic. --dab (𒁳) 15:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title is no longer "Communist genocides" for the very reason you suggest - it was about to be changed according to clear consensus when one of the few people opposing the change put up the AfD just as the change was being made. "Mass Killings" is preferred in literature. The debate is indeed broader than simple ideological causality. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What reason is that? I see no agreement between your argument and Dab's criticism of what seems to be the broad and arbitrary scope of the current entry. The entry you have described above is actually one about "The relationship between communism and mass killing" and not "Mass killings under communist regimes". You do not gain neutrality by making a less meaningful entry title that invites what Dab describes. When I first saw this discussion the following was written on the entry talk page about the new consensus: "not only must facts be RS demonstrated, but facts can only be placed in relation to a scholarly academically published theorisation of a structural link between Communist ideology (in general, or in a specific incarnation broader than a single state / movement) and mass killings". If the relationship between 1) communism and 2) mass killing is not a notable topic then there should not be an entry about it (even if the name is deceptively broad). If it is notable then it can be established in reliable sources. The issue is not being discussed in this manner for a variety of reasons, among them the lame and confusing name change.PelleSmith (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the plural noun "mass killings" used in the title instead of the gerund of the verb "mass killing"? This is itself rather confusing because it suggests less clearly that the subject matter is as VK suggests about the disputed relationship between an ideology and "the act of murdering a large number of people", and instead suggests that it is a list of atrocities that resulted from such acts within the context of communist political control.PelleSmith (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Killings not killing is referred to in the literature; plural is appropriate because it's not just one country, but events in several. "Communist genocide" can be read as accusing communism per se rather than particular regimes in history that publicly justified the killings with communist rhetoric (debate /how much this rhetoric was actually cloaking other issues is part of what the article should cover.) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my longer comment about "The relationship between mass killing and communism" you have not responded. Regarding my picky issue with word choice in the current title, there is something rather fundamental about the difference that is not being grasped here. As you and others have clearly pointed out this entry is supposedly about a disputed link between communism and mass killing and it is not simply a catalog of mass killings which happened to have occurred under communist regimes. Am I correct? The latter would clearly be a violation of WP:OR, however your title unfortunately is most clearly an expression of just that. It is a sloppier way of saying "Incidents of mass killing under communist regimes". If you use the gerund you do not suggest specific incidents but instead a general category or type of incident. This is why WP:NAME tells us to use either singular nouns or the gerund of verbs unless accurately labeling the subject matter clearly demands a plural noun -- if that is the case then once again the entry is not about a disputed relationship but instead a collection of incidents whose grouping is arbitrarily being made by wikipedia editors ... WP:SYN. I should add that the entry itself rarely ever used the plural noun(s) "(mass) killings" so if this is standard in the literature the entry does a horrible job reflecting it.PelleSmith (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be an argument for a re-write (POV), not for deletion (notability).radek (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Last vote involved a multitude of editors a lot of whom did independent research before casting their votes. I do agree that there was some shortcomings to the original article, but then most attempts to improve the article were torpedoed by some of those who didn't manage to delete it previously and who more or less explicitly stated at the time "we won't let you improve the article and just wait for another delete vote". As such this is a clear example of forum-shopping.radek (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your cabal had agreed not to edit on pages that are the subject of the ArbCom inquiry? Am I misreading the temporary injunctions? It seems to me that this is clearly within the scope of the injunction; particularly since your cabal's actions on the previous AfD are explicitly part of the inquiry. csloat (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no comment on the specific content of this article and the extent to which it ought to be improved, but obviously various Communist regimes have been responsible for millions of deaths and dscribing the links between the deaths and the shared (to a certain extent) ideology of those regimes, the progressive development of mass murder, etc. through reliable sources seems worthy of an article.Faustian (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and all of the above pre-split votes count too. Straberinde - you don't get a revote, or a new split; this isn't the Ukrainian Election or the Florida Recount. This article started out as criticism of Pol Pot and Khmer Rouge. Since then the Article became POV to an extreme, and was hijacked by POV anti-Communist editors. People seem to forget that the Khmer Rouge Regime was destroyed by Communist Vietnam, the same country that Capitalists tried to destroy. The whole article is a joke, with anti-Communist scholars being given the same space as Nobel Prize Winners. As if their analysis is equal. Nor have I seen too many attempts to improve the article. All I've seen here is blatant POV pushing. "Mass killings under Communist regimes refers to the use of large scale mass killing, carried out by some Communist regimes, notably the Soviet Union under Stalin, the Chinese cultural revolution, and the rule of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Academic debate has centred around the similarities and differences in the factors causing of these three cases."
Yeah, one was genocide and two weren't; "but let's lump Russia and China in there, cause it fits our POV", seems to be the dominating logic of the editors of this article. And what I am seeing, is that certain editors love pushing their POV, and when neutral editors get sick and tired of it, and want the article deleted, they suddenly compromise, with please of "well ok, we will rename it, give this article time to improve, don't delete it, have a heart". And then the article is kept, the neutrals leave, and the POV game begins again. I can easily cite World War, as a massive Imperialist Catastrophe; after all, no one will argue that Six Empires fought WWI, and that it wasn't an Imperialist War. I can also bring in example of Native Americans being given "smallpox blankets" as examples of Imperialist Genocide. So to repeat: People seem to forget that the Khmer Rouge Regime was destroyed by Communist Vietnam, the same country that Capitalists tried to destroy. The whole article is a joke, with anti-Communist "scholars" being given the same space as Nobel Prize Winners. Their analysis is portrayed as if it was equal, because it suits the POV of certain editors. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user above is upset because his eulogies to Solzhenitsyn get taken out (and not only be me) - although Solzhenitsyn's comments are left intact.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are choosing to attack my emotions, over attacking my argument. Well that's one way to argue. Won't get you very far; it doesn't work against me. Now please try again, and go against the argument this time.HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know that the above editor is upset and why do you think your comment is relevant to this discussion? The Four Deuces (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thw writer votng to delete, above, (HistoricWarrior007 ) reveals his own POV when in his statement he writes "The whole article is a joke, with anti-Communist scholars being given the same space as Nobel Prize Winners" implying that if a scholar is anti-Communistihe is somehow a "lesser" scholar. We also see a strawman argument when he erroneously claims, based ont he quote he provided, that the mass killings in China nd Russia were labelled as genocide (although there is contrversy about that, with some scholars claiming genocide and others arguing against this. HistorWarrior reveals his own POV yet again when he takes the sideof those who claim no genocide). There may be anti-communist POV pushing in the article, but this doesn't justify pro-Communist (or anti-anti-Communist) POV-pushing which seems to be motivating at least some of those seeking to delete the article.13:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Faustian (talk)[reply]
Umm, pro-Communist POV pushing in an article on Communist Genocide? You don't see the flaw there? Once, again, I'll repeat: People seem to forget that the Khmer Rouge Regime was destroyed by Communist Vietnam, the same country that Capitalists tried to destroy. Russia and China did not intend to commit Genocide. Any rapid Industrialization, including the British Industrialization, the French, the German, etc, leads to human catastrophes. When you have a mass movement of people into the cities, which have no laws, you get a crisis. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current article title is sufficient to answer most of the objections raised. Personally, I tend to the view that Communism is not more productive of mass killings than other forms of oppressive rule, and I personally think many of the instance here are best explained as nationalism in combination with dictatorship, but that is my personal opinion, and does not invalidate the article DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per csloat, The Four Deuces, dab, and many others. This is clearly a case of WP:SYNTH and WP:SOAPBOX. The article goes out of its way to put together all occurences of what can be qualified as "mass killing under Communist regime". But each and every one of those occurences is already well covered by its respective separate Wikipedia article, and there was no academic source presented yet, that reviews all (or, at least, majority) of these occurences simultaneously, and specifically argues about labeling them with "mass killings under Communist regime" or any other term, which would indicate academic recognition of the matter. In my opinion, excuses of "not having found such source yet" shouldn't be seriously considered, since creators and supporters of the article not only had more than enough time for that, but also they should have had such source in order to have a reason to create and extend the article, in the first place. There is no point in keeping the article in order to "let" or "give authors some time" to find such a source. They can perfectly well continue their search even in absence of the article, and in case they will find it, they will be perfectly entitled to create a new article named with an academic term that was actually used in the source to label the matter, not just with a term they invented themselves out of nowhere (twice). As for now, the article is still unencyclopedic, contains no material unbeknown to Wikipedia, and violates WP:SYNTH. And since its composure stongly suggests an attempt to portray mass killings as inherent property of Communist regimes, it clearly constitutes soapboxing with traces of WP:FRINGE. While Wikipedia can have articles about authors of "inherently-evil communism" theories, it can't have an article, which tries to portray these theories as representing encyclopedic truth or as having wide (or, at least, some) academic acceptance and notability, when in fact they're not. --ETST (talk) 10:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All these instances should be covered in genocide, without POV-forking, and in their own articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my original vote at the first AfD, supported by 23,900 Google searches, 440 Google books, 67 newswire searches, and 10 Scholar articles. --Poeticbent talk 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except, your Scholar search is clearly flawed, as it goes to specific genocides, rather than a general concept of Communist genocide / mass-killing / etc. The synthesis would be wikipedia's, and that would be a SYNful OR:
  • Cambodia only: not generalisable [CITATION] Murder of a gentle land: the untold story of a Communist genocide in Cambodia
  • Repeat cite [CITATION] Murder of a Gentle Land: The Untold Story of a Communist Genocide
  • Cambodia only: not generalisable [CITATION] Peace with horror: the untold story of communist genocide in Cambodia
  • Fringe, non-peer reviewed, rejected by article editors [PDF] ►Aristocide as a Force in History - N Weyl - Intercollegiate Review, 1967 - mmisi.org
  • Romania specific, fringe use of the term genocide The Final Report on the Holocaust and the Final Report on the Communist Dictatorship in … R Cesereanu - East European Politics and Societies, 2008 -
  • Cambodia specific, not an appropriate journal venue, Kampuchea and the Reader's Digest T Retboll - Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 1979 - questia.com
  • Possibly relevant, probably advocacy / opinion: United Nations Genocide Convention and Political Groups: Should the United States … LJ LeBlanc - Yale J. Int'l L., 1988 - HeinOnline
  • Possibly relevant, but seems USSR specific from the first page: [CITATION] Hostage of politics: Raphael Lemkin on “Soviet genocide” - ►inogs.com [PDF] A Weiss-Wendt - Journal of Genocide Research, 2005 - Routledge
  • Romania specific: [BOOK] The communist genocide in Romania
  • Cambodia specific: Peace with Horror: The Untold Story of Communist Genocide in Cambodia.
thanks though. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:38, 2 October 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. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Watts (blogger)

edit
Anthony Watts (blogger) (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 prodded in good faith (not by me), but as it did not appear to be a straightforward, uncontroversial deletion to me, I brought it here instead. The major issue appears to be reliable sourcing demonstrating the subject's notability. I offer no opinion per se but hope that more eyes will allow more sourcing to be found, or not. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial third-party coverage to establish WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Many of of the refs are self refs. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The real problem biographies like this one, is that people on both sides of the global warming controversy are using WP:BLPs such as this one to argue their case, by putting their slant on his BLP, rather than discuss the science. The arguments about global warming should take place outside of wikipedia, and the current opinions reflected on pages about global warming. Martin451 (talk) 07:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Counter-arguments to Atmoz's assertions may be found at the Watts talk page, here and here. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tillman is confused and thinks opinion pieces are reliable sources. He also thinks self-published sources can be used in a BLP. Both of which are specifically contradicted by policy. -Atmoz (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Atmoz appears confused about what we're doing here -- which is attempting to determine Watts notability, NOT determining admissibility of material to his page. WP:Notability governs in this situation. Also see Wikipedia:Notability (people). --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having looked at the matter these arguments claiming there are "no reliable sources" are hard to understand. I have just managed to find around 300 reliable sources since 1980 establishing Watts notability. Sources from all over the place, Washington Times, News Review, even New Scientist. See here. Alex Harvey (talk) 06:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Times article is an opinion piece. The New Scientist piece doesn't even mention him, it's in a comment. There are a few small local articles that deal with his run for a supervisor position on the county board, but he fails Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. It's best to look at your "sources" before you say you have over 300 of them. -Atmoz (talk) 08:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that this editor is attempting to game the system. He PRODed this article on 24 September 2009 with the reason "Subject is not independently notable but merely famous online for his climate change blog. There are few reliable sources mentioning him. Further his article draws much attention from people who disagree with him who regularly try to vandalise his article, causing editors to spend a lot of time arguing about him". -Atmoz (talk) 08:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
insert I think Atmoz knows very well that I'm a relatively new editor and that I "prodded" the article by mistake (whatever that means). He also knows the reason I nominated the article for deletion, i.e. this was the recommended action to take from the BLP/N noticeboard discussion in which he participated. I then changed my mind about whether the subject was notable after discovering hundreds of sources currently not mentioned, this being the reason I've changed my vote from delete to keep. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no WP:RS that establish WP:NOTE. I've been waiting to give time to those that want to keep this article time to find reliable, independent sources (even though they started the deletion process themselves...), but all that have been presented are google results which have trivial mentions, are written by Anthony Watts, or someone called that, or are self-published, or are unreliable blogs, forums and websites. That there are 300 of them doesn't mean anything. For example, the "counterarguments" presented by Tillman above do nothing to convince me of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Verbal chat 08:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the first 15 or so reliable sources discussing Watts. I note that he's been in politics (I didn't know that), was in the news for a while after being targetted by an extortionist, and then of course his views on global warming & surfacestations.org.
  1. Chico Enterprise Record, Roger Aylworth, 2006, "Anthony Watts target of accused extortionist", Watts featured (Watts targetted by extortionist), here.
  2. Chico Enterprise Record, Roger Aylworth, 2005, "Anthony Watts enters race for Butte County supervisor", Watts featured (2006 run for politics), here.
  3. Fox News, Steven Milloy, 2007, "U.N. Climate Distractions", Watts mentioned (SurfaceStations.org), here.
  4. Chico Enterprise-Record, E-R Staff, 2006, "Chico Unified School District candidates answer questions on issues", Watts mentioned (politics), here.
  5. Paradise Post, Dick Little, 2007, "Watts' research trumps junk science", Watts featured (SurfaceStations.org), here.
  6. San Antonio Express-News, Forrest M. Mims, 2008, "The Country Scientist; US weather data often flawed", Watts featured, here.
  7. Chico Enterprise-Record, Terry Vau Dell, 2006, "Admitted extortionist fails to appear for sentencing", Watts featured (Watts targetted by extortionist), here.
  8. News Review, Josh Indar, 2006, "One out, one in, one on", Watts featured (2006 run for politics), here.
  9. News Review, Unknown, 2004, "Honoring Dr. King", Watts featured (op-ed) (Watts political views), here.
  10. Washington Times, Wesley Pruden, 2008, "The killer frost for global warming", Watts mentioned (op-ed) (views on global warming), here.
  11. The Arizona Republic, Shaun McKinnon, 2007, "Skeptics raise doubts on global warming", Watts featured (views on global warming), here.
  12. Chico Enterprise-Record, E-R staff, 2006, "Chico Unified School District board", Watts featured (Watts in Chico local politics), here.
  13. Chico Enterprise-Record, Danny Bernardini, 2004, "Board votes to reassign principal", Watts featured (Watts in Chico local politics), here.
  14. UK Telegraph, Christopher Brooker, 2008, "The world has never seen such freezing heat", Watts featured (views on global warming), here.
Some earlier ones:
  1. BBC News, Unknown, 2001, "Solar storms spark light show", Watts mentioned (expert opinion on meteorology), here.
  2. Associated Press, Unknown, 2001, "Aurora-producing solar storms continuing, Watts mentioned (expert opinion on meteorology), here.
  3. News Review, Devanie Angel, 2002, "Chico council shifts left", Watts mentioned, here, quote: "... Overlooked by many, the race for Chico Unified School District Board of Trustees proved tight, as voters resoundingly ousted the two incumbents running for re-election. Scott Huber, Rick Rees and Anthony Watts—the latter a popular former TV weatherman who did virtually no campaigning—took the three seats."
  4. News Review, Laura Smith, 2002, "No more Watts for KHSL", here.
insert In Wikipedia:
  1. KHSL-TV "...Other notable personalities that have worked at KHSL-TV over the years include ... meteorologist Anthony Watts and legendary sports directors ..."
In Google Books:
  1. Red Hot Lies, Christopher Horner, here.
  2. Unstoppable global warming: every 1,500 years, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, here.
I don't have time to go through all 300 of them, I hope this ends this discussion and that those claiming Watts non-notable status will please adjust their comments to reflect the reality of the situation in good faith. I am not trying to "game" the system (I honestly didn't know about Watts' political career until I started researching the matter just now); I nominated the article so that we speed things up rather than spending weeks arguing about this. Alex Harvey (talk) 09:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please go through those and strike all the opinions. Your adding them here as sources makes your others claims of BLP violations very disingenuous. The rest of these are local articles about a failed politician. Than does NOT mean he is notable. Being the victim of extortion doesn't make someone notable either. This guy was a weather presenter for a local TV station. It's local news, not something that is notable for a global encyclopedia. By the way, did you pay for all those newsbank articles or just assume the contents? The BBC one is especially hilarious. "Meteorologist Anthony Watts, based in Chico, California, said the glow from the solar eruptions was interesting, but did not pose any danger." Just another example of Watts talking about something (solar flares) he knows nothing about (same article as the USAToday one). Being a school board member doesn't make someone notable. This is all local news. And WP is WP:NOT#NEWS. -Atmoz (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already labelled opinion pieces as such. And how can you say "failed politician"? You just saw that he managed to win a seat on this council without having to bother even campaigning because he was already so popular from his 25 year TV career. Don't you think this is getting just a bit too silly now? Alex Harvey (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the BAMS article refers to results from the surfacestations.org project so that's what we should have an article about -- not Watts himself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To state the obvious, individuals are notable for what they do and need not be mentioned by name in any particular article to be notable for having done such. Surfacestations.org is notable (e.g., by a peer reviewed article of the American Meteorological Society) precisely because Watts was the driving force behind it. --John G. Miles (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article. Watts is barely mentioned. It certainly doesn't mean he's notable. -Atmoz (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't addressing Watts' notability in general (others have done that), just that notability comes from what one does, not from having one's name attached (which the article does do, but that wasn't SBHB's point--I was merely pointing out that the point made wasn't a valid one). Watts' work was notable to a peer reviewed AMS article on the USHCN temperature network, which Watts surfacestations.org has addressed comprehensively and directly. Other articles by climate experts (including the National Climatic Data Center) also address his work. I'll address general notability when I "vote." --John G. Miles (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think notability is established. I don't agree with the argument that opinion pieces don't count towards notability. If your name appears on the opinion pages of multiple reliable sources, that contributes towards notability. ATren (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Anthony Watts with regard to Wikipedia:Notability (people)

edit

The most pertinent WP article to read regarding determining a person's notability is Wikipedia:Notability (people). In particular, under "Basic criteria", that article states:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.
  • 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 bar for personal notability at Wikipedia isn't set high. Multiple reliable independent published secondary sources, with non-trivial coverage of Anthony Watts, allow us to presume his Wikipedia notability. Many of these sources could also be used to demonstrate notability for Watts' "Watts Up with That" and SurfaceStations.org blogs.

Following is a list of what seem to me to be the best sources yet presented to demonstrate Watts' notability:

  • 2008 Weblog Awards, Best Science Blog: Watts Up with That, Watts' personal blog. See Blog award: "Among the major blog awards are The Weblog Award..." This source might be better-used to demonstrate notability for that blog.
  • Additionally, there are dozens of other published reports on Watts and his work -- see Alex Harvey's list above, posted at 09:08, 27 September 2009; and see the Watts article talk page, here and here. Many of these reports are not substantial, perhaps even trivial, but they do add weight to the argument that Watts is a WP:notable person.

Note that editor Atmoz has objected to the use of opinion columns and blogs to demonstrate notability, citing WP:BLP rules. However, we aren't attempting to add this material to a BLP, but simply to demonstrate that the subject is notable. Hence WP:Notability and WP:Notability (people) have the applicable rules to determine Watts' notability.

It seems to me that the best solution to the Anthony Watts notability question would be to have one article about Anthony Watts, his "Watts Up with That" blog, and his Surfacestations.org blog, with appropriate redirects -- published sources on Watts and his blogs generally mention more than one of these. I have no strong opinion on what the article's main title should be. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In case anyone is interested, Alex Harvey has made other arguments that may be relevant to this discussion, here. He originally posted them here but another editor removed it. I make no judgement regarding the specifics of Alex's argument, just linking to it because it seems relevant to the discussion. ATren (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. It would be relevant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Annan, but A hasn't nominated that article for deletion. -Atmoz (talk) 01:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to believe both Watts and Annan belong, so it's not entirely irrelevant to me. When dealing with a contentious debate such as GW, and trying to assess notability, I think it's appropriate to examine similarly notable figures, especially those on the other side of the issue. Yes, I know about WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS - that's an essay, and I don't think it applies to all arguments of this sort. ATren (talk) 02:25, 30 September 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) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta

edit
Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta (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 local organization Orange Mike | Talk 15:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 16:33, 24 September 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) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanvir Gill

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since no independnet sources are available that provide any biographical informaton or establish notability. At this stage, we can only verify that she is indeed an anchor for the TV channel, but that is insufficient to write a wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 01:11, 30 September 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 keep per nom retirement, no other delete votes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Benson (murderer)

edit
Steven Benson (murderer) (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. Only claim to notability is one crime, which is a dime a dozen, so this is a BLP1E (which always wins against notability). Moral Authority (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation "which always wins against notability" what kind of trick is this?:)--Judo112 (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think a crime/criminal which got a hour special by world fmaous crime reporter Dominick Dunne can be named dime a dozen.--Judo112 (talk) 15:57, 24 September 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 keep On precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Benson (murderer). No delete votes - nom has retired and has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. Non admin closure. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Rubin

edit
Shelley Rubin (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 notability outside of the Jewish Defense League. Moral Authority (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats sort of things can be taken care of when the deletion process has been taken care of and kept.--Judo112 (talk) 17:27, 24 September 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. Circumstances have changed: The article is now at University of Washington firebombing incident and will have Briana Waters merged into it. if the combined article is still problematic, re-nominate.  Sandstein  05:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Solondz

edit
Justin Solondz (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. BLP1E, only notable for one action. Moral Authority (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was a suspected sockpuppet and has since he was accused retired suddenly. Take this into account.--Judo112 (talk) 17:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person doesnt even bother to sign his comment..--Judo112 (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cant say both Delete and Redirect. decide.. or both will be discounted.!--Judo112 (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have to decide either redirect or delete. or else it will be discounted when the discussion is closed. thanks--Judo112 (talk) 08:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to address me? Location (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rest my case and let the closing admin decide if someone has done anything wrong or whatever. not accusing you. cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering why it appears you are instructing me to "redirect or delete" when my recommendation was already "redirect". Location (talk) 20:57, 25 September 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Luers

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

Does not meet our notability standards. BLP1E applies here. Moral Authority (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appeard BLP1E may not be appropriate here. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nomination proposes an incorrect application of policy. The policy WP:BLP1E is not a justification for deletion. The policy concerns whether the article title and topic should be the person, or the event. This nomination should be closed, and a discussion on Talk:Jeff Luers could determine whether or not the person or the event is the appropriate topic. -Pete (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator was a suspected sockpuppet and has since he was accused retired suddenly. Take this into account. This article is keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As there is another delete vote, I can't speedy keep this one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you can. By the fact that a overall consensus of Keep. has been reached in a matter of a few hours. with strong statemtents for Keep. Its unlikely to lead anywhere else but to keep--Judo112 (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The account saying Speedy keep also has right in the statement: Nomination proposes an incorrect application of policy. That along with an possible sockpuppet consensus on the nominator should lead to keep.--Judo112 (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be incorrect, but it's not unquestionably disruption. See Wikipedia:Speedy keep for details. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. Also, BLP1E doesn't apply as he was convicted of multiple instances. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E should not be used as reason for deletion. The policy only concerns the name of an article. Nolamgm (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BLP1E, along with OR, must be the most mis-understood "rule" we have. No where in BLP1E does it say anything about deleting an article. My god, John Wilkes Booth is really only notable for killing Lincoln, and Queen Elizabeth II is really only notable for being the Queen of England (or whatever her full title is). It comes down to coverage in secondary sources which demonstrates people have taken notice (that word is rather similar to notable don't yah think?). We don't care why people have taken notice, or why the person was noticed, we only care if they have been noticed. If the New York Times wants to do a series of articles about a single manhole cover outside of their offices, well you know what, then that manhole cover is notable. Who cares why. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope someone soon close this discussion. its an obvious keep.--Judo112 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 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 University of Washington firebombing incident.  Sandstein  05:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Briana Waters

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

Does not meet our notability standards. BLP. Moral Authority (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as before you cant say both Delete and redirect. Or else both your arguments will be discounted for when closing this discussion.--Judo112 (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You have now to decide once again. delete or redirect...or else your arguments will be discounted when a admin is closing this discussion.--Judo112 (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to address me? Location (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rest my case and let the closing admin decide if someone has done anything wrong or whatever. not accusing you. cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just wondering why it appears you are instructing me to "redirect or delete" when my recommendation was already "redirect". Location (talk) 20:57, 25 September 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 keep per nom retirement and no other delete votes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Swanberg

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

Does not meet our notability standards. BLP1E. Moral Authority (talk) 14:58, 24 September 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) 19:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operational Quality of Release

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

Absolutely no context, and given the information on creation I'd say both WP:OR and quite possibly WP:MADEUP Ironholds (talk) 14:47, 24 September 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. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. See WP:POINT. Friday (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 99 (Israel)

edit
Highway 99 (Israel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See "Anonymous editor"'s post on Wikipedia Review, here: "Wikipedia would be better off without Shalom's contributions. ... No one values what you did, Shalom. Apparently, you think you were a great contributor and that excuses all the disruption you caused."

Okay, Anonymous editor and Laralove and everyone else, it's time for you to stand by your attacks against my contribution. I am listing for deletion all the articles about highways in Israel to which I am the primary contributor. In principle, I could apply Template:Db-author (CSD G7) to them, but for minor edits by others. The notability of a small road in Israel is debatable for readers who live outside Israel, notwithstanding the fact that Hebrew Wikipedia does carry these articles, and smaller roads from the US do have articles.

Also nominating the following highways on List of highways in Israel, in the chronological order in which I created them:

________________________

If this nomination succeeds, I will nominate more of my articles for deletion until they are all deleted. According to "Anonymous editor", Wikipedia will be better off without my contributions, so get rid of them! Shalom wants his junk deleted (talk) 14:26, 24 September 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Hoffman

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

Biography of a local politician selected to run by a third party in an election that is expected, but hasn't been scheduled. Does not seem to meet WP:BIO.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Can

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

Made up game. Prod denied. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technically, "horribly written" is not a reason for deletion, it's a call for improvement. However, improvement efforts are only called for on articles that should really be here; this one doesn't. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noted, however this Dangercan is circular, upon a casual google search I find urban dictionary, a site about user generated content, and the article. Nothing notable shows up otherwise. --WngLdr34 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I think we should allow the creater some time to improve the article, and, if this is not to a satisfactory level then the artical will have to be deleted.I myself have heard of danger can and i know many other people who have. -lankman 18:00 24 September 2009

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Producing editor

edit
Producing editor (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 - Fails WP:N. I am unable to find any reliable sources supporting any notability claims. All sources introduced appear to be self-citations to Mr. Arsenault's activities and non-reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:11, 24 September 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) 19:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King's Kids International

edit
AfDs for this article:
King's Kids International (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 about a non-profit organization that does not meet notability. The article was created from primary sources. Looking for third-party coverage about the organization shows some event listings and this article where they are mentioned as one of several organisers of a conference. However, there does not appear to be any coverage about the organization itself. It has been tagged for notability since Feb 2009 and for primary sources since Mar 2009 with no improvement. Whpq (talk) 13:04, 24 September 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) 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stavrion Lako

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

PROD removed for no reason. He hasn't played in a professional league and seems to fail WP:GNG Spiderone 12:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you've found evidence he has played senior football - but where's the evidence that the Albanian Superliga is fully-pro? He still fails WP:ATHLETE...GiantSnowman 15:28, 30 September 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. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. Rock Charts

edit
List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. Rock Charts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
List of artists who reached number one on the U.S. Rock Charts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a Billboard magazine chart that is literally only several weeks old. There is hardly enough information here to justify a separate list (as of this writing I see a grand total of three items). Article's title is also incorrect (plural "Charts" is wrong, there is only one "Rock Songs" chart). - eo (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not just original synthesis, but bad original synthesis. Since it is a brand new chart, there was every opportunity to make this more than an indiscriminate list by adding some basic information about what song that Green Day or Alice in Chains had reached #1 on the new chart with. The lack of a link to the Billboard chart doesn't help the cause. Even at that, I don't see the value of a list of artists in alphabetical order. The format is too boring for anyone to want to keep it current. Mandsford (talk) 12:44, 2 October 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) 03:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bourgeois mentality

edit
AfDs for this article:
Bourgeois mentality (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 recreated after being successfully merged into Bourgeois. It is based on no real citation and is probably original research. It can be summarised to a few sentence that the term Bourgeois is used in certain way, as it is done in Bourgeois, especially here. Mootros (talk) 10:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Fifelfoo; I didn't look at that talk page. I've changed my vote to Delete, but I would like to see a special section in Bourgeois which uses this exact terminology of "Bourgeois mentality". Yoninah (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very good idea. I second this new section. Mootros (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This consensus is the same two members, Yoninah. You're still voting for a merge and redirect in any case, which I support so long as we can create and keep from deletion a real devoted section in Bourgeoisie. I did not create the mentality-personality article, btw. DinDraithou (talk) 19:26, 24 September 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) 03:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria national football team

edit
Chechen Republic of Ichkeria national football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacking notability, fails WP:V, all the news coverage are NF-Board statistics. Has been previously deleted, but the article was restored under different name and with some sources, so it probably needs to be discussed one more time. Blacklake (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources are not "all NF Board statistics"; they have been taken from several different sources. In any case, why should statistics from the NF Board be discounted? The previous article made no attempt to differentiate between Chechnya and the Chechen diaspora. Also, why should some teams, who have played fewer games than this one, be allowed to retain their articles? I have tried to ensure that relevant information, properly sourced, is in this article, unlike other articles. Surely the point is not how "notable" people think the content is, but whether the content is referenced and accurate. Hammersfan, 24/09/09, 13.52 BST
First of all, NF-Board sources are not independent. They may be reliable, but they are still not independent. And independent media, who write about those competitionm do not seem to provide significant coverage for this very team. In other words NS-Board is notable, but some teams may be not. --Blacklake (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, no organisation can be called independent. The reason that there doesn't seem to be much coverage is that they haven't played since 2007. That does not negate the relevance of the article. If you want to talk about the coverage of the media as a whole on non-FIFA football competitions, then ALL of the non-FIFA teams should be deleted. Are you suggesting that? As regards your note below, I am aware that the teams WHO HAVE NOT PLAYED GAMES have been deleted, but there are others (West Papua and South Moluccas for example) who have played fewer games than Ichkeria but have not been deleted. If those articles are kept, then this one should be too. Hammersfan 25/09/09, 09.47 BST
note: Then if that is the argument, the other similar articles should also be deleted. Why has no one put them up for deletion? Hammersfan 24/09/09, 14.07 BST
At least one has been deleted. --Blacklake (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, the other teams should be deleted as well unless they deserve some notability (such as a famous person took part in a team). The umbrella article UNPO_Cup should stay, although it lacks references. It is more than sufficient for encyclopaedic aims New seeker (talk)
Stu.W UK (talk · contribs) had a little binge a few months ago and put a large number up for deletion, the vast majority of which were indeed deleted. You can find a record of the results here. GiantSnowman 09:19, 29 September 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. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was requested to clarify the closure; on a headcount, 12d/9k; sourcing was improved during the AFD to the extent that some people changed their !votes to keep, and others mentioned it too. As DGG pointed out, the WP:BLP criteria for deletion don't apply since the subject has not requested deletion. The matter of WP:V and WP:BIO are to be interpreted by the community, and while I personally don't think he is notable, it is not for me to substitute my own judgment or opinion for an unbiased closure. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Fletcher

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

Questionable notability and possible hoax. Claims to be king of the "Se Kingdom" but could not verify the existence of this kingdom (purportedly containing 2 million people) independently. The references from the Ghanaian press do not confirm his identity, merely repeat his own claims. The website for the Se Kingdom appears to have been created by the subject. (The remaining two items are anecdotal and only encourage further investigation, not a decision) This blog post contains comments from Ghanaians saying that the author has been hoaxed. I also called my Ghanaian brother-in-law and he insists that no such King or Kingdom exists. I've got a suspicion that we've been conned here Manning (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or move to an article about hoaxes and phony legal threats. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (added 29/9: easily passes WP:GNG now; AfD has resulted in clear improvement to the article. It was reasonable to nominate it as it was -- but in its current version I seriously doubt this article would have been nominated for deletion) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC) -- the person (Kingsley Fletcher) clearly does exist: his books are listed on Amazon, and the articles in Ghana Business News support some key claims in the article. Even the existence of a "Se Kingdom" seems to be verified in those articles, and we don't normally accept comments in blog posts or the word of an editor's brother-in-law over what is in reliable sources. This article was created by a PR company working on behalf of the subject (see here), and a few of us worked to make it more reasonable. If it is deleted, the redirect Adamtey I would also have to go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you've got a point. Here's a listing for the book [17] with his majesty on the cover (wearing a suit, not royal robes). If this is at least partly for-real, some further investigation is needed. Unless this guy is a front for the guy who once advocated putting pants on animals, to see who would buy into it. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a side note - my partner is a diplomat and she will contact the Ghana High Commission tomorrow to get their take on this alleged kingdom. Nomoskedasticity - if the guy is legit, he's legit. But I smell hoax right now (about the "king" status at least) which is why I want to investigate further. If I'm wrong I will gladly admit as much. Manning (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Keep in mind that the article doesn't say he is a king; it used to say that, but we took care of that a long time ago. I doubt anyone will be able to verify that there is a kingdom of some sort, but that's not what the article is claiming. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to know more, but if it is a hoax, it is bigger than us. In Business Week: "... I was told by Kingsley Fletcher, also known as King Adamtey I, the Suapolor or traditional ruler of the Se (Shai) state in Ghana." - Bilby (talk) 09:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It might still be a hoax: gullible journalist listens to someone's claims and limits efforts at verification to a quick check of Wikipedia (where the article contains claims placed by the subject) -- it wouldn't be the first time. It's only the existence of the Ghana Business News articles that prevent me from agreeing that it's a hoax -- you'd figure they know something about their own country. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough. That said, the Business Week article predates the Wikipedia one by about 12 months, so the question is whether or not they were fooled, not whether or not they based the claim on us. If it helps, this article in PC World mentions him and his "Life for Africa" program, but nothing about being a King/Suapolor. And it seems that he spoke, as King, at the World Congress of Families in Amsterdam.[18] I'm leaning towards him being genuine. Whether or not he is notable is a different concern. - Bilby (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep (as per Chris Johnson, below. The article now incorporates enough sources to indicate minor notability/notoriety). The man almost certainly exists. The discussion can focus on whether or not he actually meets WP:BIO criteria. A couple of lines in Business Week, PC World and a single article in the Ghanian press do not notability make. The very fact that we can't establish the basic facts of who he is speaks against his notability and inclusion here. There are hundreds of published authors in West Africa, thousands of traditional leaders and tens of thousands of people quoted in Business Week. None of these by themselves are any claim to inclusion here. Delete on the basis of failing the basic criteria of WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR, WP:POLITICIAN.--Whoosit (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia: WikiProject Ghana is currently inactive, but I will list this debate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa to solicit informed opinions on this chap's claims. --Whoosit (talk) 14:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. User Enric Naval (talk) has done some digging and come up with some further references in the Mexican press, of all places... See Talk:Kingsley Fletcher. --Whoosit (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those are some interesting results. I speak Spanish and will try to see what I can make of them later (without being limited by automated translation). To the extent that a wikipedia article can use stuff like this to poke through someone's pretensions, I think it could be a useful article. Perhaps notability is still a problem, but if we can expand it with better sourcing then perhaps we could end up with something useful here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Whoosit (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When we can't establish basic facts about his life, it speaks volumes about his notability. Although his article gives several indications of "notability" we can only find sourcing for one of them. Ironholds (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very weak keep, (changed because Nomoskedasticity has added a few sources, mainly the two Herald-Sun sources). The only reliable coverage that I can find about his kingship status was a minor scandal in Mexico when a local governor invited the "king" to boost his credibility and paid the local press to reproduce the photography with the "king". This backfired when a journalist dennounced that the governor had been deceived because this person was a "charlatan" and a "fraud", not a king, and not a Ghana diplomat.
About being a king, he is actually the "Suapolor (development chief) of the Se traditional area in Dangme West"[19]. Ghana districts are governed by Assembly Districts, and the Traditional Councils help them. Note: "The Traditional Council is a statutory body and has the Paramount Chief as the Head. It is the lowest level of authority and sees to the welfare and progress of the whole traditional area."[20] A worthy cause, but this guy is not a "king". If I understand correctly, he is not even the Paramount chief but the Development chief.
The "coronation" seems to be a party with dancing that is held when the Council Chiefs are elected (it seems that there are several types of chiefs for each Traditional Council, like a Defence chief). The only news piece about his actuation as a Suapolor seems to be that he initiated the project of "an education centre for students (in Dodowo, Ghana)" in association with the North Carolina Central University (NCCU)[21]. Notice that the university is based in Durham, where Kingsley is a pastor.
So, the "king" part is a non-notable wild exaggeration of his role as Development Chief in a Traditional Council.
For WP:AUTHOR, he has a role as evangelist and pastor. I can't find any reviews of his works or relevant cites, so I would say that he doesn't pass it:
  • #1: "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". Apart from his own books I only found a foreword for one evangelist book[22] signed as a Senior Pastor, and another book where he is cited as one of the pastors that supported the author. Seems to fail it.
  • #2 "known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique". His "Prayer & Fasting" theory has some cites in books [23], all of them published by Xulon Press, a christian self-publishing company, and another book [24] in Destiny Image Publishers which is, hum, a Christian editorial with a purpose to strengthen the Word of God or something. I don't think that this passes #2
  • #3 "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." No reviews or books about him or his theories, so fail.
  • #4. "(...) (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) (...) had works in many significant libraries". Fails.
For WP:ACADEMIC, the only sources about his titles and awards are self-published, so I won't even attempt to analyze it.
For WP:POLITICIAN, we could only salvage #3 "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.". I could only find one independient news piece, the one in ghanadistricts.com.[25] The information in the conference presentations is given by the conferencer and, as we can see, it's often not checked at all for veracity or accuracy. Other sources seem to be press releases or regurgitations of press releases. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the premise of this delete view is incorrect. The article does not claim he is a king. To the extent that he is notable, it might be that he is notable for gaining notoriety for claiming to be a king (perhaps along with other activities). I agree that there are unacceptable sources out there (e.g. press releases), but the article now contains a few separate sources that meet WP:RS. If we're going to delete it, fine, but please let's at least do so on the basis of correct information/characterizations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the coverage of his work in charity and development in Ghana might be enough to scrape by WP:PEOPLE, so I changed to very weak keep. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These change over time, of course, but those are what I found. Not a notable author either, in my view. Delete ++Lar: t/c 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant primary coverage - not notable. — Jake Wartenberg 03:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per those above. Normally I'd list out all the reasons, but everything has been pretty well covered above. Lar in particular did well to show that there's not real notability here. Lara 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet... in the space of 24 hours the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors—searching for neutral, impartial sources and presenting facts without bias—have exposed what appears to be a charlatan. Seems a shame to just flush all this. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTSPECULATION but there may be a public service to be performed here. If not Wikipedia, then perhaps this collection of information can be entrusted to a responsible authority? --Whoosit (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Synthesis is "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Several sources explicitly call him charlatan. "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing". I'm quoting WP:SYN here. ;o) --Whoosit (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "have exposed" - that's synthesis. I'm quoting you. Not sure what the confusion here is... ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All this talk of "exposing" him as a "charlatan" is in this thread; it's not in the article. The article merely states what the press (particularly the Mexican press) has said about him without drawing any original conclusions. This AfD discussion may be synthesis, but the article isn't.--Chris Johnson (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Poor choice of word. I'll give you that. It was late. I apologize for opening up a tangent discussion. The real focus of this debate should be whether the subject has merit enough to stand on his own in an encyclopedia. However in asking the above question I had in mind that if we reports edit such as this to the FBI, then do we as a community not also have the responsibility to prevent the manipualtion of Wikipedia for apparent fraud/misrepresentation? It's worth pointing out that this article came to all of our attention as the result of this legal threat from someone claiming to represent the "king." The threat happened when an editor inserted a neutral reference to balance the biased POV article. It seems to me that our best defense against fraud and legal action is not to delete the subject in question, but to present in a ballanced, well sourced manner. However, AfD is not the place to debate the rights/responsibilities of Wikipedia. So on this tangent at least, I will respectfully shut up. --Whoosit (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, AfD is not the place to debate anything at all related to the proper application of BLP policy. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteYou have definitely been conned. I have contacted several Ghanaians in various parts of the world over the last few days and from what little is known, Fletcher is just a US preacher who has written a few books and uses Ghana as a platform for attempted political and social gain. Endless stories have surfaced on Modern Ghana and other news sites about his dalliances and deviances. Let us keep Wikipedia as legitimate as possible. Amazon and other sites list his published books so lets put him in the category of United States authors and leave it at that. If the page remains up, references to any kingship certainly need to come down as that point seems undeniably questionable. I did check other sources and the guy has a US passport. He is a preacher who visits Ghana once or twice a year. So much for ruling a kingdom. No need for further debate IMHO! Greatminds 99 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not solely on that basis, no, but not to worry, there are lots of good reasons why this article needs to go and no legitimate ones why it needs to remain. Was that a legitimate question? It strikes me, at first appearance, as more of the same trolling you've apparently been doing on WR. Appearances can be deceiving though, and I prefer to assume good faith. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyclopia is considered to be trolling on WR by many readers there. It's a reasonable question (and far from incivil) to ask if that's what Cyclopia is doing here too, given the appearances. I found his question about the phone call unhelpful... the phone call is a quick way to determine if further research is warranted with less effort, nothing more. No one was claiming it was a reason for deletion on its own. Therefore the comment was constructive and your admonishment was out of order, IMHO. If you wish to discuss the matter further, you are invited to my talk page. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Whoosit, no problem anyway. Lar, yes, it was a legitimate question (maybe a bit snarky, I apologize). I can understand there can be other reasons for deletion, but taking into consideration stuff like "I called my friends and they said that" leaves me perplexed a lot anyway. If I gave impression of trolling, I apologize -trolling is most definitely not what I want. --Cyclopia - talk 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. AS Lar says, there is no real in depth coverage to show notability. Kevin (talk) 23:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Initially I was going to argue delete, but it seems that there's sufficient non-trivial coverage to easily meet the GNG. The issues about whether or not he is a king are interesting, but not relevant - the coverage is sufficient to warrant inclusion. I still have a few misgivings about the content of the article, but they will need to be addressed elsewhere. - Bilby (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - fails notability, even with the added sources - Alison ❤ 05:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The burden of proof is on those wanting to delete, even in BLP. Attempts to change it have never succeeded. The exception , which remains controversial, is " Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." Notice the "may"--even those who accept it as policy leave it to the discretion of the closer. In any case, it only applies when the subject has requested deletion, which is not the case here. (I cite from section 3.4 of WP:Deletion policy) DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned above, not enough quality sources to make the article doable. — Ched :  ?  02:01, 1 October 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) 19:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity Shed

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

Local, young band posing as a professional band. Not signed to a notable label, no notable releases, no nationwide or foreign touring etc etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associated pages
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Irey

edit
AfDs for this article:
Diana Irey (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 was AfD in 2006 and closed as no consensus. Fails notability under WP:POLITICIAN. She has been a county commissioner, but has failed in attemptes to get elected to higher office. Most of her coverage is because she ran against a high profile opponent and commented about contrversial actions, but not too much notable about her own actions. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Under what criteria? Definately not under WP:POLITICIAN. "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." County commissioners don't meet that criteria. It is a local office. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no way that commissioners for all but the largest counties should be considered notable by dint of their position. Consider a county commissioner like a mayor: both are prominent local officials, and in the largest cities/counties, both may well be considered notable for their position, but Washington County definitely isn't on that level. With no evidence of notability by other means, no reason to keep this article. Nyttend (talk) 22:59, 25 September 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 19:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teoh Wey Yang

edit
Teoh Wey Yang (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:BIO and WP:PROF , nothing in gnews and a co-contributor to a few articles [26]. can't see how this 29 year old academic passes the mark. seems like a self promotion article. only gets 2 hits on the university's own website [27]. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 24 September 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 Article has already been 'Speedy Deleted' by Decltype under G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page ('Non-admin Closure'). — Oli OR Pyfan! 07:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eco programming

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

Article supposedly about a new "buzzword." It does not appear to meet guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:35, 24 September 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 19:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Roxas-Del Castillo

edit
Cynthia Roxas-Del Castillo (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:BIO and WP:PROF. simply being a law professor does not grant automatic notability. hardly anything in gnews [28] and google scholar [29] LibStar (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

simply being a dean does not grant automatic notability, nor does it satisfy WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 30 September 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 19:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power ratio vs decibel

edit
Power ratio vs decibel (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 superfluous as it consists of a definition from the main article Decibel, some basic calculus and a table of logarithms, which is unnecessary in the age of calculators. PROD was contested in the nick of time by anonymous IP, who did not state a reason. Favonian (talk) 06:09, 24 September 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Toronto Players

edit
North Toronto Players (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 community theatre group does not seem to have any notable third-party coverage -- and not much in the way of primary sources, either. Google reveals directory listings and audition calls, but nothing that satisfies our notability requirements for organizations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:40, 24 September 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayllu Initiative

edit
Ayllu Initiative (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 should be deleted because it's not notable, and is blatant advertising for an organization. Hires an editor (talk) 21:51, 8 September 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 19:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halflife (musical)

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

Speedy declined. I find no WP:RS indicated any notability for what appears to be a mere WP:SOAP article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:19, 24 September 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 nomination withdrawn. Further editorial actions may be discussed on the article's talk page if necessary. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readymade (song)

edit
Readymade (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)

This Red Hot Chili Peppers song article was converted 2 years ago to a redirect without -- as far as I can tell -- any consensus or even discussion. Should it have been redirected? I've restored it for the purposes of taking it to an AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 24 September 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tearjerker (song)

edit
Tearjerker (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)

This Red Hot Chili Peppers song article was converted 2 years ago to a redirect without -- as far as I can tell -- any consensus or even discussion. Should it have been redirected? I've restored it for the purposes of taking it to an AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:16, 24 September 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Rap

edit
Sex Rap (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 Red Hot Chili Peppers song article was converted 2 years ago to a redirect without -- as far as I can tell -- any consensus or even discussion. Should it have been redirected? I've restored it for the purposes of taking it to an AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:15, 24 September 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Could Have Lied

edit
I Could Have Lied (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 Red Hot Chili Peppers song article was converted 2 years ago to a redirect without -- as far as I can tell -- any consensus or even discussion. Should it have been redirected? I've restored it for the purposes of taking it to an AfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:14, 24 September 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 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Monster Control

edit
Tokyo Monster Control (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 band, with only 40 Google hits. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 05:12, 24 September 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 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Mold Solutions

edit
Toxic Mold Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Del or User: All the sources are links to wikipedia or utube or otherwise unhelpful. While it is possible author didn't try to establish notabiliy and source could be found it would be better left in space of a motivated user to establish notability. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:02, 24 September 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  05:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arsenault

edit
Richard Arsenault (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 have revised the entry, eliminating anything that may have previously been construed as a fan site or auto-biographical. Notability of the subject is well established; I found numerous mentions of Richard Arsenault and his notabilityin various searches. Perhaps references in this article need to be updated. Evasmusic — Evasmusic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment: I have found no such reliable sources. Please provide them. I should also caution you that if this new account is in follow-up to this posting [30] you might also want to read over the conflict of interest guidelines. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have gone through and removed uncited BLP claims, there were many. There is not much left of the article. I have tried to find WP:RS that make mention of the subject of the article and have not had any luck turning up any at all. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The only reliable source that has been turned up so far is a single peripheral mention in the LA Times 8 years ago: [31]. This peripheral mention does not establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:08, 26 September 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 speedily deleted by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nithiya Govindasamy

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

Notability unverifiable: elaborate marketing / self-promotion scan.Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete proposer Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 24 September 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) 04:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Next Supermodel

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

Notability unverifiable, existence unverifiable, elaborate scam. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete proposer Fifelfoo (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it was a declined speedy. LibStar (talk) 05:11, 25 September 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 speedily deleted by Orangemike. Non-admin closure.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  04:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Lim Phek Chin

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

Claims notability, can't find sources to back up Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note claims fail. non note. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:06, 24 September 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 a salty DELETE. Manning (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plural Painting

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

Speedy deleted twice, this appears to be original research, and may be offered to promote the one artist mentioned. Google search turns up little of substance [32]. JNW (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OR. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete with salt. Since it's been recreated twice over I won't be biting any newcomers when I ask who could come up with sentences like this: "From instinct micro and personal instinct is so naturally calving cows. And each calves from the same parent have the characters different." I cannot find reliable sources to back up the veracity, let alone establish the notability, of these puzzlingly ungrammatical statements, and that goes for the rest of the article. This is OR, or fluff--take your pick. And do put salt on it please. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. Possibly this was translated from another language (Indonesia is where the edits and the named artist come from), but no matter. Make my deletion with extra sel, oui? JNW (talk) 03:08, 24 September 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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortitude HTTP

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

Article about a non-notable web server. I am unable to turn up any sources mentioning it outside of the official page. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crystal. Self-sourced. Currently non-notable, who knows what the crystal ball might bring. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:54, 24 September 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) 04:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Glassman

edit
Rodney Glassman (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. Biography appears to be about a local politician with dubious notability per WP:POLITICIAN and even more dubious sourcing per WP:RS. No major sources indicative of WP:BIO other than Tucson-area newspapers, etc. Also is too unbalanced: too much high praise and biographical data to be a WP:NPOV article (puff piece) and really no information about his political impact to his constituency (after all, that is the reason he's allegedly notable). --Kinu t/c 01:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The one reliable source provided with the article establishes that Glassman might want to run for McCain's seat--that's it. The other reference is a puff piece from a local business journal (not found on their site) published on the page of the business school of his alma mater (five times over). Other hits from Google News are from local papers, reporting on what he's doing as a city council member, and that position does not confer notability. Drmies (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. Fails "crystal". ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:45, 26 September 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 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Starship Pinafore: The Next Generation

edit
HMS Starship Pinafore: The Next Generation (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 encyclopedically notable. Google reveals zero reliable sources indicating notability for this theatrical piece. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:41, 24 September 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) 04:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People-Centered Economic Development

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

Self-sourced non-notable, only here because editors have been jamming in unrelated term searches.

Delete nominator. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 24 September 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) 19:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Way to Work Program

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

Currently written as an advert. No reliable secondary sources exist so suggest deletion. Patton123 (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 24 September 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Wagner

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

The person is non-notable. They have had a handful of fights in local promotions. While he is a contestant on The Ultimate Fighter he lost his first round match on the first episode. Unless something significant happens, I don't see him being notable now or in the near future. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:33, 24 September 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. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koranic fish

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

Article about a non-notable news story with no useful content. Deyh (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, coverage on BBC and in the NYT about this story. Suspect there may be more sources available in Arabic or other non-English languages. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    I don't see how that brief NYT article demonstrates the notability of the story. There are thousands of news stories reported every single day, many of them in multiple newspapers, but, at least IMO, only the most notable should have articles on Wikipedia. Also note that this fish does not even have a name. The term "Koranic fish" as appears in the BBC article seems to be a description (it appears only once in the title), while the NYT article does not have the term at all. Deyh (talk) 10:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well, it seems you disagree with the WP:N guideline and are using some higher standard for inclusion in Wikipedia-- "most notable" rather than notable. Lots of people disagree with aspects the guideline one way or another, but I have not heard this particular concept--the place to argue for it is WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no useful information in the article that would enable me to be really clear, but either it's a "single event" and therefore falls within WP:NOTNEWS or alternatively the article fails to provide independent neutral sources detailing its notability. I would change my vote to Keep if the article were improved and more sources were added showing its cultural impact. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability: The only issue here is notability- I recall pulling up carrots as a kid and some of them had two roots joined and looked like legs, you read about passing appearance of Jesus or Mary on trees etc. I've been a big defender or both religious things and 'obscure but notable' but based on the current article this looks like delete or merge unless someone can find more note- maybe some academic papers written on the fish, large events, etc otherwise maybe merge into a list of places where people found order in noise like seeing the human face on the moon etc. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be expected that many of them would be found in sources that not all of us can read. Has anyone who knows pertinent languages actually looked? But it does not take scholarly coverage to make something notable--newspapers are quite sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources show that this is more than a trivial news story about an individual fish. We don't have articles about every incident in which somebody sees a religious pattern in something, nor do we need them.  Sandstein  05:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Looking at the reference, plus the google hits, after 3+ years, it seems it is all built upon a single BBC report. This is not sufficient for an article, it's just a curiosity, with a single source. If only there were newer sources with ongoing information. Without that, I presume that someone ate the fish, or it died in a tank. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 2 October 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American-born Chinese

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

The article is completely without references, based entirely on various editor's personal anecdotal knowledge, and has nothing useful to say. (Lacking in encyclopedic content) I prefer to delete. If there were any content to arrive, it should bemerged to Chinese American and this article forked into a disambig. Also worth noting that the top google hits are for American_Born_Chinese by Mr. Yang--Tznkai (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per standard of article. per future possible use of this article in articles concerning this kind of people.--Judo112 (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a difference between ABC and Chinese American: there are people with American citizenship but not born in China (for example, generation 1.5-ers who stay in the US after finishing college or whatnot and eventually get citizenship). Just looking at the image gallery in the Chinese American infobox, Elaine Chao, Jerry Yang, and Tsung-Dao Lee are all Chinese Americans who were born overseas. ABC is a significant concept and worthy of at least a stub; granted, you're right that the current article is crap, but that's an editorial issue, not a deletion issue. And compare to a similar separation in the articles Indian American and ABCD. in that example, ABCD is more about the term than the people, but it's still worth considering... and stuff can be written about the term ABC as well. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:58, 27 September 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Heslop

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

There is no indication of notability. I have checked all of the references given; only one of them does more than give his name as a credit, and the one exception is a page on the website of a record company for which he has recorded. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link is to a newspaper article, not a press release. He has contributed to the work of others as a producer, producing 4 of Kathryn Tickell's albums for instance. He has had various business ventures such as Black Crow Records and Redesdale Studios and has been part of the Northumbrian music scene for many years. Cjc13 (talk) 09:32, 26 September 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. Actually, there is a consensus to merge/redirect but there is no consensus for a target. That issue can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be bold and just do it. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eidolon (astral double)

edit
Eidolon (astral double) (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 from Kama#Theosophy: kama, kamarupa and kamaloka and does not justify a article for this very specific terminology from Theosophy. There are no sources here that need to be merged into the main article so the page should be deleted as an unnecessary split. Wikipedia will not benefit from having every concept, phrase or theosophy neologism defined as separate articles. I note that the text itself appears to be a copyvio of text from http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/etgloss/ea-el.htm which has all rights reserved. Ash (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 24 September 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 Theosophy. Any relevant content can be merged from the history.  Sandstein  05:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Brotherhood (theosophy)

edit
Universal Brotherhood (theosophy) (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 concept of theosophy, effectively a content fork from Theosophy where it is defined as the first declared object of the original Theosophical Society. There are no sources here that need to be merged into the main article so the page should be deleted as an unnecessary split to define an over-specific theosophical term. Wikipedia will not benefit from having every concept, phrase or telepathically communicated theosophy neologism defined as separate articles. Ash (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 24 September 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) 19:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boarhouse

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

The place is gone. The patrons are gone. Unlike the Hungry Duck listed below it's dead. Like the Hungry Duck there isn't much to say other than it tended to such and such patrons some fifteetn years ago and has advertized in such and such rags. Good riddance. NVO (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 24 September 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 The Hungry Duck. NW (Talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Duck

edit
Hungry Duck (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 leave to the community to see if this outfit is worth inclusion. It still operates, tending largely to expatriate community, and as such is regularly reviewed in expatriate newsletters. Note: their website is NSFW. NVO (talk) 12:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 24 September 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarnal

edit
Jarnal (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 here since 2006 and still does not indicate how the software is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 12:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/Redirect – To Portable Document Format under Annotating PDFs. This is a natural fit in that this is specifically what the program is known for, as shown by the following Google Scholar search [34]. Thanks.ShoesssS Talk 12:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand. I find this software worth of its own article. It's an open-source alternative for Windows Journal. That makes it notable. There is 3 other open-source programs available but two of them are for Linux only. Jarnal is cross-platform. In my opinion Jarnal is mainly a freehand sketching and notataking program that is best used with graphics tablet or tablet PC. Yes, it can also be used to annotate PDFs but that's only one side of it. I have tried to expand the article. It was my first contribution to Wikipedia. --J-p-fm (talk) 23:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC) — J-p-fm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 24 September 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 per A5 - Transwiki'ed article. Article exists (almost verbatim) at Wiktionary. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a procedural note: The article was up for VFD in 2004, as noted by the nom, below. The VFD was archived at the article's talk page, which is now orphaned - so, the VFD debate and Transwiki notation have now been copied to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Technomad for archival purposes. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technomad

edit
Technomad (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 nothing but a dictionary definition that duplicates the entry on Wiktionary to where it was transwikied in early 2007. The talk page contains a copy of a VfD discussion in 2004, that doesn't have a clearly defined outcome listed that I can see but would be closed today as "no consensus". The only changes since the end of that discussion have been:

  • The addition of more references that do nothing but note the existence of the word as no additional content has been added for them to reference
  • the addition of external links of varying relevance
  • The removal of an empty list of technomads
  • The addition of two see alsos
  • Various minor changes in what links where.

So in the past five years (minus about 3 weeks) this has not been extended to anything other than a dictionary definition I can't see that it can be. As all the content has already been transwikied to Wiktionary that is not necessary this time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps: People last time suggested that there could be an article about the concept, but I don't see that there is a unique concept beyond what is already in perpetual traveller, nomad, telecommuting and RV lifestyle. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Transwikied DICDEF, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 17:16, 25 September 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 Twisted Wheel (Album). Since there is now an article on the album, a redirect to that album makes sense. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Us

edit
We Are Us (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 music single that "didn't manage to chart" and does not appear to be notable in any other way. There is no page for the album from which it is from. PROD contested as "single was officially released" but this is not sufficient to meet the notability guidelines for music. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The album now has it's own page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.193.254 (talk • contribs) Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 24 September 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) 03:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song of the 144,000

edit
Song of the 144,000 (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 as fails to meet the requirements of WP:BK. Note that freeread.com is the author's site and fails WP:RS as unless used for facts relating to himself it is not an independent source. Ash (talk) 10:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 24 September 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 Alice Bailey. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Group of World Servers

edit
New Group of World Servers (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 an unnecessary content fork of Alice A. Bailey of a concept created by her. The same concept is already discussed on her lengthy and extensive biographical page so a deletion is needed rather than a merge. If this page were considered necessary and encyclopaedic then we would leave the door open to creating separate pages for all the other special terms and concepts she published during her lifetime that she claimed were telepathically dictated to her. Ash (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 24 September 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) 04:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akai Rice

edit
Akai Rice (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 type of heirloom rice. I have searched for sources on Google News Archive and Google Books but have been unable to find anything substantial. The article contains two references; one does not mention the topic, while the other is an error page. Cunard (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scam? Could you please explain?
akai heirloom rice grain is a type of heirloom grain. You can also take a look at "heirloom tomato" article. Heirloom tomato has different types as well: Cherokee Purple, Brandywine, Morgage Lifter , etc. Heirloom grains or tomatoes can be found in a wide variety of colors, shapes, flavors and sizes that's why they have a lot of different types and names.ArnikaLAtalk)
Sure, here are some of the links I've turned up (which are not notable, but as requested I'm providing them): [35], [36], [37] ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to these links "AKAI" is a company/product name that sell rice.
Akai heirloom rice grain is just a type of heirloom rice itself and has nothing to do with "AKAI" company or "AKAI" product.
The article "akai rice" doesn't provide any product information and doesn't mention any company name.
It's just a grain. eirloom grains have become increasingly popular and more readily available in recent years. Usually you can get it from your local farmers. Regular supermarket do not have heirloom grain, only organic rice. ArnikaLAtalk)
That is fine. I wasn't citing the scam concerns in terms of deletion. I was saying that I have not found any reliable sources to demonstrate notability for the rice itself. The only sources I find mention the potentially scammy company using a similar name. If you can find some notable sources that discuss the akai rice heirloom variety, then please do add them to the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not quite certain what this article is trying to do. I get very little from it that seems relevant. I would like to see more referencing - and info. Is this the same rice as the red Camargue rice in Peridon's kitchen, produced by the Griottos, or something different? Will do some more digging tomorrow. (No, not in the fields...) Peridon (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Camarque is a region where they produce a different kinds of rice. Red rice is one of a kind, akai heirloom rice grain is another kind. Each kind of rice has their own unique characteristics. Most of red rice that we see in our supermarkets are organic, but not heirloom. ArnikaLAtalk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 24 September 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) 19:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V-Sor,X

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

1. Could not find any sources to assert notability. Fails WP:BAND.

2. Created by SPI account and edited by possible COI user "Mjbryan" (band member Morgan Bryan) minutes after it was created.

3.The only incoming link is from International Sound Communication which lists artists who "were not signed to a record label, but had released their music privately on cassettes sold via mail, and these were often the source of the material that appeared on the compilations." Ϫ 04:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 24 September 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. I tried to delete it yesterday, but scripting problems prevented me from doing so. Remedied by User:MZMcBride. MuZemike 19:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seizure (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Seizure (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) (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 - fails WP:N as there are no reliable sources that indicate that this particular episode is independently notable. PROD removed with the assertion that all deletions of every television episodes are controversial, which is not true. Merge and redirect is not necessary as the article's information is reproduced in its entirety at Law & Order: Criminal Intent (season 1) and Seizure (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) is an extremely improbable search term. Otto4711 (talk) 04:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point there are four deletes and two keeps. One keep is based on WP:WAX ("this level of detail has been found appropriate for other very successful shows") and WP:NOHARM ("I certainly don't think it's going to harm or confuse anyone...") and the other is based on the unsupported assumption that there must be sources out there somewhere. Notability requires the confirmed existence of independent reliable sources that substantially cover the subject. Otto4711 (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a democracy; the best argument wins, not the most common one. And I don't think you've fairly summarised my arguments (although I'm sure you were attempting to do so in good faith and I appreciate your contribution!). I'm not merely saying the article does no harm, I'm saying it may be positively helpful to those with an interesting in researching this bizarrely successful show, and that possibility of usefulness is not balanced against any possibility of misleading or confusing other users. And WP:WAX refers to contrasting an article against individual other articles that may themselves require deletion - what I'm saying is that there is a clear and continuing policy of sufficiently notable shows having an entry for each and every episode, most notably The Simpsons and a great many sci fi shows. There's no indication of that trend reversing on those shows any time soon - not one of the Simpsons episode pages are currently up for deletion - so I think it's a relevant contrast. We allow those pages because the legacy of the show is so great and its cultural impact so significant that the level of detail is useful to go into. I can't personally understand what makes the Law & Order shows so enduring, but they are, with no sign of abatement, and I can't see any clear reason for saying there's nothing to be gained from having individual episode pages. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not suggesting that this is a vote; I was merely correcting the count offered by DGG and expanding on what I believed the rationales of the keep !voters were and why I don't agree that they justify keeping the article or overcome the arguments of those calling for deletion. There is a clear and continuing guideline regarding when individual episode articles should be created, as summarized at WP:EPISODE. Per that guideline, The order of creation should be: Series article → episode list → individual episode page, if there is enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes (emphasis in original). Many individual episode articles have been deleted despite the popularity or cultural impact of the series. The notability of the series does not automatically devolve to each individual episode and reliable sources are always a requirement. Most if not all episodes of The Simpsons have such sources, often sufficient sources to improve them to featured article or good article status. It is because of the existence of these independent reliable sources that all Simpsons episodes have individual articles, not because of the popularity of the program itself.
  • As noted in the nomination, the entire content of this article is available at the season 1 L&O:CI article (linked to above). Should anyone be interested in this particular episode, a search will lead them to the content either through Seizure (disambiguation) or, should they happen to search Seizure (Law & Order:Criminal Intent episode), something I find highly unlikely but not outside the realm of possibility, the deletion of this article would leave the overall episode list as the first result and the season 1 list as result number four. Otto4711 (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your polite and well-explained further argument! I was not aware of WP:EPISODE and now agree that it applies here and is contrary to my argument. I've learned something as a result of your participation - thank you very much. I accordingly change my vote to Delete. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC) moved comment to the end of mine Otto4711 (talk) 06:28, 24 September 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) 03:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StykFaktor

edit
AfDs for this article:
StykFaktor (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 probably a better way of deciding what to do with this article rather than going through speedy deletion (this has already been done) As I was able to establish on the talk page, after the author looked up this article on various searches, and there is limited WP:RS, and notability. He/she did come up with a music review. The question is if this article is noteworthy enough and has enough sources. BrianY (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - First off it appears to be in violation of CSD G4, recreation of deleted materials. But besides that point the references used in the article have suspect reliability, who is this Jason Baker person who gave it a review is he a professional or a blogger? The same goes for this Mike Mercer, I don't know how reliable he is either so it seems to me relying on sources like this as the backbone of the article is not all that smart. If there were other sources that are a little more reputable then I would think that this group could very well be notable.--Marcusmax(speak) 03:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 24 September 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 04:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Briffa

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

Doesn't seem like a notable fact. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only notability guideline that I know for individual names is contained in WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Sometimes, a disambiguation page will be expanded to include information about the etymology of a name. But there are tens of millions of surnames and given names. Like you, I'm unaware of an exception that's made for individual names. Mandsford (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If you really feel this is a fact that people need to know, you could maybe start a section called "Maltese Names" on the Malta page, if there isn't one already. But otherwise there's no notability for this surname. (Otherwise I could change my surname to "SUPERCOOLXX11" and then start an article on it declaring the surname was created in 2009 by me.) It might be notable if at one point in history people were persecuted for having that particular surname, or if it's so common it's become a popular fake pseudonym, or if it's so stereotypical it's often used in literature to indicate a character is of Maltese origin, or something similar. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is the sort of nonverifible article which is WP:OR--WngLdr34 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing particularly notable about it, if there are articles about people called briffa, it could be made into a disambig. I doubt that will happen tho, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:30, 24 September 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. Listed for 10 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David mason (mason)

edit
David mason (mason) (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 from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 02:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

David meets 1 and 4 of these. I will try to get more links in. Do they have to be online?Gloern (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key to WP:RS is sources that are numerous and non-trivial. Sources that merely mention him and in which he is not the primary subject (such as the website and guide linked on the article) are generally discounted, and a few articles about a subject are usually insufficient to show that the subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 05:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your POV and if that were the guidelines I would concede but there is nothing about the argument that you make in your linked page (WP:RS)and more interestingly that is not what it says in WP:GNG. It says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Since it is a short bio of each of the artists or award winners, each of them would be considered more than a trivial mention while no one being the main topic. So while he might still not be fully notable (thus this AfD), your argument lacks standing as per the stated guidelines.Gloern (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His notability seems clear enough from the sources. Hey, he was asked to build a wall in the White House. The article needs improvement, and I suspect that is part of the problem. I wanted to move it to capitalize his last name but was not sure if that would mess up the AfD.Borock (talk) 14:00, 24 September 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 19:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Greenberger

edit
Robert Greenberger (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. The sources are from his own site? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually basing this off of [[39]]. A very similiar afd discussion. The above co authored 22 transformers comics and was credited as such and result was delete. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's fine, you did nothing wrong.. I realize it was nominated in good faith. We'll see how the afd goes, if turns out that consensus is to delete then it gets deleted. no big whoop. -- Ϫ 05:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 24 September 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) 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rezanson

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

Repeatedly created; let's air this one out to make sure the bases are covered. Does not meet WP:COMPOSER notability guidelines; has no independent coverage in WP:reliable sources. Chick Bowen 01:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


i believe this article does meet the WP:COMPOSER notability guidelines...

"Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre." --Mouser Hyde (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the article has also been referenced from reliable, third-party, published sources. --Mouser Hyde (talk) 08:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a bunch of credit listings indicate that he is a working musician. Significant coverage in reliable sources would be needed to establish him as a notable musician and I don't see any of that coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the reviews do call out the music. However, they don't bother mentioning who did the music. Yes, you can dig around to find him credited, but ultimately, a couple of reviews that mention that the music and sound for a video game was pretty good doesn't really establish his body of work as significant. If it were, I would expect to see his work called out and identified in the reviews. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Whpq. Clubmarx (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, Wiki's guidelines state that not only is the genre relevant, but the titles such as "Sonic the Hedgehog" and "Lego" allow more than enough notary. if this is deleted, there will have to be a new precedence set for the dozens of other composers currently with articles. how can one deny the set parameters? this article is absolutely within the rules. --Mouser Hyde (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - The criterion you are looking at is listed for "Others" bing "composers and performers outside mass media traditions". I don't think that video games are outside of the mass media. This set of criteria is about musical genres outside of the mainstream such as tribal folk traditions from countries not covered by mainstream media. I really don't think it applies in this case. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • in reference to Whpq's comments when considering movies or video game reviews, names are rarely if ever used to single out the components... this does not make them any less relevant. the fact that the music is even mentioned in detail within these reviews is rare. the Sonic the Hedgehog titles alone sold over a million copies further establishing notability. --Mouser Hyde (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • i believe the Sonic Billboard link directly references fan recognition to the composer's contributions... i have given you what you have asked for... specific recognition by name (even though this is rare within the industry, i have still managed to provide it)... the youtube link does the same.... when the composer's name is keyed in, it is predominantly Sonic the Hedgehog fans searching out his music and discussing it within the comments section. --Mouser Hyde (talk) 20:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonic the Hedgehog is one of the most recognized video game characters of today. since 1991 Sonic has sold more than 44 million games! Sonic the Hedgehog's music has always taken on a life outside of the video game console (predominantly in japan) and as each new title is released, new fans are created and search out the back catalog (hence the inclusion of the Sonic Billboard link.... where the composers are identified and rated by name). the composer in question created the music for not one but two of Sonic's titles... how can reaching millions of people not be a notable accomplishment? keep in mind, i am focusing on the Sonic the Hedgehog aspect... the composer has also created the soundtracks to Lego and Age of Empires which have also sold hundreds of thousands of copies. --75.31.70.52 (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - what about the first bullet point under the heading of Criteria for composers and lyricists? "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." i have shown the recognition of the composer winning the number one slot on the Sonic Billboard 2 months in a row for "Meteor Base" and the over 18 thousand hits on youtube for the musical track "Boss Battle".
The Sonic thing is not notable composition, regardless of whatever "Sonic Billboard 2" might say. The youtube stat is a red herring. 18,000 views isn't a big number on youtube - try searching "UQAM Lipdub" and check the hit number. PKT(alk) 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • sorry... i believe something went awry after my last post (a bad cut and paste) and i have duplicated a portion of the article... in fear i may accidently delete something or somehow further confuse things, i won't try and edit my mistake... thanks for understanding.
  • Reply after reviewing the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ... it states that using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency."When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain." Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested (for example, high schools or geographic features), and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing. --75.31.70.52 (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE Wiki's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS backs my argument that the inclusion of this particular composer helps provide consistency... "When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain." in the world of video games, composers are not "rock stars", but that does not make them any less notable. the composer in question has not only developed the themes and music associated with such brands as Sonic the Hedgehog and Lego, he has built a fan base based on these franchises (simply do a google search and observe the many playlists his name, not the name of the games or titles, but that his name is on... or the fan made ringtones that have been created based on his compositions)... wiki has dozens and dozens of video game composers with articles... many with less reference or notability, but someone deemed their articles valid... and i agree, they are all valid as the music is considered to be 1/4 of most game's workload. the composer is defining the character's environments and helping establish their brand... being the artist to be offered this responsibility is notable in itself (it is like tying an actor to a role). yes, many are not mentioned "by name" within reviews but i have provided two instances where the composer in question is discussed, awarded and even sought after. --75.31.70.52 (talk) 01:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It does not support your argument. The essay (not policy or guideline) you are referring to spells out circumstances where an other stuff exists argument may be valid. You haven't pointed to any concrete examples here of articles that clearly are keepers that this article under AFD is very much alike. For example, if you can show that this article is similar to the Jeremy Soule article because they are video game composers and have won significant awards for their work, then I would be convinced. But then again, if Chris Rezanson had won significant awards, he'd already meet other notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • REPLY - the article i am trying to add to Wiki is similar to other video game composer's articles such as Yasuhiro Abe, Shinobu Amayake, Hirokazu Ando, Yoshino Aoki, Stephen Barton, Peter Connelly, Chuck Doud, Takahito Eguchi, Hidehiko Enomoto, Eveline Novakovic, Yasuhiko Fukuda, Olof Gustafsson, Minako Hamano, Chihiro Harada, Aki Hata, Jim Hedges, Dan Hess, Masanori Hikichi, Hajime Hirasawa, Tsuneo Imahori, Jun Ishikawa, Mieko Ishikawa, Daisuke Ishiwatari, Tappi Iwase, Takahiro Izutani... i got as far as the "i"s... please see wiki'd list of other game composers from "j to Z" if you need more comparisons. i can tell you Age of Kings won IGN's and Electronic Game Monthly "Game of the Month Award" and you will come back with "is the compose specifically named on the trophy?".... i can mention that Age of Kings won Canada's prestigious ELAN award for best game design (sound falls into design) and you will come back with "did the composer walk on stage and shake hands with the presenter?".... why does winning an award validate an artist in the first place? --Mouser Hyde (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not convinced that ELAN is all that prestigious. But in any case, being associated with a product that received awards without having direct recognition for the specific work would be an example of WP:NOTINHERITED. As for sound design falling into game design, I disagree. The awards material identify best game design as featuring execution in control, flow, mechanics, balance/tuning. There is in fact a separate category called "BEST SOUND in a VIDEO GAME PRODUCTION". See page 15 of the referenced PDF. -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • REPLY to Whpq i don't agree that awards within the artistic community should warrant notability... but obviously that is only my opinion. politics and art are not a good combo. as with many of the composer i have previously mentioned (i noticed you did not address this), i believe notability is achieved from the creation of contribution to popular culture. obviously, others think this way as all of these composers have articles... and please... before you make statements such as "I'm not convinced that ELAN is all that prestigious." do your homework! if you choose to oppose me, i believe i have the right to a fair trial... not one based on "what you think", but one based on "what you have researched"... i don't think it is fair to be up against only your opinion... i expect you to complete your due diligence!--Mouser Hyde (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - I have done my due diligence. Sound design is a separate category from game design. And as for other composers, WP:OTHERSTUFF is exactly why I, or others have not bothered discussing the other composers. They are not relevant to this discussion, especially when all you have done is rhyme off a list of entries from a category without stating why they should be considered for comparison, and why that establishes that this article should be kept. Fundamentally, this article is missing reliable sources (WP:RS) to establish notability. This is the reason the article was nominated for deletion. And despite all the words written in this discussion, this hasn't been addressed. -- Whpq (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • REPLY i was clearly asking about your due diligence in regards to your opinion on the Elan Awards... regardless of whether my argument is valid, you established in your opening reply an opinion that i believe was not researched. it seems the more i try and justify this article, the more i am up against your opinion... your Elan statement has me concerned that i am dealing with your personal interpretation of Wikis rules and guidelines... i "rhymed" off the list of composers to illustrate that their contributions are no greater than the composer i am writing about... i have clearly established precedent with the other composers... that my article has no less than any of theirs. --Mouser Hyde (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a discussion so everything is opinion. The significance of the ELAN awards is a big red herring. Rezanson didn't win an ELAN so the prestige of the award is irrelevant. As such I didn't really delve into my reasoning for thinking it as not significant. But you will note that I did do enough research to determine that he did not win an award, and that there are separate categories for game design and sound design. So I disagree with your assessment that I didn't do any due diligence. As for the list of composers, the argument you put forward is exactly what WP:OTHERSTUFF describes as not valid. I've tried to explain it, but apparently I've failed. I believe my intepretation is the one generally held, but that is something fort he closing administrator to decide. -- Whpq (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • REPLY please understand that i was not aiming at a "There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that." angle... i was pointing out other composers in the spirit of consistency. my aim is to improve the coverage for the medium and continue celebrating those who work within it. yes, the links to the criteria and parameters are challenging, and i fear the spirit of their intent gets lost in translation. i have proven that the composer in the article is notable (millions of games sold, music discussed in multiple reviews, his association with characters such as Sonic the Hedgehog, Lego Toys, and Sponge Bob), but it seems that i have just not been able to prove to you, in accordance to Wiki's guidelines that he is notable. i could send you links from online magazines filled with adoration for the music, and links filled with disgust towards the music... but because they do not refer to the composer within these articles by name, the composer is still left considered unnoteworthy. i am just hoping for consistency. i simply want Sonic fans, or Lego fans, or Nicktoon fans to be able to refer to Wiki for all their needs, not just some of them. i only want a fair trial... i hope the people that helped pass the other articles on the dozens of composers already occupying Wiki space continue to recognize the significance of the culture. i hope they continue to see the absolute certainty that notability is there, it's just that it becomes foggy when dealing with the language of the parameters. --Mouser Hyde (talk) 08:02, 29 September 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) 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TundraDraw

edit
TundraDraw (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) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 September 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_September_24&oldid=1234119329"