Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 26

< 25 December	27 December >

Guide to deletion

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. Courcelles 00:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Prince

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable ex-Scientologist.

Yes, I know Scientology is evil and all that, but that doesn't justify this BLP. Prince, like many apostates, has been outspoken and quoted by critical sources. His criticism may be fair enough to cite in the appropriate articles (although there's plenty critics to choose from) but there is nothing here that meets our standards for a bio. (Oh except Scientology is evil - but see WP:NOTSOAP.) Scott Mac 23:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, "apostate" is a term of derision often used by academics of questionable reputation re the people who have left "new religious movements." I don't know if you intended to use it that way.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, fails WP:GNG as lacking several good sources about the person, as opposed to a failed lawsuit. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see evidence that he is a notable critic. There a quite a few Scientologists who are ex-Cos, which are interviewed as critics in The Secrets of Scientology for instance. I don't think they should have individual wiki pages per WP:BLP1E. (Calling them apostates is a little silly if not a BLP violation, by the way. Given the tone of Scott's overall post, I assume he's being sarcastic.) Tijfo098 (talk) 13:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not clear to me how a hung jury equals acquittal (as stated in this article), but given the scarcity of sources on this, it will probably remain a mystery. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jesse Prince is Notable since he "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Anyone can verify this. Put "Jesse Prince" scientology in the search engine of your choice. Google news archive picks up 20 stories. There are many more in the newspapers of Tampa and St. Petersburg. I do agree that the page needs considerable work, but that's no reason to delete (unless the subject wants it deleted). Keith Henson (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, quotes that mention her accusations. Pretty skimpy on Biographical info. We need more than people being quoted to write a WP:BIO The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability to the standards needed for a personal bio.Griswaldo (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Garg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notablity concerns--can't find the multiple, secondary reliable sources documenting this software engineer's term as party national secretary to establish notability under WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTRESUME Peter.C • talk 01:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:POLITICIAN--Sodabottle (talk) 09:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Khoshtinat

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT and WP:MUSIC. The subject of the article has won an award in Democracy Video Challenge which is not enough to pass notability. Farhikht (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Farhikht (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep The Democracy Video Challenge is notable enough for Wikipedia,[1] and both it and the Khoshtinat article seem reasonably sourced... though his is in need of cleanup. Quite unusual for an Iranian filmmaker to get coverage in the West, and of course, it is also unusual for a Iranian to win the notable Democracy Video Challenge[2]... so this unique event seems worthy enough of note to me... and strangely we do have sources for him in Russian,[3] but which will require a Russian language reading Wikipedian to translate. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect I'm not agree with your point on the situation of Iranian filmmakers in the west: They get always great coverage from western media, and in Iran also, we have great movie magazines and newspapers like Bonnifilm Daily, Cinemaema.com, cafecinema, cinemapress, Film Magazine, Cinema and Literature, and many many other websites. On sources of the article I have to add that neither Payvand.com nor Iranian.com are reliable.Farhikht (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well... my observation is that when I see an Iranian filmmaker or actor brough to AFD, I find far less coverage in Western media for them than for an equivalent Western individiual. And that we Westerners do not have access to the Iranian magazines you mention, seems to underscore my point in how en.Wikipedia needs to strive in avoiding its own inherent and unfortunate systemic bias. I will await translation of the Russian language sources which DO choose to cover this individual when the West does not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Schmidt on the notability of the Democracy Video Challenge. Besides, it seems to me that the nominated person merely works on alternative and underground projects. I think this is the reason we cannot find anything in the iranian movie magazines and newspapers about him. We shouldn't forget that the strong censorship in iran, makes it very difficult to get independent reliable information on artists, especially of this type. DrPhosphorus (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per sufficient RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bands Against Bush

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A previous nomination closed as "no consensus" in January 2009, and the article has one edit since then, which does not cure the basic problem with this article: the article has no sources for notability or verifiability other than the website of the organization in question. Participants in the previous discussion asserted that sources exist, but they did not provide them, and the sources I could find were all blogs and forums, and then they often confused this topic with the notable Rock Against Bush. Unless independent sources for real notability exist, this article shouldn't be here. Note that the article Tobi Vail already covers this topic adequately, so a merge is not needed either. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Seems to be promotional to the point of being silly. Borock (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any non-trivial reliable coverage of this organization. Does not seem to pass minimal standards. --Jayron32 21:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't assert its own notability, and looks like a soapbox rather than a legitimate article. Hard to see how it will have any lasting notability, which is precisely what notability requires. Xihr 22:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm definitely not a fan of GWB, but all I can find on Google is passing mentions of this project. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- Be nice if people actually looked at the original AFD. Two of the sources I mentioned in there no longer seem to work, but [4] and [5] both still work, and discuss the album. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first is just a trivial mention. The second is much better than any of the other sources I've been able to find - but it's still mostly just a direct quotation from the website. The dateline and list of performers in that article give enough context to the other trivial mentions around October 2003 that I suspect the event in question was the most high-profile thing this effort accomplished. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added some references. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But do these references really establish that that it was not a momentary coverage? I don't think they do. --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:1E is a policy regarding biographies of people, and we're talking about a group. Coverage extends from 2003 to 2007, with most references after the election citing the group because of the NYPD surveillance and infiltration. Certainly stub-worthy. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into some article about Bush' criticism, all Presidents have it.--Truco ⁵⁰³ 21:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been Posted Before

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence this combination of three words is in any way notable and even if it was it would still be a neologism. This article in fact seems to be some form of WP:COATRACK for a non-notable website. I42 (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a dictionary of important English words, much less a directory of minor Internet anagrams. Borock (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. This term is very hard to Google for, but I searched extensively and I cannot find any reliable sources for it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete I'm a member of the group mentioned in the article. Other members widely used this term and I didn't know what did it meant till some friend told me, I think this article will help others understand it in the future.Faris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.142.76 (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place for dictionary definitions or original research, and this seems to be both. By pointing out that you "didn't know what it meant till some friend told me," you only emphasize the fact that this is not a notable phrase. --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bistro 990

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. The lone source here, though in the TIFF section of the Toronto Star, was part of Cynthia Wine's regular column, "Dining Out". It is a standard restaurant critique column, and really does nothing to establish notability of the topic. Notable people eat here during a notable event. That doesn't make this place notable. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides the significant coverage in the Toronto Star admitted to by the nom, which by the way is discriminate and very in-depth,[6] I easily found much more with coverage spanning many years. [7][8][9] Also much more by the Toronto Star by different reporters showing is a major celebrity sighting ___location, kind of like The Ivy in Los Angeles. [10][11][12][13] Not "standard restaurant critique" as the nom is claiming (which actually would be considered "significant coverage" per WP:N anyway). --Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be more than willing to withdraw my nomination if those sources are added to the article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is the existence of significant coverage by independent source. Coverage simply not yet placed into an article doesn't magically mean that significant coverage doesn't exist simply because a Wikipedia user wants them in an article. If you'd like to keep this AfD open as some kind of WP:POINT, well, I can't stop you. --Oakshade (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be sufficient to avoid deletion under CSD. The article as it is is poorly referenced and reads much more like a promotional piece than an encyclopedic article because none of its statements of fact are sourced. For this reason my current opinion is that it should be deleted. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've only given reasons for article improvement, not deletion. AfD is not an article improvement procedure. --Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; its a discussion about whether an article merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. Hence the first sentence at WP:AFD reads "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted."

I don't believe it does, and I have presented several reasons why I feel that way: It reads like a flyer (advertising is prohibited on WikiPedia), it does nothing to back up its apparant star-studded notability, except a single source (which is not coverage by multiple reliable sources, as governed at WP:GNG). A restaurant review - a regular column in the daily newspaper - does not establish notability; it establishes existance. The notability guideline which covers restaurants is WP:CORP. The Primary criteria section of that guideline reads: "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." For this reason my vote is still Delete. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, a restaurant review (actually multiple reviews in this restaurant's case) is in fact significant coverage as provided by WP:GNG. It doesn't matter if it comes from a "regular column." That "regular column" in fact is an independent reliable source that has given significant coverage to this topic, the primary criteria of WP:GNG. And there's multiple sources in this case. The coverage is far beyond the scope of a "one sentence mention," WP:GNG's example of non-significant coverage. If the New York Times reviews a film, that film has received significant coverage regardless if the NYTs film review section is a "regular column." --Oakshade (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is for general topics that don't have their own inclusion criteria. Restaurants fall under WP:CORP, which does indicate the need for multiple sources, which were not present in the article at the time of my nomination. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around (under your interesting "rule" WP:GNG can be ignored and only the sub-notability guidelines can be followed). It's multiple sources anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fodor's coverage is significant. --Mike Cline (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, 1990–1999

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no text whatsoever. It's just infoboxes and schedules; Wikipedia is not an almanac. I've moved everything of value to the season articles, and I'm not fond of this whole decade-basketball history thing anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given that: 1. There is no common link between these seasons beyond the decade (e.g., a period defined by a single coach); 2. Season articles exist for each included season (and taking EDDY's word that all the content is duplicated there); 3. There is no prose tieing it all together (perhaps a symptom of #1). cmadler (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, but the nom's statement that Wikipedia is not an almanac is false. Of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, the very first sentence clearly states, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arkansas Razorbacks basketball, 2000–2009

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no text whatsoever. It's just infoboxes and schedules; Wikipedia is not an almanac. I've moved everything of value to the season articles anyway, and I'm not fond of this whole decade-basketball history thing anyway. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given that: 1. There is no common link between these seasons beyond the decade (e.g., a period defined by a single coach); 2. Season articles exist for each included season (and taking EDDY's word that all the content is duplicated there); 3. There is no prose tieing it all together (perhaps a symptom of #1). cmadler (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, but the nom's statement that Wikipedia is not an almanac is false. Of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, the very first sentence clearly states, "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What needs to be dont to make this article more acceptable? Can it be looked at as a "what can be done" instead of "list why the article is deficient"? Brandonrush (talk) 06:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. This article has a fundamental flaw: there is no reason to prefer the 2000-2009 grouping over other possible groupings, and in fact, at least one other possible grouping makes more sense. Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball#History is broken up by head coach (1986-2002, 2002-2007, 2007-present), and if Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball is to have multi-season articles short of a complete List of Arkansas Razorbacks men's basketball seasons, it would probably make more sense to group that way rather than in arbitrary groups of ten years of YYY0-YYY9. cmadler (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the season articles. Tavix | Talk 20:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it's a different sport but take a look at the list of Notre Dame Fighting Irish football under Bob Davie which provides way more useful information and is much better under coach then decade. Don't know if I remember the notability guidelines since I haven't been here for awhile but I think single season articles that advance in the NCAA/NIT tournament are notable and all others fail wikipedia's notability guidelines. I would propose doing an AfD on single season articles that Arkansas did not advance to the NCAA/NIT tournamen; then group all the other seasons by coach on a new page providing season summaries for each season and for a season summary that has a single season article, provided the {{main}} template. Hopefully this will reduce redundant information in many places. Reorion (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kendriya Vidyalayas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a very large list of schools only one of which has a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a directory. SQGibbon (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is some novel definition of "only one" it seems. By my count (and I might have missed some since I counted quickly) there are at least nine schools on this list with articles of their own. Uncle G (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Some of those articles are for towns and some are school districts but I really only found one that went to a specific school. I only skimmed so it's entirely possible I missed some. If there is more than one then I guess reducing the article to just those might make it similar to any other number of lists on Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All those 'nine' articles mentioned by Uncle G are not for towns or districts, they are specific to schools. Salih (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went through it again and I found eight (as a side note, it doesn't look like most of those would survive AfD). Whether the article should be kept I think is still a legitimate issue, but for now I'm going to open up the discussion on the article's talk page suggesting the list be reduced to only what's notable. SQGibbon (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus is that all high schools are notable (may be inherently) and articles can be made if they are verifiable. Kendriya Vidyalayas (KV) being public high schools, this list is in accordance to WP:LISTS. We may remove those schools which are not verifiable. Salih (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the articles pass notability, but what I take from WP:LISTS, and correct me if I've missed something, is that a list is supposed to point to Wikipedia articles. So even though most/many of the schools in this list would hypothetically be notable enough for articles should we have a list that is just redlinks/links to websites? I know we can keep redlinks for things that should have an article but when an article is over 99% redlinked that seems to be a problem, at least an aesthetic one. Since there are only about nine links to articles, those could easily be merged into the main article about these schools. If that list ever expands then maybe breaking it out into its own article would be appropriate. SQGibbon (talk) 04:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think if this were a list of public schools in the U.S. instead of India (however subvidided: by school district, municipality, etc.), it would be a snow keep. So we have to be careful of systemic bias.
The fact that many or most of the schools do not merit their own articles does not necessarily mean that there is no encyclopedic value to listing them, either in furtherance of the topic of Kendriya Vidyalayas, or for information on the public services provided in the Indian states or populated places where the schools are. Looking over the list, however, it looks like these may not have much in the way of individual identity, if they are simply named Kendriya Vidyalayas #1 or whatever. I don't know if this is incompleteness on the part of the list, or the reality of these educational units. But even if it's not useful to list every school because there's really nothing to say about it other than the fact it exists, it may be proper to list what communities have them and how many; in other words, summarize the information in this list. Just throwing some thoughts out there about how to analyze this list; I have no firm conclusion as to its fate, except that WP:NOTDIR doesn't help us come to a decision here. postdlf (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all convinced that such a list of US schools where only 1.3% (in this case 9 out of 715) were notable/had their own articles would survive but I'm fairly certain it would not be a snow keep (if for no other reason the issue would be contentious enough to bring out all sorts of people on either side of the deletionist debate). You say that this is not a situation for WP:NOTDIR but this does appear to be a case of listing things just because they exist or, in maybe half the cases, are links to official websites (which is awfully close to just being a list of addresses and phone numbers) and one blog post(!). If the article is reduced to just the notable schools then I'm still not sure how a list of 1% of the schools (according to Kendriya Vidyalaya there are just over 1,000 of these types of schools) would be useful as it would just be a pretty arbitrary list. I do agree that summarizing the information might be a good approach but then I'm thinking that such a summary would be better placed in the parent article (which, frankly, is in need of help also). SQGibbon (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that WP:NOTDIR is not specific enough to dictate results in and of itself. As far as lists are concerned, "directory" really doesn't mean much more than "lists we don't like," even where there are probably much more relevant policies are guidelines (the oddest application I've seen was regarding a list of fictional weasels; what exactly is a fictional weasel directory? is it a section of the Yellow Pages?) We always need to take the time to understand the subject matter and how a particular list might relate to it and further understanding of it. The deletion principle underlying WP:NOTDIR is only that some lists of real things are not encyclopedic; beyond that, it's necessary to explain where the list under discussion falls. The nom did not do that, and so we just had a WP:VAGUEWAVE. postdlf (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the original nom (me) was a bit vague, but hasn't the point been expanded upon now? The article lists over 700 of the 1,000 schools of this type and only 9 of those have articles. Perhaps merging that little bit of information into the main article would be an improvement?

It seems to me there are four options, 1-Keep as is, a mess that's not particularly useful and asserts the existence of a lot of schools without anything to support those assertions. 2-Get rid of all the schools that don't assert anything that verifies their existence, which would leave about half the article (still a mess but a bit more navigable). 3-Get rid of everything that doesn't have an article which would easily comply with WP:LISTS but not be a terribly useful article. 4-Merge the schools with articles into the main article until such a time as that list becomes too large for the article and then split it out. SQGibbon (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're repeatedly confusing "notable" with "has its own article". We don't use Wikipedia to determine notability. There seems to be an informal consensus that all high schools are inherently notable. So ideally, each of the schools here—and they're all high schools, going up to Class 12 (12th grade)—ought to have a separate article. The reasons they don't are numerous: lower internet access in India, lower Wikipedia participation in India, lower availability of Indian sources online, lower tendency in India to obsessively document all aspects of culture, the much greater population density in India so schools are numerous enough to get scant individual attention — all of which are just factors in systemic bias. Observe that Category:Schools in India has less than 1000 articles in total, for a population over 1 billion, while Category:Schools in the United States has (how many?) articles, for a population only about 300 million. Whatever the fate of this list, arguing that these schools aren't notable won't do. Shreevatsa (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that for the sake of determining whether an item should be on a list "notable" is equivalent to "having its own article" otherwise lists would be overrun with redlinks. While I'm sure I don't have every single list in my watchlist, the ones I do have, have long operated (i.e., before I came around) using this method. When I started this process I wasn't aware that all these schools were high schools or else I would have presented my position a little differently. That the schools on this list that do in fact exist (about half of them do nothing to satisfy that requirement) are notable by general community consensus is fine with me and I am not now arguing about notability with respect to the articles about specific schools. What am I doing is offering up suggestions to improve what is a rather poor article where one of those suggestions involves merging the information into the main article (please see my other posts on this page). SQGibbon (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that all of the schools are notable (I don't know), then there's nothing wrong with having lists of redlinks; in fact, these would assist with article creation (a valid function of lists) by showing which ones need to be done, and by providing ready-made disambiguation links (if the schools don't have unique names, then separate articles on them will need some kind of parenthetical). In that case, I'd recommend subdividing the lists by state or whatever geographic division, or by governmental administrative division if that's how the schools are run. One list of 1,000+ entries is rather unwieldy. postdlf (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if I understand what you're saying then I think that makes sense. I know very little about India but it looks like these schools are divided by region or state, see here. If you click on those links (I only tried three) you're taken to lists of schools. Here's an html one (one I tried was a .doc and the other never opened). Taking that all high schools are notable (and noting that not all the schools listed at that link reach high school) then it would be tedious but trivial to create a list for each of these regions. Fortunately it appears that ~~all~~ most of them have unique names so that helps. Just to make clear, are you suggesting that this article just consist of links to the 14 school regions and then each of those articles contain the links (mostly of the red variety) to the schools? I think that's a good plan and it does make each article more manageable. It's a lot of work but I'm definitely willing to help. SQGibbon (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm basically saying that this would probably best function as a parent list for sublists by smaller divisions. postdlf (talk) 15:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If these are secondary schools, they are independently notable individually, and this list is an appropriate first step towards eventually making articles. Given the WMF initiative in India, having this list of potential articles ready for expansion is an important step--whether they are used for article in enWP or in the other WPs also. Even if they were primary schools, we keep lists of such schools, usually divided by school district or other administrative unit, and this seems to me to be the equivalent. A totally incomprehensible AfD nomination, to my way of thinking. DGG ( talk ) 05:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the suggestion from Postdlf, this article should list the 14 regions with links to new pages for each of those regions. Then those articles will list all of the schools in that region. I have suggested this at the article's talk page as well. SQGibbon (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stew McKinsey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N--artist doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Clearly exists, there are two passing Gnews hits [14], but there doesn't appear to be significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Additional RS, as always, welcome. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unable to find sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 02:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero sources to establish notability. Ubot16 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline 199

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable bus route. AD 19:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important bus route for the community of the High Peak - Stockport, and ought to have an article to justify its existence.RCSprinter123 (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how Wikipedia works. We aren't about everything that exists, only things covered indepth by third-party sources. There's nothing to show that this is a notable bus route outside the areas it covers. AD 19:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It may well be important locally, but that alone isn't enough to justify an article. As I mentioned on the article's talk page, it needs to meet WP:GNG by having references to reliable sources, and I can't find anything beyond a single passing mention. Not enough to base an article on, so I have to say delete as well. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i have now moved all content from this page and the other derbyshire bus routes to a page called Important bus routes in Derbyshire, so they can be found there in a list instead of having seperate articles.RCSprinter123 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm pretty sure the bus route existed before Wikipedia, and may even exist AFTER Wikipedia; my experience with numerous transit systems suggests that bus routes get along just fine without articles. That being said, what element of the GNG or any other notability criterion does this route meet? Ravenswing 21:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ed, Edd n Eddy#Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show and protect. There is a valid argument for at least preventing creation of this for some time, as significant coverage isn't spontaneous, but it is a likely search term. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced, this article has no citations or references. This article was previously deleted due to lack of citations. I doubt that the television movie is notable, the article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NF. JJ98 (Talk) 18:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I agree with Treelo's rationale in the last AFD: "a redirect can just be turned straight back into the article with a click of an undo link." If this were just redirected, some drooling fanboy would just undo it and turn it back into an article and then we'd be doing the infinite loop all over again. It's plainly obvious that there are no secondary sources at all — heck, not even primary sources! — so this is about as non-notable as can be. What's more, the Ed, Edd n Eddy article already mentions it sufficiently. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and partial merge to Ed, Edd n Eddy#Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show where it is already mentioned and has its notability as the official end of a notable series. Salting is a bit presumptive, as films, even crappy cartoon films, often get retrospective coverage... and a proper article might indeed be one day possible. And declaring potential Wikipedia editors as "drooling fanboys" is a more than a little bitey... so let's not assume bad faith toward nor denigrate a future author, okay? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per MichaelQSchmidt. Salting is certainly not appropriate, this is a real movie and a legitimate search term.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sociomarketing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searches find no indication that this neologism is in general enough use to qualify for an article; in fact, it seems to be a proprietary term, having been trademarked by Joel Goldstein. Instances that Google turns up are associated with him, even the Urban Dictionary link which is the only reference in this version. The article has been repeatedly posted by SPA user Sociomarketing (talk · contribs) who is probably the term's creator. Per WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term", and that seems to be the case here.

The article has been speedied, PRODded, re-speedied, and deleted a total of three times. I think it is time to bring it here for a definitive verdict, and probably to salt it. Wikipedia is not for promotion of proprietary terms. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per the reasons outlined by the nominator. Block user as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and block Sociomarketing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeatedly introducing this bogus article, for which Urban Dictionary is the only available reference. Chester Markel (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, salt and block, per nom. Feezo (Talk) 19:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:SOAP by an SPA that just doesn't seem to get it (despite the history, it still doesn't seem to meet any CSD criteria). And get out the Morton, while you're at it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also salt, a little pepper and a smidgen of garlic. This term fails WP:NEO at least, and appears per this: Joel Goldstein is a keynote speaker who coined the term Sociomarketing to be a promotional term. It would look more comfortable (though not on WP) as "Sociomarketing™"Tonywalton ^Talk 01:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:SALT, as neologism, not notable. Chzz ► 05:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kunst (album) (née The Ting Tings 2011 album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Should be obvious, PROD was contested though. No title, no release date, pretty much no content at all. When a band is active it's obvious enough that they're gonna put out an album some day, you don't need a whole article to say that. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 18:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now redirects to Kunst (album); the last Kunst article was deleted because it turned out to NOT be the name of the album. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 18:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per WP:HAMMER until more information is known (and I just added Kunst (album) to the nomination). Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER, so little content that an incubation is superfluous. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely. No release date, tracklist, coverart, or even the name sourced or confirmed. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have a draft article for the new album that I have been working on since the last AFD at User:Michig/The Ting Tings second studio album. It may be a good idea to move this draft to the article incubator so that interested parties can work on it there until we know the all important (for some) title, tracklisting and release date, rather than keeping on getting new articles appearing.--Michig (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Strachur. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strachur primary school

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This primary school appears to exist,[15], but no notability is asserted and I see none. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our guideline is that secondary schools are generally assumed to be notable, while primary schools aren't. This unreferenced article does not claim that this unremarkable school is notable in any way. Cullen328 (talk) 17:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to Strachur. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 20:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or selective merge) to Strachur, the school's locality. Common practice for non-notable schools. I can't find non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Strachur what can be salvaged and redirect as per standard practice (WP:WPSCH) for primary schools. This might also just either encourage the creator to improve it it ever they come back to it, or to dissuade from making more stubs like it (a common problem with schools).--Kudpung (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party UK

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian Party (United Kingdom), restored and expanded but still fails to have any significant press coverage meeting wp:source requirements. Its 182 votes in United Kingdom general election, 2010 were below many Independents. JRPG (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More info on why it fails wp:notability on the talk page. JRPG (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —JRPG (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No more notable now as it was when it was deleted the first time. Sourcing is still a problem. More than half of the cites that still exist refer back to their own web site. Other coverage cited only shows that it exists. Only the two interviews linked rise to the level of "significant coverage". Even then, a party of less than 500 in a nation of 62 million will need something far more significant than that. DarkAudit (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Still seems to be zero coverage outside of its own website, and Wikipedia is not a place to recite other people's manifestoes for them. The candidate for Norwich North might warrant some sort of mention if he really is the youngest candidate for Parliament, but that claim will need verifying by someone other than the party that fielded him. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source has now been provided to verify the claim that the candidate for Norwich North is the youngest candidate for Parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.1.75 (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the BBC Norwich article, that only says he's the youngest candidate in this by-election. Even if you did verify this claim, it would, at most, get a mention in the Norwich North By-election article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What we look for are multiple reliable published sources, such as books and newspapers, that are independent of and have written substantially about the subject, here the Libertarian Party, which would demonstrate that the general inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia is met. There is the only one reliable published source that I can see, the politics.co.uk one; the remainder are the Party website, press releases by the Party, blogs, and trivial mentions in various places. The subject does not seem to me to meet the guidelines for an article at this time. No objections to an article being written sometime in the future drawing on multiple reliable published sources. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the criteria for inclusion, per the arguments already presented here PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martijn Kuijpers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Ben Sari

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No professional appearances and doesn't look like making one soon Spiderone 21:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miranie Morissette

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet General notability guideline. Miranie Morissette notability questioned in Jerry Fielden AfD. Connections to collected content efforts noted at AraPacis DRV. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miranie had a hit debut album in 2004, no 7 on the Quebec pop charts if I remember correctly but never did follow up. Her career is in limbo for now. Slugguitar (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I questioned this years ago and never got a response: where's the source for her #7 finish on the charts? That claim, if properly sourced, would cover off the notability question all by itself — but there's never been a source provided for it, and I've never been able to find one anywhere myself. And she doesn't even have any article at all on fr:, where you'd expect her notability to be more readily apparent and more easily sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless Slugguitar (Jerry Fielden) or another editor can provide reliable, independent sources showing her notability under our policy for musicians. Vague memories are not enough, unfortunately. Cullen328 (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless real sources suddenly start showing up. I won't hold my breath. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Petropanagos

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Bennett

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent sources to establish notability. Only found one article on subject with incidental mention. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Sailsbystars (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although discussed among Roman Catholic bloggers, I too could find only one possibly reliable source, hidden behind a pay wall. Cullen328 (talk) 18:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter C Mann

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mann has several functions in the sports-scene in the UK, was according to the article an "expert" in bids for large events like the Olympics. The article shows however no sources backing up that there is also individual notability (rather than notability by extension from the organizations (which also have not wikipedia presence; although I did not evaluate notability there) he represents). Also a google-search did not lead to any reliable sources focussing on him. L.tak (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Difficult to know one way or the other, because there seem to be several different Peter Manns (and even Peter C Manns) jostling for the hits. However, as it is stands, this information is all unverified. Also, article is too much like a CV. Will look at this again if someone shows where all this information came from. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Powers of arrest or another relevant article if there is consensus to do so. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individuals with powers of arrest

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not remotely encyclopaedic; different people have different powers in different places and under different circumstances. Also entirely unsourced and wildly generalising. Previously asked author to consider another possible ___location for the content. ninety:one 14:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is not about individuals at all, but about groups of people. It would be better to approach the topic (which is certainly notable and important) from the direction of an article on Powers of arrest or even on just Arrest, than an article on people having the power to arrest (which according to the article can include anyone in some circumstances.) Borock (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have Power of arrest already - there is nothing useful to be gained by having an article of this title. For example, the current list for the United Kingdom could be replaced by "Everyone" as everyone has some powers of arrest in the UK.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge possibly with the article on Powers of arrest? Or rename to Groups with powers of arrest perhaps? Firstly, the article links to other sources within Wikipedia which explain the facts behind the powers of arrest being available to various individuals. Also, ninety appears to work for the police yet has a problem with anyone other than a police constable having powers of arrest. The fact that he/she does not like this does not take away the fact of the there being a legal power available to others. It should also be noted that Wikipedia contains many articles which are a portal or list to other articles, for example:

Also, ninety disputes the factual accuracy of the article, yet none of it is factually incorrect. There are laws to support the powers of arrest for each e.g. in England/Wales the Immigration Act 1971, PACE, common law, Companies Consolidation Act, etc. Finally, as User:Pontificalibus has stated - literally everyone does have power of arrest, but I think he/she is missing the point - the power of arrest vary significantly depending on the person/role leopheard (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leopheard, the argument you're trying to make is known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I am not suggesting that this should be deleted merely because it is a list - goodness knows we even have featured lists - but because of the reasons I stated in the nomination.

I haven't disputed the factual accuracy of the article at all - I have no idea where you've got that from! Neither do I have any idea where you might have got the idea that I'm a police officer from - I'm not! Similarly confusing is your suggestion that I "do not like... anyone other than a police constable having powers of arrest" - I'm the one who has added content about the powers of prison officers, water bailiffs, court bailiffs, customs/immigration officers and the Serjeant at Arms; it's something I personally find extremely interesting, and I've created infoboxes like Template:Law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom to try and widen awareness of this. I just don't think this list is particularly useful or effective. However, what could be both useful and effective is trying to shift the focus of Law enforcement in the United Kingdom away from just being about the the police, and rather covering all the other law enforcement agencies as well (and therefore the powers of their officers). Perhaps you might be able to take part in this?

With regard to merging this article with Powers of arrest - I didn't know that article existed, and I can't see how it would differ from what is covered in arrest, so I would suggest merging those two anyway. ninety:one 17:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I agree that the complexities of the law are very interesting. I would say distributing and expanding the powers of each group mentioned into Law enforcement in the United Kingdom would be a good idea, and perhaps merging with the more general articles on arrest leopheard (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Borock, and Pon. No objection to merger into existing articles. THF (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge selectively back into Powers of arrest and/or peace officer. Do not throw out the babies with the bathwater. Bearian (talk) 16:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not enough here for an article, but no reason to delete good accurate content.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , renaming as "groups..." --something called a list of individuals is expected to be a list of people. Appropriate index article, t=like 1000s of othersx.

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buckle bunny

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not a dictionary of slang expressions. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep: If this is your only argument for AfD, then I await your tagging of snow bunny and beach bunny. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article only has one source cited now, but a quick Google search shows that an article on the people themselves, not just the expression, is possible. Borock (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I have been meaning to improve this article since I created it but never got round to it. Sure it's a substub right now, but the reference is readable and contains eminently wikifiable content. Robinh (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepOr, at least merge all the various "bunny" (also add puck bunny to the list) terms with groupie. Wikipedia has plenty of articles that contain various slang terms. Montanabw^(talk) 21:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to groupie. This appears to be one variant of a larger social phenomenon. The other stuff might bear merging, too, though I haven't looked at the suggested pages. Cnilep (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment that if this one goes, the other stuff should too. Montanabw^(talk) 18:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Snow bunny was a DAB with no ambiguous content; I have redirected it to Snow Bunny (a place). I have tagged Beach bunny for transwiki to Wiktionary. If anyone disagrees with these actions, we may want to open discussions at the relevant project pages and/or talk pages. Cnilep (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability. One reference. Google gives some hits, but to unreliable sources such as urban-dictionary etc. We have no evidence that this term is actually in current use at any notable level, rather than something that is just being mirrored around on the internet. Herostratus (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a term on the rodeo circuit. A cursory Google search shows the term in several slang dictionaries. It's right up there with snow bunny and the others. None of which are worth much and all of which could probably be merged into the groupie article. Montanabw^(talk) 21:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If Wiktionary actually wants this, which I doubt, I can restore it for them. (actually according to the talk page it was transwikied in 2007 so it's a moot point) Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dish monkey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not a dictionary of slang expressions, especially when the expression doesn't even have a consistent meaning. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It actually appears to have two consistent meanings. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and move to Wiktionary-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this eligible for speedy deletion? --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two words can be put together by anyone. How about "wiki monkey"? Borock (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is whether the term has significnat coverage in reliable sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added sources for the second meaning. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Three sources don't obviate the fact that this is a dictionary-style definition. (And books or articles that define the term in the context of using it hardly seem to amount to significant coverage of the term.) Cnilep (talk) 10:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Borock, notability is the difference between declaring to everyone that you have a new nickname, and everyone giving you a nickname. Puerile as that distinction is, it is one of the pillars of WP, the somewhat exclusive social network that anyone can edit. Anarchangel (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki then delete -- article is simply a WP:DICTDEF of a minor slang phrase. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry (derogatory term)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The English version of WP should not be a dictionary of slang words in Norwegian. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and move to Wiktionary-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nominations seems to be grounded solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Article is appropriately referenced and notability is established. This volume of information cannot be moved to Wiktionary, although an article should appropriately be created there as well. __meco (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Norwegian origins of the term have no bearing on its notability in en:wp, and the article demonstrates notability and is more than just a dicdef.Kate (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Nom I agree 100% that the article is fun and interesting. However it is really only a dictionary definition. It says: "The best English translation may be 'cheesy' or 'tacky'." Do you think the Norwegian Wikipedia would have articles on cheesy or tacky? Jaque Hammer (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can take a look at this category and see if you recognize some of these English words. That is not to rebut your argument vis-a-vis this AfD which is a total non-sequitur. __meco (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the Norwegian WP has a different policy about being a dictionary. I can see how these articles would be useful to someone wondering about all those American English expressions which infect other languages. :-) Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriate discussion of the social phenomena. The distinction between a word and a subject is fuzzy, but it there is information that wouldn't really fit into a dictionary like Wiktionary, as is the case here, it belong is Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muppet (slang)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not a slang dictionary. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or potentially transwiki to Wikitionary. The term does appear to have some use, but there is not enough coverage of the term for inclusion, per WP:NEO. ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎ 14:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and move to Wiktionary-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G1 by Malik Shabazz. Feezo (Talk) 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vertocompuphobia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism. Feezo (Talk) 12:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a joke. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and move to wiktionary (if possible)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 13:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a cute but non-notable neologism. --Pnm (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per this search. Erpert (let's talk about it) 23:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Lionel de Rothschild

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any coverage in any reliable sources of this individual. He is the son of Edmund Leopold de Rothschild who I suppose is notable, but notability is not inherited. There are two other David de Rothschild who have received significant coverage, David René de Rothschild and David Mayer de Rothschild, making searching for references a bit challenging but combining the name with The Rothschild Gardens the book he supposedly co-authored or 'Exbury Gardens' the charitable trust he oversees yield nothing. The subject noes not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR, or WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 12:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with submitter. Also unable to find any reliable sources on subject. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amazon gives the co-author of Rothschild Gardens as "Lionel de Rothschild". The article title may indeed be his full name, but authorship of one book (with three others) hardly confers notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reluctantly. Being a de Rothschild practically implies notability in itself, and many members of the family have achieved clear notability. Searches are somewhat difficult as David and Lionel are both fairly common names in that family. I can't find anything clearly indicating this de Rothschild's notability. Pburka (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, or even WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty (Strategy)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod by Anon. Article is a guide. Not sure what to add; this fails so many points. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously WP's purpose is not to tell people how to play video games. The article on the game could include a external link to a respected fan site where the information is given and discussed. `Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR. Feezo (Talk) 14:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT Peter.C • talk 01:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redo (Primary Editor) What if it was more like Chess tactics and Chess strategy? That was the ultimate goal, but it probably should have been started off differently. I think people could really benefit from knowing how to identify/implement common StarCraft II strategies.`Hogan2 17:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the scope of Wikipedia. Useful does not necessarily mean notable for inclusion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it basically has no content and the apparent purpose of the article is to be a game guide. Hobit (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compositional Guitar Tablature

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced notation article up for PROD as WP:MADEUP... Except I already deleted it via PROD this time last year. Jclemens (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced WP:NOT violation. Nakon 08:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. -- Lear's Fool 10:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not an instruction-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jive turkey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not a dictionary of slang expressions.Jaque Hammer (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am very well-versed on this term, but I actually can't find any Ghits other than Urban Dictionary. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No mention in the Oxford English Dictionary, but it gets coverage in American Slang: Cultural Language Guide to Living in the USA by Edward Melillo and Contemporary American slang by Richard A. Spears. However, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and Wiktionary already has an entry on the term. -- Lear's Fool 10:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 11:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as argued above. -- Hoary (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once a notable phrase, it should always be. Bearian (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a precident of keeping phrases? It's just that I have trouble seeing how this doesn't fall afoul of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Lear's Fool 00:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 00:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25 Frames

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable TV show broadcast from a college TV station. The blue linked names go to articles on different people of the same name. Created by an editor with a COI. Corvus cornix_talk 06:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TVSERIES. I cannot find any reliable sources about this show. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, short-lived, minor TV show. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

José Vaquedano

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable free-agent 29-year-old minor league baseball player who didn't play in affiliated baseball in 2010. No particularly notable minor league seasons or feats and his career ERA is 4.05 (not article worthy). Alex (talk) 06:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. no longer in baseball apparently so cant merge him and his career his not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, not notable --Muboshgu (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edo Vanni

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a particularly notable baseball figure. He played in the minor leagues, though he never reached the majors. He managed in the minors, though only for a few seasons and not very well (.482 winning percentage; never reached playoffs). Managing in the minors does not make one inherently notable, as the multiple articles of mine that have been deleted would attest. I guess it really depends on if one thinks a minor league GM is notable or not...and I really do not believe it is. Alex (talk) 06:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tend to think minor league managers are usually notable... and this guy was a GM which should make him more worthwhile. Spanneraol (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as a ballplayer -- the articles I read by clicking "news" above reflect sufficient notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Multiple gnews hits showing significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject including this and this. if you're looking for non-local there were others from the LA Times behind paywalls but appear to be significant coverage. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Wordekemper

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable 27-year-old minor league baseball pitcher who has never pitched in the major leagues. He is not a prospect and at his "advanced" age is still shuttling between AA and AAA. He is not worthy of an article. Since he is active, perhaps a merge would be best. Alex (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous afd discussions.. enough sourcing and content to deserve his own article. Spanneraol (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This issue has already been decided in an extensive discussion. What has changed since then warranting a re-examination? Kinston eagle (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I still believe he shouldn't have his own page, but I do not expect consensus to be on my side this time either. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kinston and Span.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article's sourcing will show that the subject meets the general notability guidelines. Age and level pitched are not grounds for deletion, even under the strictest reading of WP:ATHLETE. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "K" is for "keep the whole shebang" per WP:SNOW. Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A" Is for Alibi

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"A" Is for Alibi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"B" Is for Burglar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"C" Is for Corpse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"D" Is for Deadbeat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"E" Is for Evidence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"F" Is for Fugitive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"G" Is for Gumshoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"H" Is for Homicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"I" Is for Innocent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"J" Is for Judgment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"K" Is for Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"L" Is for Lawless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"M" Is for Malice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"N" Is for Noose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"O" Is for Outlaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"P" Is for Peril (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"Q" Is for Quarry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"R" Is for Ricochet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"S" Is for Silence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"T" Is for Trespass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
"U" Is for Undertow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:NBOOK; should be merged into some List of Kinsey Millhone series books or others. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as these books are all notable having been the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself" and quite a number have "won a major literary award". In addition, all of them have been New York Times best-sellers and the "Alphabet series" is one of the most widely recognized mystery series of the last 50 years. I genuinely do not understand this nomination. - Dravecky (talk) 06:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Only 1 of the 21 articles nominated here has actually been tagged for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 2: A proper nomination would have noted that earlier "H" Is for Homicide AfD and "G" Is for Gumshoe AfD nominations were both closed "Keep per WP:SNOW" in March 2008 and the "R" Is for Ricochet AfD discussion was closed "Speedy Keep per WP:BOOK; notability clearly established, with verifiable and reliable sources" in August 2008. - Dravecky (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought we were discussing the suitability of the topics for encyclopedia articles, not the propriety of the nominations. BTW am I the only one who sees something wrong with articles which mainly consist of plot details of mystery stories? Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really? I'd like to see where you get this information. Notability may be established for one or two books sure, but for all of them? For example, do you see that "C" Is for Corpse cites an article about the separate and unrelated "G" Is for Gumshoe and that a google search turns up pretty much the same thing? "C" Is for Corpse isn't notable. And you're forgetting the second part of the criteria that you are citing: namely that "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." This is something I see extremely lacking in each of these articles; they contain only plot summaries, and that's why I called for them to be merged into a single article about the entire series. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The works cited do "contain sufficient critical commentary" to expand these articles about award-winning, best-selling novels. That some of the article are stubs in need of expansion is not in question but that's a matter for tagging, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Dravecky. A notable book series. JIP | Talk 07:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Although the author and the series are very notable, there is really nothing to say about each book besides a plot summary and sales figures. (Yes, I would say the same about articles about TV series episodes and other stuff.)Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While several of the articles are currently referenced stubs, that's a reason to expand the articles, not to delete them. They all meet the clear WP:NBOOK guidelines. Please note that the nominator has jumped right to AfD without tagging any of the articles or working to improve them (WP:BEFORE). - Dravecky (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment on comment All popular books (films and TV episodes too, as well as sports events, concerts, snowstorms, earthquakes, and many other things) are covered in multiple reliable sources. If the Mets and the Dodgers play a baseball game the details will be reported in depth by some of the most respected reliable sources in the world. The same with these individual books. Newspaper book reviewers are paid to do just that. That in itself does not make them worthy of encyclopedia articles. All readers need to know about the series can be given in one article. After that they should read the books themselves if they are interested. Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - P.S. It takes very little intelligence or creativity to "expand" an article by Googling for book reviews and celebrity interviews, etc. and adding material from them. That does not make the topic notable or the article worth reading however. pps "Expand" in WPspeak usually means "take a trivial topic and add more trivial information so that it looks less trivial." Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, you're looking for a debate on WP:NBOOK and this is not that. Books are not individual baseball games or single television episodes. Nor are they living people, licensed radio stations, census designated places, or any of the other things that have firmly established notability criteria. Books are books and WP:NBOOK is the Wikipedia notability guideline at issue. - Dravecky (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think an individual "mystery" is more akin to a TV series episode than to a"literary" novel. I also don't think a sub-policy compels us to keep something that is not in the interest of WP, its readers, or the books themselves. Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ahhh, the "I know what's best for the WP" argument. Surely someone has an analog of Godwin's Law for this by now? Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, yes I do know what's best for Wikipedia. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia." -User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles "An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." -Encyclopedia Nothing about being a collection of plot summaries of mystery novels.Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all A check of three of these shows 2+ RS for each, clearly meeting the GNG. A much more reasonable approach would have been a merge proposal into a series article, but even then, I don't see how any of these will fail WP:BK criterion 1. Jclemens (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "should be merged into some List of Kinsey Millhone series books or others." Yes, that's what I originally meant. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 19:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Every article indeed has sufficient secondary sources, as pointed out by Jclemens. And for the 9,001st time, THIS IS ARTICLES FOR DELETION, NOT ARTICLES FOR MERGING. DELETION, NOT MERGING. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close - extremely notable series. Each, if not all, of Grafton's alphabet books have been New York Times bestsellers. First editions of the early entries - A through D or so - sell for astronomical prices, and there's plenty of sources for each page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Close' very notable series with lots of publicity and film reproductions, Sadads (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not here. You discuss fixes and merges to articles on their talk page, not in an an AFD. Also, probably notable enough to warrant its own article. Another ill-concidered disruptive AFD by TeleCom Purple backpack89 02:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't like the nom" is not a reason to speedy keep articles. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for keeping are more than "I don't like the nom", Jaque Purple backpack89 17:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As per Draveck and others. WP has a wealth of material about books by popular authors, and many such books are grouped in series. Unless we are also going to go through and replace (for example) all of our Tolkien articles with one massive mega-article "Middle-Earth series by Tolkien", and so on for Pratchett's Disc world books and so on, etc. etc. I think these articles should be kept. betsythedevine (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we should have one article on The Lord of the Rings rather than one on each volume. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each of these books satisfies WP:N and Wikipedia:Notability (books). Best selling novels with multiple reviews published in independent and reliable publications. Edison (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women's superiority

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is being renamed (moved) from "Women's superiority" to "Gynocracy", per posts of Jan. 1–2, 2011, through 2:52a UTC, below. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this page's creation, I and another editor have been discussing it on the talkpage with the creator, because it was well-footnoted and had the potential to be a decent article if secondary sources on the topic (not just on the specific texts) could be found. But the creator has basically refused to find such sources or to understand why such sources need to be found, my limited research hasn't found such sources, and as a consequence the article is, however well-footnoted, a big piece of WP:OR. Roscelese (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. There is no evidence that this is a notable topic. I thought the article would be about why women are better than men, not about theories of women running societies in the speculative past and proposed future. Jaque Hammer (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, I support keeping the article.
Several sections present women's superiority, each relying on an author's own words.
- The Women's Sovereignty subsection is principally based on Scapegoat, by Andrea Dworkin. Scapegoat is a secondary source. In turn, its relevant content is analyzed in The Guardian, a secondary source, and separately in Palestine Solidarity Review, another secondary source. All are secondary sources because, among their qualities, they are at least one level removed from immediate personal involvement.
- The Matriarchies and Statehood subsection is principally based on Lesbian Nation, by Jill Johnston. While it is a primary source, it is analyzed on point by Kris Franklin and Sara E. Chinn in the Review of Law & Social Change, a secondary source.
- The Mythical matriarchy subsection is principally based on four sources:
  - by Cynthia Eller, Relativizing the Patriarchy, a secondary source
  - by Cynthia Eller, The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory, secondary
  - by Starhawk, Dreaming the Dark, a primary source
  - by Margot Adler, Drawing Down the Moon, a secondary source
- The Factual and Conceptual Matriarchy subsection is principally based on Drawing Down the Moon, by Margot Adler, a journalist. The source is secondary.
- The Second-Wave Feminism subsection is based on Feminism and the Abyss of Freedom, by Linda M. G. Zerilli, which is a secondary source, and The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory, by Cynthia Eller, and that is also a secondary source.
- The Organizations section is based on Daring to be Bad, by Alice Echols, and Feminist Thought, by Rosemarie Putnam Tong. Both are secondary.
- The Protohistorical and Historical Peoples section is based principally on Mothers and Amazons, by Helen Diner, a secondary source, and her work is partly analyzed in Drawing Down the Moon, by Margot Adler, also secondary.
- The Criticisms section is principally based on six sources:
  - by Andrea Dworkin, Biological Superiority, which can be treated as a primary source
  - by Christine Stansell, The Feminist Promise, a secondary source
  - by Frances Bartkowski, Feminist Utopias, secondary
  - by J. M. Adovasio et al., The Invisible Sex, secondary
  - by Elaheh Rostami Povey, Feminist Contestations of Institutional Domains in Iran, secondary
  - by Aristophanes, Ecclesiazusae, a primary source
I think the nominator may be suggesting something other than a lack of secondary sources. The nominator may instead be suggesting that a source must itself be cited in another source.
- The Women's Sovereignty subsection meets that test, as Scapegoat is analyzed in The Guardian and in Palestine Solidarity Review.
- The Matriarchies and Statehood subsection also meets that test, as Lesbian Nation is analyzed in the Review of Law & Social Change.
- The Protohistorical and Historical Peoples section also meets that test, as Mothers and Amazons is partly analyzed in Drawing Down the Moon.
Not all subsections meet that test, however. Nor do they have to meet it, because Wikipedia does not require that a secondary source be supported in another secondary source before being cited; otherwise, not much could be published in WP. Even primary sources may be used, as long as they're used with care. If source-citing sources don't exist or aren't found, the sources that are provided may be judged for their own qualities. Those sources not cited in other sources are all reliable and verifiable. Some are by academics and one is by a journalist. They're from credible publishers and some are peer-reviewed. None of the sources have, on their own, been criticized in this discussion except for, in some cases, not having been cited in other sources.
The nominator may be asserting yet something else: that all the content must come from one secondary source, or that it can come from multiple sources but that all of those sources must also be cited in a single secondary source. If that were a WP policy, most major articles would have to be deleted. Many of the articles that meet that test are tagged as lacking sufficient sources. If a major article met that test and then new information was announced, such as a new scientific discovery, it could only be added to WP if one source gave the new discovery and also gave the other information found in the WP article, and that's unusual for news, which is usually announced with little background. The result is that adding the new discovery to WP would require deleting most of the article even if the discovery didn't contradict most other content.
The nominator has suggested that the article covers very disparate subjects. It does not. Within the rubric of women's superiority as an article title, the sources do offer diverse views, but women's sovereignty, female statehood, women monopolizing government, political and economic superiority for women, Womenland, sacerdotal, political, and economic female dominion, harmony of statehood and biology through the remembered majesty of women, female-ruled societies, female superiority, female dominance, the gynocratic age, female-dominated cultures, female supremacy, a female-dominant model, female hegemony, political rule of women, women's power as superior to men's, government and power in the hands of women, women holding a much greater share of power than they do now, a society where women had institutional authority, female rule, and a strong gynocracy are expressions, not of identical ideas, but of ideas all close enough to the article title to be in the same article.
I had proposed dividing major subsections into their own articles and turning Women's Superiority into a disambiguation page, but I now don't think that's a good idea, because that would effectively eliminate having a unifying lede. If a unifying lede were to be written into the dab page, we may as well keep the present article as a single article. I had thought writing the article lede's first sentence would risk too much synthesis, but that turns out not to be a problem. I added this as the lede's first sentence: "Several themes have been expressed by authors, scholars, practitioners, critics, and others." That's followed by some quotes as examples. I don't think that lede has forbidden synthesis.
On notability, there are already enough sources to support it. Nonetheless, I anticipate re-adding some (not all) of the sources I recently deleted, since their inclusion would add more to notability. Under the circumtances, it is probably appropriate to annotate them as having had less or no reception in other sources, in order that readers may more accurately weigh them in comparison to other sources, but all are by people well known in their fields and all are nontrivial on point. I do not plan to re-add Joreen's writing, as it's a primary source and its topical connection is probably tenuous.
History, prehistory, and the future are not barred as article topics if otherwise notable. Aspirations for controlling government have been a significant part of feminist discourse for decades, as shown by the present sources.
In a book titled on moral superiority of women, its author expressed doubt about the title, arguing inside the book that instead there were scientifically valid differences of which some might be advantageous to women. As a scientific source, that book may be out of date; I haven't checked the latest edition lately. I will look for material in that subtopic, including a critique.
For the larger topic, I have searched for more sources, both by doing my own research systematically online and selectively in books and by asking the nominator and readers of the talk page to suggest any sources they might think useful. No one has an obligation to come up with any and they may be busy, but I have asked and they're free to do so. Often, when other editors suggested sources at other times, I've retrieved them, even if it took me weeks to get them. I'm still open to suggestions for specific sources.
Nick Levinson (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very difficult to evaluate this one because the article itself doesn't explain what its scope is intended to be, and the comments above from the creator, if anything, seem to make the topic even more slippery. Unless we get a clear explanation of what information this article is supposed to provide to the reader in addition to any of our other articles about feminism then this has to be a delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The lede's opening is now this: "Some people have argued that women are superior to men, culturally and/or biologically, and some, including some feminists and some nonfeminists, have further argued that women therefore have had, do have, or should have more power in society. Within this general concept, several themes have been expressed by authors, scholars, practitioners, critics, and others." Nick Levinson (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For notability, I've re-added on Phyllis Chesler, Monique Wittig, Mary Daly, and Robin Morgan, the last two much more briefly than in an earlier revision. Phyllis Chesler had written of public institutions and thus her work does belong here. Monique Wittig wrote of men staying, with no suggestion of staying only temporarily, thus of women ruling men. Nick Levinson (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This piece is a synthesis of several loosely related topics. It seems like an annotated reading list for a feminist studies seminar, rather than an encyclopedia article. Edison (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a fascinating and incredibly insightful academic article. It is utterly ingenious, the arguments presented in the article are quite strong, and I am glad I got to read it. HOWEVER, Wikipedia is not the place for new insight. Because it is not truly peer reviewed, it is not the proper venue for works of this nature. The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to put forth new knowledge but simply to record already agreed upon knowledge. Wickedjacob (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not new; it's sourced and sourced again. If anyone sees synthesis, please point to it so I can edit out specific words. All of the article is about perceiving women as superior to men and aspiring to act on it, but if there's a proposal for a better article title, please offer it. If these are so very different, then the solution is dividing into multiple articles, but then we'd need an introductory article on women's superiority or another overarching topic of similar scope from which the rest can reasonably be linked without violating another Wikipedia policy, in which case please suggest an overarching topic I should develop by an article title. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does include a lot of interesting and well sourced information. Hence this is not an obvious OR. Yes, it sounds like a review article. But it is OK to combine different materials on the same subject in the same article. We are doing this all the time. This is not WP:SYN which means making logical conclusions by a wikipedian (A+B=>C). Biophys (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 1st half with Separatist feminism, merge 2nd half with Matriarchy. Sound reasonable? There do seem to be some WP:SYNTH issues with the current article, but much of the material could be useful elsewhere. I might change my vote to Keep if sources that are specifically devoted to the topic of Women's superiority are identified and used. Right now, it just looks like a synthesis of bits and pieces of various sources about related topics. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the section on Women's Sovereignty definitely belongs in Separatist feminism, not here. The primary source for that section, Andrea Dworkin, doesn't even support the idea of Women's superiority, so this is definitely a WP:SYNTH problem. Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a book devoted specifically to this topic: The Natural Superiority of Women by Ashley Montagu, but strangely, it isn't used in the article. Kaldari (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The two mergers wouldn't work because the article is not at all about separatism and matriarchy is about mothers, whereas huge numbers of women are nonmaternal.
- A load of results in Google mention women's superiority but are useless, being blogs and other too-minor sources. Meanwhile, the sources I did use are about aspirations and discussions that are closely similar and that can legitimately be grouped together. If they should be separated, we'd still need an overarching article to link to them with a summary of their relationship. They're not that different from each other.
- It's not synthesis to quote multiple sources that use different words or even to paraphrase sources. I quoted extensively, specifically to avoid risking synthesis. Everything in the article is supported by the sources cited and statements are separated from each other. I quoted or cited whatever was on point in a source so there wouldn't be just bits and pieces but would have editorial integrity and be authorized by the sources.
- The Women's Sovereignty subsection is not at all about feminist separatism, and the lede says that separatism is a different topic. Feminist separatism is for women only, because men would be absent. What Andrea Dworkin proposed included men as present and subject to women's jurisdiction, thus not separatist. Both of the sources that discussed her book, The Guardian and PSR, confirm that men were to be included.
- If you have a source that says that she, then or later, disagreed with what she wrote, i.e., that she changed her mind, please cite it. I did not include any source that was later contradicted by the author, thus I did not include The SCUM Manifesto, as Valerie Solanas later said something that undermined it.
- The Natural Superiority of Women, by Ashley Montagu, has three problems. One is that, as scholarship, it's very dated, and almost certainly outdated, the last edition being from 1975. Another is that, in at least one of the editions, the author distanced his position from the title's, i.e., he disagreed with it as a description of what the book is about. And he did not argue that women should lead a government; the article was originally titled as feminist superiority, so the book was off-point, although now it could be appropriate, or a more up-to-date book could be. His was an interesting argument, but with a difficulty: it's an essentialist or biological argument, thus readily criticizable, the same way that arguing that men's bigger brains made men superior until someone found out that elephants had even bigger brains and no one was asking elephants to take over humans' jobs. I intend to mention something along the lines of biological superiority when I find an adequate source, but probably that could get its own article because of the volume of nonreproductive biological differences between the sexes that have been found (some disputed) in recent years. I also expect that many sources won't posit that biological difference means superiority, but only difference, so it'll likely be a nonscientist who argues that biological difference means superiority. I'll probably also cite Ashley Montagu's book as historically important on the theme even though outdated, since it was widely acknowledged as an early modern contribution, against a tide of theses that women were inferior. I also am considering finding a source on women's moral superiority, so to speak, another problematic area, as it often entangles religious complexities and is tied to women's sociological inferiority, and that tie needs addressing; but if each religion has its own idea of women's moral superiority, and probably each one does except for those that deny the existence of any, then moral superiority may require a separate article, due to length. Given the current title of this article, biological and moral superiority should at least be mentioned, when sourced; I just don't have sources for those two angles yet. But they're in my plans, unless they involve so much content that they need separate articles, in which case I may create just stubs for those two. But at least that'll provide a framework for other editors to expand. And other Wikipedia articles already written may already suffice to cover those angles, in which case I'll only need to link to them.
- Nick Levinson (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Dworkin didn't change her mind. She has never, to my knowledge, suggested that "women are superior to men" (as the topic is defined in your lead sentence). Thus the context in which you are presenting her work is misleading and mischaracterizing in my opinion. What she proposed would perhaps be better characterized as "Feminist separatism" rather than "Separatist feminism", but it's still much closer to "Separatist feminism" than "Women's superiority". I think a section on Women's sovereignty would be logical in Separatist feminism and you would just need to explain that some proposed scenarios would tolerate feminist men. If you can point me to any quote of Dworkin's in which she proposes that women are superior to men, I'll withdraw my objection, but otherwise, I stand by it. I'm fairly familiar with Dworkin's work (I just wrote about her in the Sexism article a few weeks ago) and I was rather surprised to see her included in this topic (although her opinions do seem to get mischaracterized rather often). Kaldari (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing some of Dworkin's writing on the subject it seems that she adamantly opposes the idea of women's superiority (even more than I initially suspected):

"Amidst the generally accurate description of male crimes against women came this ideological rot, articulated of late with increasing frequency in feminist circles: women and men are distinct species or races (the words are used interchangeably); men are biologically inferior to women;"
"The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears... Is there no haunting, restraining memory of the blood spilled, the bodies burned, the ovens filled, the peoples enslaved, by those who have assented throughout history to the very same demagogic logic?"

Those passages seem pretty unambiguous to me. In light of them, I imagine Dworkin would find some offense at being included in this article. Kaldari (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't understand your claim that matriarchies only relate to mothers. Matriarchy is a much broader collection of ideas than what you suggest, and just as patriarchy is often understood to mean male-rule (rather than father-rule), the equivalent is often true of matriarchy as well. Kaldari (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the quotes you added without a citation, since I supplied the citation in the article. The quotes you added date from 1977. Scapegoat dates from 2000. The earlier position cannot refute the later position, because people are permitted to change over time. And, in her 2000 work, she did not ground her new position on biological determinism, so her change may not be so large or so surprising.

I quote her from 2000: "One needs either equality or political and economic superiority." "'The Jews got a country because they had been persecuted, said that enough was enough, decided what they wanted and went out and fought for it. Women should do the same.'" She informally named the proposed place "'Womenland'". The other secondary sources about her work describe the place as "this women's country" and as "a 'state' in which 'females rule supreme above males' if gender equality is not imposed." More quotes are in the article, sourced, and the sum total correctly characterizes her work. Her proposal refers to men being allowed entry and residence in the country under the women's "sovereignty" she proposed. Her proposal was neither feminist separatism nor separatist feminism because it included men, not only feminist men, and either set of men being included would make it integrationist, unequally so but still integrationist, i.e., nonseparatist. By definition, separatism that is feminist excludes men; to combine the content against the definition and without her having used such terminology or a similar concept would be synthesizing, which is why I'm not doing that. I think in earlier years she might not, probably would not, have taken such a position, but that hardly matters, since eventually she did seek a Womenland, with, as she asked, "control of a boundary further away from their bodies, a defended boundary". And the other authors arrived at their respective positions when they did, employing the terms they chose.

On the meaning of matriarchy, see Margot Adler quoted in the article as saying that "[l]iterally" it means "government by mothers". She discusses the widening of the meaning but also a widening that dilutes it away from governance, too, often omitting 'power' from the definition. In this article, where matriarchy is discussed, it is about government, thus is much closer in meaning to the nonmatriarchal discussions, with which it belongs.

Patriarchy and matriarchy denote at the simplest level as parallel words but don't stay that way, just as with man and woman, boy and girl, etc. Patriarchy is very much, albeit not entirely, about fatherhood because patriarchy is about organizing the society and the patriarch's family so that the mother is inferior to the father and so that in a childless family that wifely inferiority is mimicked, and patriarchy is organized to include delegating early childraising to the mother, and even if there will be no children the woman will usually be raised by her family to be a mother just in case, and thus won't have as much power as if the genders had equality. That inequality shapes the difference between matriarchy and patriarchy, in which one is about having dominant power and the other hardly at all. Thus, combining matriarchalist discussions that are about government into matriarchy that isn't would tear apart governance topics that belong together. Cross-linking articles, on the other hand, is fine.

On the lede: "Some people have argued that women are superior to men." You probably agree that some have, given your citation of Ashley Montagu. Also in the lede: "Among modern feminist writers, Andrea Dworkin argued that women should fight to create their own country". That's authorized by the quote above.

You're proposing to move some content out but that still leaves a need for an overarching description because of their commonality, that, in some views, women should govern women and men. That commonality needs accommodation. Please suggest another mechanism for providing it. I don't think a dab will do it, because that would need a lede, too, bringing us back to having an article anyway.

Nick Levinson (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the Dworkin quotes that you provided show that Dworkin believes that women are superior to men. As a philosophical argument she proposed women being able to govern a territory autonomously and compared this with Jews being able to govern themselves within Isreal. She is not even remotely suggesting that women are superior to men or that Jews are superior to the rest of the world. Characterizing her position as such is absolutely disingenuous. She is basically just proposing that women create a safe space where they are free of male domination, violence, exploitation, etc. This has absolutely nothing to do with women being superior and does not represent a change of position from her earlier work. If you don't think her proposal would be appropriate under Separatist feminism that's understandable, but it definitely doesn't belong here. As for Matriarchy, I'm aware of the literal definition. The word is often used in other senses, however. Your own article uses the term 66 times! Surely some of that material could find a home in the matriarchy article, perhaps with a bit of explanation on the different uses of the term. Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's saying that sovereignty should be women's, not men's and not gender-neutral. I'm sorry you missed that. "[B]eing able to govern a territory autonomously" is superiority, precisely. It's not the only superiority there is; but if mostly or only women govern that territory, then women are being superior. France is governed by the French; thus, the French are superior in France and the French head of state is superior to the average French citizen. The CEO of a company is superior to an accountant there. Andrea Dworkin believed and communicated that women should govern in Womenland. Therefore, she believed and communicated that they should be superior. Women's superiority is inherent in women's sovereignty. I have no idea where you got a notion about Jews being superior to the rest of the world; you didn't get it from the article or from me, I don't recall that being in her book, and I have no idea why it's in your response here. But we perhaps can agree that Jews govern Israel. Consequently, Jews are superior in Israel, secularly superior, quite apart from any theological claim in Judaism or Christianity. Your claim of disingenuousness applies, by your terms, to a statement no one made. My claim about what Andrea Dworkin wrote and said was straightforward, accurate, and quoted. More clarity is in definitions of sovereignty: by Webster's Third New International, including "supreme power esp. over a body politic", "freedom from external control", and "controlling influence"; by Shorter Oxford Eng. Dict. ([4th] ed.), including "[s]upremacy in respect of ... efficacy", "[s]upremacy in respect of power or rank; supreme authority", "[t]he position, rank, or power of a supreme ruler or monarch", "[t]he supreme controlling power of a community not under monarchical government; absolute and independent authority of a State, community, etc.", and "[a] territory ... existing as an independent State"; by American Heritage Dict. (3d ed.), including "[s]upremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state", "complete independence and self-government", and "[a] territory existing as an independent state"; and by Random House Webster's Unabridged Dict. (2d ed.), including "supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community." 'Supremacy' is in the definitions in all four of these dictionaries. Hence, 'superiority' is included in sovereignty. We may assume Wikipedia readers will basically know that, and therefore the article relying on dictionary definitions is permissible.

Not seeking just a "safe space", Andrea Dworkin wanted nationhood for women. A safe space is comparatively vague, and often refers to a building or room from which one can temporarily keep others possibly at bay for a few hours so one may unwind, reflect, and regroup before facing the men. Her proposal certainly includes a safe space, but she wants much more: sovereignty. A typical psychotherist or friend may offer a safe space in an office. That psychotherapist or friend, however, cannot offer sovereignty. Andrea Dworkin wanted sovereignty.

Feel free to re-explore whether Scapegoat represents a change in position from her earlier work (you say it doesn't), but I will be surprised if you find as strong a call for sovereignty in her earlier work, for she would hardly have gone to the trouble of writing it all over again. It certainly was not anywhere in the essay from which you irrelevantly quoted without citing. If you find an earlier source in which she foreshadowed Scapegoat and the Guardian interview, please post it so it can be added. If there's no such earlier source, then, as far as both of us know, Scapegoat is new work and a new assertion for women's superiority. It fits squarely under the article's present title.

I counted occurrences of the string "matriarch" in this article. I found 58, not the 66 you wrote of, and, of the 58, 16 are inside quotations, 14 are in source titles, 8 are in redundant passages (two in the lede and more in section titles and the table of contents) and one's a category, leaving 19 that I wrote as substantive. That's not disproportionate.

The Matriarchy article's consensus, if it's not outdated, seems to exclude feminists as sources; viz., the 2007 Talk section on opposing views. The article would need a lengthy new section on feminism on matriarchy as a governance system, and the article's existing editors may claim that only anthropologists can decide on that kind of content, sending me back to a feminism article space. If the feminist sources are seen as valid only for criticism of matriarchy, it will have to be apostrophized, which is not appropriate for the encyclopedia.

Clearly, at any rate, matriarchy insofar as it is government by women and women's sovereignty as government by women are so close conceptually that they belong together. More than that: With matriarchy often being defined as lacking power (we agree that multiple definitions are in use), feminist matriarchy has to be distinguished from powerless matriarchy. I don't plan to add feminist matriarchy without a source saying the phrase, but the matriarchy in the article is feminist because it is premised on women having at least as much power as men have, and women's sovereignty is feminist, too. The matriarchy article may not accept both and need not. A home article for both is needed.

Alternative: Would it be better to title the article as Gynocracy? That's been a redirect to Matriarchy. Gynecocracy or Gynarchy is also feasible but less common; I'd opt for Gynocracy. Under any of the three, the so-called moral and natural superiorities would not be added, as no longer relevant, although they can go into other articles as apropos. Under one of these titles, the commonality would be supported and there'd be room for expansion as more sources are found.

Nick Levinson (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I brought up "Jewish superiority" is because Dworkin compared Womanland with Isreal. Imagine if someone started an article called Jewish superiority and started it with the sentence "Some people have argued that Jews are superior to non-Jews, culturally and/or biologically, and some, including some Zionists and some non-Zionists, have further argued that Jews therefore have had, do have, or should have more power in society." And then they started off the article with a bunch of quotes from Barrack Obama supporting Jewish sovereignty in Isreal. It would be roughly parallel to the situation you've created here. Does Obama believe in "Jewish superiority"? By your logic, yes. Would that article survive a day on Wikipedia? Of course not, because the concept of "superiority" is not just an innocent dictionary term as you frame it. It is a word that inspires wars and genocide, thus you don't just casually imply that the most powerful person in the world believes in "Jewish superiority". You would get nominated for deletion faster than you can blink. If you want to have an article about Women's sovereignty or Gynocracy, that sounds like a reasonable idea to me. However, If you're going to have an article whose scope is defined in rather extreme terms, as this one is judging by the first sentence, you need to be well sure you're not roping in feminists who wouldn't otherwise touch the topic with a ten foot pole. Not only are you giving people the wrong impression of their work (however unintentional), but your potentially violating the WP:BLP policy as well. Kaldari (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did some searching through Google Books to see if Gynocracy would be a suitable title for an encyclopedia article. It seems that most of the sources use it as a synonym of matriarchy, but there are some that use it as a distinct concept. For example, if you look up Gynocracy in the Dictionary Of Sociology, it just says "See matriarchy". Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The discussion above serves to underline the fact that this whole concept is original research, because nobody can point to any secondary sources that unambiguously support the basic premises of this article, so I stand by my previous opinion in favour of deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we have a solution, then. I'll move the whole thing to Gynocracy soon, absent an interim objection.

Responding to other points: That may be Wikipedia's policy regarding Jewish superiority, but I haven't seen such a policy anywhere, and Israel and more than one of its neighbors are at war, whereas women are not, not in anything like the same sense. I have no idea that President Obama said anything on point, but he probably has spoken in assurance of Israel's right to exist and it is a sovereign state. In theology at least, there is a claim of Jews being a chosen people and I have heard a Catholic cardinal on the radio saying the same thing and there is much U.S. Christian evangelist support for Israel's right to exist, so the claim may have secondary-source published theology behind it. If it does, and if it didn't have an on-and-off bombing war closely connected with it, I would assume someone besides me would write such an article, albeit perhaps under another title, such as one about being chosen. I don't know enough to write it and am not likely to in the future. But, in general, when war is not involved, topics are not dropped because they're offensive to many readers. One topic comes to mind that has been stated as grounds for murder by proponents of death and yet it is covered in Wikipedia in multiple locations that make it easy to find. In a few minutes, I found an article in the English Wikipedia and two categories in Wikimedia Commons. If that's a concern for you and you'd like me to email the titles to you or post them on your talk page, let me know soon (I made a note at home listing them). But if someone writes an article on male supremacy that collects sources to the effect that men ought to be in charge and swinging clubs and women should just do as they're told by boys and men and male toddlers and male parrots and should be shot otherwise (supposing such sources exist), I do not object to that scope for an article, even though I object to male supremacy itself and its practice.

A BLP issue that could arise is if one of the authors at the time or later contradicted their own work. None have, to my knowledge. Valerie Solanas (who's dead) did, but I didn't use her work in the article. Quotes are extensive enough to encompass all of the conditions authors may have attached to their core statements, even when the authors' works are secondary, so as not to risk misrepresentation in Wikipedia, and thus avoid making a BLP problem on that point. The description about an organization doesn't present a BLP issue, since the internal disagreement was also presented and as coming from the founder as conditionally disagreeing. If there's another BLP issue, please let me know.

The lede sentences you referred to were written to prevent synthesis, thus are conceptually rather wide. Narrower nonsynthetic sentences would be rather long, probably clause-laden, thus harder to read, so I didn't write them. Instead, after the first sentences, examples indicate what's in the article's body. That structure seems to be the best all-around compromise.

Some clauses are in the lede because their absence seemed to be understood by some readers as meaning that the quoted authors had taken stands they had not and that by the article's silence were being ascribed to them without authority. The clauses clarify that unstated views are not being attributed to them.

The article being its own article solves another problem. When the subject was included in another feminism article and also had extensive quotations, it was perceived as getting undue weight, in contrast to the majority view by far, which is for equality. The content included the extensive quotations to preclude denial that the words had ever been said (it was hotly denied by several editors until someone besides me looked them up). The subject does not have undue weight in its own article. As a result, another article can briefly cover superiority without undue weight there.

I have clarified the lede to add to the first paragraph that most feminists support equality and not superiority. If that's where a BLP issue was, viz., that most other feminists wouldn't want to be associated with a superiority claim because it's contentious, that should resolve it.

I'll wait a bit to see if there's comment on Gynocracy as a new title, before implementing a move. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the latest post before mine (it was not quite a midair collision but close). Thank you for the research. It looks like Gynocracy is probably the title, then. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All except one of the above posters having contributed to Wikipedia since my last reply above (the exception being Biophys, who favored keeping the article) and those I know of from elsewhere as probably wanting the article deleted not yet having participated in this discussion, I assume no one objected to the latest solution, so I'm implementing it, with preservation of the AfD notice on the article. If I'm unable to move the article myself (the destination is a redirect with an extra history step), an administrator may be asked to do so. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as the editor who nominated this article for deletion, I don't care what you call it, since you've still failed to find secondary sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately 17 secondary sources were listed, against four that were primary, in my first response to this AfD nomination. I'm happy to respond to any outstanding issues. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact of something being a secondary source does not make it a secondary source on the concept, which you should have realized since I've explained it about ten times. Have a nice evening. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are secondary for what is presented in the article, which accords with Wikipedia's definition. What I think you were asking for was a single source that stated everything in the article. That's not a Wikipedia standard, and if it were most articles would be deleted. Articles depending on only one source are subject to tagging for insufficient sourcing. Nick Levinson (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No dude, that's not what I asked for. I don't know what you hope to gain by misrepresenting my advice to you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you now say I misrepresent your advice, the response will be point-by-point. It's unfortunately not brief, but I tried to keep it concise.

On the talk page, you originally wrote, "You need to provide a secondary source that connects these entirely discrete and completely philosophically different pieces of writing, most of which relate very little to each other and some of which do not even relate to the purported subject of the article." That's calling for one source ("a ... source" is one source) that cites ("connects") all of the quoted authors on the points they made. Later, you wrote, "you can't draw connections between texts without a reliable secondary source having done so." It's not necessary that one author write about both Jill Johnston and Andrea Dworkin on point, nor that one author write in one place about all of the key authors in the article. The topical connection is close and clear and key authors are backed by secondary sources analyzing what the former wrote. You also wrote, "the ... sources ... don't comment on their relationship to one another". They don't have to; if they did have to, most Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted and most of the rest couldn't be updated with news. You also wrote about "texts proposing one ["female-ruled state"], texts imagining one, texts describing ones that might have already happened", but that's not such a disparity that a single source is required to explain or validate their similarity; all are about female-ruled states and their synonymous concepts and that's what the article is about. The article is not mainly about imagination versus reality. It is about gynocracy, by whatever name and as conceptualized by several authors. You also wrote, "[t]he first priority ... should be finding secondary sources that comment on this subject". Again, that someone have commented on multiple authors in a single source is not required and one source commenting on each concept is permissible and that's already met. Later, you wrote that the lack was of "finding a secondary source, or several secondary sources, that link these things together. (You've found secondary sources on individual texts, but that's only part of the problem.)" Again, these things are not that different. You've understood that already. Since they're not that different, finding a writer who brings these named authors together is not needed. Later, you wrote, "You've yet to provide a source for this article that indicates that "women's superiority" is a thing. (Specifically, a thing which encompasses the diverse philosophies represented in your writing - because the Eller, for example, is a useful source, but all content sourced to it could be merged to matriarchy.)" Whether a source could support more than one article is not relevant to whether it does the job in this one, and this one is about, as Cynthia Eller discusses, "female-ruled ... societies", and not simply matriarchies, which compose a subset. (Thank you for acknowledging that the Cynthia Eller source is useful.) And again, you're saying one source ("a source") must support all of the other sources ("encompass ... the diverse philosophies"). Later, you wrote, "you need sources that link all the things you're talking about together. Matriarchy has been written about in secondary sources, that's why there's an article on it. Do you have, or are you even considering finding, a source that brings in this other stuff?" Matriarchy has been written about in secondary sources, but so has this article's topic; what you're asking for is that the sources be repeated in other sources, and a look through the Matriarchy article shows that it generally does not do that extra step for most of its content, and I don't see it nominated for deletion. For instance, the Matriarchy#Woman-centered as matristic section names three authors and provides exactly one supporting reference, which is to one author's website which says much less about one of the other two than the article says and does not mention the other of the other two at all (I Googled the entire site, not just searching the linked page, which does not mention the other two at all). The animals section gives five sources, each for a different animal, but apparently without giving a source that repeats those five. Evidently, from this sampling, the article you offer as a model largely does not meet the standard you seek for this one. Later, you wrote, "secondary source [perhaps sources] [must] link ... historical matriarchy to the Dworkin and other texts". They're not that disparate as governance concepts, since the matriarchy this article is focused on is in government. They're both gynocratic. You wrote of "feminists imagining societies where women rule" if matriarchies are not discussed. So, for the other gynocracies, you agree on the commonality, and then you want "secondary sources linking together the texts you discuss" even when you recognize the commonality from the article. That's beyond Wikipedia's policies. Later, you wrote, "It's not inconceivable that some secondary source might have traced this concept through Gilman, Dworkin, others, so I think a few more days for interested parties to find such sources wouldn't be amiss." Again, one source tracing through all of the others is well beyond Wikipedia's requirements. And to require it for Charlotte Perkins Gilman when I only cited her to explain a criticism that mentions Herland, not she or Herland being authority for gynocracy by any name, means that you're requiring that a source cite even minor figures in order for major thinkers to be cited, and that's even farther beyond Wikipedia's standards. Later you wrote, starting by quoting me, "'It is not necessary to find one source that supports both matriarchy and women's sovereignty' - Er, yes, dude, it is. That's how Wikipedia works." It's not necessary to cite a secondary source that cites a secondary source that makes the point. Wikipedia wants secondary sources; it does not require that a secondary source cite a secondary source in order for either to support content. Later, you wrote, "If you ... make this article only about Modern Feminists Imagining Societies Politically Dominated By Women - which would seem to be quite specific - you would still need a secondary source attesting that this theme exists." That was in response to my proposal to make one article on women's sovereignty, for example, so you're saying that even an article on exactly that would require not only the Andrea Dworkin source, which is secondary, and the Guardian and PSR sources, which are both also secondary, but also yet another secondary source would have to be cited and would have to back the three already offered. Even with the topic divided, you give no clue as to when this chain of sources would be long enough to suffice. That's why I'd rather rely on existing standards: one source is necessary, arguably two, and a third is nice, but the lack of a third or fourth does not disqualify the article. Later, when I asked "if an article were titled Women Monopolizing Government and had its sourcing," you said that seems no different than with the then-current article as a whole, and thus subject to "your complete failure to cite any secondary sources on this concept." I had cited Helen Diner, whose book was secondary, and gave Margot Adler's analysis (also secondary) of Helen Diner's work, thus the one was backed up by another. Later, you wrote, "in order to create an article on women's sovereignty, you must find a secondary source that has already done the synthesis." Two secondary sources, The Guardian and PSR, each did that and you still wanted more. That's beyond the policy. If I've missed any of your statements on point, please let me know.

In your nominating statement above, you wrote the need was for "secondary sources on the topic (not just on the specific texts)" and later you wrote it was for one "secondary source on the concept" (perhaps more than one source this time). The article has that several times over. When authors use near-synonyms (which is what most synonyms are), it's not necessary that one writer write about all of the other authors who have written on the topic.

Hence, when I wrote, "[w]hat I think you were asking for was a single source that stated everything in the article" and you replied "[n]o dude, that's not what I asked for. I don't know what you hope to gain by misrepresenting my advice to you.", there's no misrepresentation. You did ask for a single source at times; at other times you allowed for multiple sources but only if they connected all the specific major texts and minor ones as well, using identical language or authors' names, going beyond the need for secondary sources. You specified a standard not even met in the Matriarchy article you offered as a model, although that article may meet Wikipedia's standards.

Nick Levinson (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected two grammatical errors, in the sentence on the Googled site and in a sentence pairing matriarchy and women's sovereignty: 08:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 01:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Eastwood in popular culture

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This dreadful article is fancruft that fails just about every policy imaginable. It has no sources, is original research because it relies on editors declaring something to be a reference to Mr. Eastwood in the absence of any actual sources saying so, it is synthesis because it tries to pretend that an indiscriminate accumulation of trivial mentions equals an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Wikipedia is not a database of pop culture cross references and in jokes.

This article somehow survived deletion five months ago, and since then the only thing to happen to it is the insertion of more sourceless trivia. The article's defenders have not done a thing to fix the many, many problems- this must now be taken as evidence that the problems are unfixable. Reyk _YO! 03:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think an article on Clint Eastwood outside of popular culture would be more interesting.Jaque Hammer (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same fundamental problems as I noted in the last AfD. Also per Reyk's excellent nomination. I would also oppose merging this content back to Clint Eastwood, since it isn't appropriate in any article. A sourced summary in prose describing how Eastwood has affected popular culture would be appropriate in the main article,but this material wouldn't be of any help with that. Them From Space 12:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section was split from the main article because it was being improved. I agree, maybe a summarised paragraph in the main article but it is likely to have to keep being reverted by people adding trivia to it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In order for something to qualify for deletion, it must be believed that even if it was better written, the article would still not be appropriate. I am not sure that an appropriate article on Mr. Eastwood's impact could not exist. However, the article as it stands is not that article. Furthermore, it would require not just tweaking but completely deleting the current article and restarting. Then it would require secondary sources for wikipedia to summarize, as any cobbled together list is in essence original research (editors seeing a joke in a computer game or movie and concluding ON THEIR OWN that it is a reference to Mr. Eastwood). This problem of "original list-making" (OLM) plagues many pop-culture articles and I think is reason enough to guard against them. IMHO, any "Celebrity X in pop culture" article should refer to secondary sources who have already analyzed the subject's impact -- not be a place for editors to dump miscellaneous trivia. The much discussed but little acted upon "wikitrivia project" ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiTrivia ) would be a better solution. However, lack of that project's ability to get off the ground is not an excuse to for OLM. Wickedjacob (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 01:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zeera P. Charnoe (Zee Charnoe)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A number of issues with this article:

Notability: I am having a hard time establishing notability for this person.

Possible Author COI: Article's main contributor is S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe (talk · contribs), listing the same last name as the subject.

Sourcing: Many of the sources are not acceptable, or do not establish notability. (Note that the sources are not properly inlined but instead linked as ELs with numbers inserted into the text, this is fixable of course.) Many of them are to a Google Docs account with the name "Jennifer Gray" who I assume is S. Jennifer Gray Charnoe here on WP. If so, I believe this is an unacceptable self-published source. On notability, other sources only seem to mention this person giving talks at some event, or being listed on a patent. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 03:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits on gnews. Everything that comes up elsewhere is an SPS. The article is also a complete mess. Aside, something is broken on this AfD or somewhere else because the AfD is redlinked for me on the article page, but still leads here. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tried searching for a few of the things that this person might be notable, but I'm not finding anything other than hits on this page and other wiki mirrors. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Negligible sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Possible vanity/puff piece. Snappy (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If consensus it to delete, then due to this being the 3rd AfD, I recommendend creation protection as per WP:SALT. Snappy (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Actually, given that each recreation has been under a different name, salting would likely be ineffective. Leaving it unsalted would make it easier a patrolling admin to know to CSD:G4 the page. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. This is the third AfD, by the way. She doesn't give up. Also see the same editor's articles Harbinger Community and Celestial Synapse, which need attention. Fences&Windows 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oooh, look! I verified something. He knew Leonard Cohen in the 70s.[16] (I think it's Leonard Cohen). Fences&Windows 22:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BK. Not sure how he's supposed to be a "notable" author. He appears to be nothing more than a multiple hobbyist with non-notable interests in a lot of different areas. Also, should have been speedied, due to the two previous deletions at AfD. Qworty (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jonathan Bertman. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfraidToAsk.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Created by User:Infomed, an WP:SPA who also created Jonathan Bertman, with possible WP:COI issues. Rd232 ^talk 02:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jonathan Bertman. Not notable. The article exaggerates the importance of the subect in the Supreme Court case (in which it was merely one of many plaintiffs), and there is no other source of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MelanieN. Logical Cowboy (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dusti^*poke* 05:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bertman

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF, and not otherwise quite notable enough. Created by User:Infomed, with possible WP:COI issues. Rd232 ^talk 02:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - found plenty of news sources at the links above. See WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A handful of passing mentions, mostly in trade journals and a local newspaper, are not indicative of meeting WP:N. Do not presume the nominator hasn't bothered to look. Rd232 ^talk 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per RS coverage, reflecting notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- such as? Rd232 ^talk 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Articles primarily about the subject in the AMA Newsletter, Modern Physician, and Providence Journal are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn, no delete !votes standing. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 09:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT themes in horror fiction

~~(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)~~ Withdrawn, I many have a little much much Christmas merriment (Guinness) when making this nom Gnevin (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR and total lack of WP:V Gnevin (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gnevin claims that the article is original research and that its assertions are not verifiable. How then does the nominator explain that there are at least four seemingly solid references listed in the article that appear to deal directly with this topic? Notabilty established. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important topic. If there's OR problems in the article then the article should be fixed, not deleted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above, Sadads (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wolverine (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussion regarding editorial decisions should continue at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional history of Wolverine

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The whole article as the title indicates is a plot summary. A development history of the character would be fine but this? no. In addition to the fact that we don't write plot summaries, the article is inherently misleading because it presents the history as a linear narrative when none exist and therefore is original research (because the dating of some events is unclear and you have to guess where to place them). Cameron Scott (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unwarranted content fork. Basically one big in-universe plot summary. Not even worth merging into the main article. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Merge to Wolverine (comics), albeit only in extremely truncated form. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wolverine (comics), heavily truncated. A 92-kilobyte in-universe history character about one single comics character is really not needed. JIP | Talk 11:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to be sourced. Also check the what links here to see how many red links it would make. And it is a popular page. Average of 600+ hits per day and sometimes more than 1k.Mark E (talk) 12:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is not a valid rationale for keeping it. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while it can be agreed that the current construction of the article into a faux lineation is problematic, it is not irresolvable. The article, and others similar, have been nominated, and the nfailed to come to consensus regarding deletion. Regarding this article, 3rd party sources about storylines and fictional history are availabe in abundance [17], [18], [19]. The creation of a fictional history provides help to manage a popular and ever-growing page, [20]. This page needs to exist to create a centralized point to manage such fictional material, which has merit due to the iconic nature of the character (regardless of how well or poorly it has been managed).-Sharp962 (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Most of the prose that bloats the page sizes here is plain junk. If you remove all the in-universe OR, you can deal with the bits of Wolverine's history that can be cited to reliable third-party sources in Wolverine (comics). WesleyDodds (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to the parent article. It looks like it relies completely on primary sources and is an overly detailed content fork. AniMate^draw 09:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs to be properly sourced and fixed to include a development history of the character. If that proves impossible, we can always merge the most pertinent bits back into Wolverine (comics). BOZ (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why would we have a development history in a fictional history? Why not just have an article on the development history and avoids those problems to start with ?--Cameron Scott (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or *merge equally reasonable for a major character at the center of multiple series. The key thing is the kkep the information. The advantage ofmerging is that a good deal of the necessary material duplicates; the advantage of keeping separate is clarity. I totally disagree with the idea that when merged it should be drastically cut, except with respect to the duplication--admittedluy, there's quite a lot of it. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 22 August 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. Courcelles 01:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Murray, Sr.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced BLP orphan from 2006 created by a single use account. (vanity article?) No serious assertion of notability beyond usual practise at a lawyer. No notability found via google, Fails WP:BIO Ajbpearce (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ajbpearce summarizes things well. Probably an autobiographical article as author's username resembles name of subject's fraternity. A fine gentleman, I'm sure, but not notable by our standards. Cullen328 (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google turns up Facebook, an obituary (but not his), news turns up nothing. As it is an unreferenced BLP and an orphan, and shows no notability, failing WP:N, it should be deleted. The Arbiter ^Talk 01:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious notability, however, it does read like an advertisement. The article needs cleaned up (granted by the template on the page) (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SilverFast

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability, looks like spam. Darxus (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Obvious notability, including numerous 3rd party refs already in the article. Can't imagine why this is AfD, looks perfectly good. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure if it should stay or go, but it should be noted that - if kept - the article needs to be cleaned up. As well, there are several Wikipedia accounts directly linked to the company that occasionally edit it in a promotional manner. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nice article, content is relevant, perhaps a little advertising, but this can indeed be changed. --Pflaumenbaum (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the above account's only content edit (prior to today's vote) was an edit to an article about a project sponsored by the manufacturer of Silverfast. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Sven Boisen (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above user has an apparent connection to the company that produces Silverfast. --Ckatz^chat _spy 04:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HDRpad

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability, looks like spam. Darxus (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These last five requests are from the software list on High dynamic range imaging, which has a tendency to collect this sort of thing. They used to do external links, but now they're creating articles and linking them. —Darxus (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And some of those articles are really good ones. Perhaps you might consider improving them instead of AfD'ing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 18 December I mentioned on the discussion page that I intended to remove HDRpad from High Dynamic Range Imaging, and did so. 22 December Tomlee2010 reverted that edit "Undid revision 403091713 by Darxus" without posting to the discussion. I then looked up his other edits and noticed in August he added an external link to hdrpad.com to Image fusion which was reverted "rm promotional link": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_fusion&diff=prev&oldid=379362070 —Darxus (talk) 05:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional, no noticable notability. The³5₉ (Talk) 05:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced software article; no indication of notability; article created by single-purpose account- likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Pnm (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gavin Trippe. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Single

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Super Single

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Super Single was an idea (a very cool one, to be sure) for a new motorcycle racing class somebody had three years ago. It got two prominent blog posts [21][22] and then went nowhere. The article violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Note that the name for the proposed class has changed from Super Single to Formula 450 Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Dbratland (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Supermono as a historical note to the existing article? — Brianhe (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem there is that there is no actual connection between the European race class which exists and the non-existent proposed US class. The only place I can think of where a mention actually makes sense is on Gavin Trippe [23], which has not yet been written. I doubt anybody writing an article about Mr. Trippe would fail to mention his current project. --Dbratland (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Created Gavin Trippe, merged useful text into it. — Brianhe (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Apologies in advance if I don't get to it. I have far more new ideas for projects than I have time for.~~ --Dbratland (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've done some expansion on Gavin Trippe and the F450 section has been fleshed out. As you can see, the name Super Single was dropped and the proposed Formula 450 series never quite got completely of the ground. The USGPRU was interested but didn't do much after 2009. The AMA liked the concept, but went and created a wholly different event, using purpose-built, single-manufacturer bikes not owned by the riders, rather than Trippe's idea of privateer club racers converting motocrossers themselves. Who knows what will happen next? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and therefore I don't think redirecting Super Single (or Formula 450 or F-450 to Gavin Trippe makes very much sense. I still think we should delete and if something develops in the future, we can adjust as appropriate.--Dbratland (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By this action, copying this article's content elsewhere, Dbratland has fatally undermined xyr own deletion nomination. The project's copyright licences now require that this edit history be kept. If you want some content and its an edit history deleted, you cannot use that content and its edit history, Dbratland. Delete and don't use, or use and keep. Pick either having your cake or eating it. You cannot have both. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I can't tell if you're joking or not. First, the diff you linked to was done by Brianhe (talk · contribs), not me. Second, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia says right in the second sentence, "In these cases, supplementary attribution must be provided by either a link back to the source page, if available, or a list of authors." Keeping the original page is not the only means of providing attribution. And third, none of the copied text was kept in Gavin Trippe after a day or two of editing, except for a fair use quote from another source which is not attributed to the Wikipedian editor anyway. And I don't own this deletion nomination: I'm just as interested in the best possible outcome as each of the other participants, and have nothing at stake in having the page deleted.--Dbratland (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(And the writer needing attribution for the four sentences in question? None other than Brianhe. ) --Dbratland (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, I hope I didn't complicate things. I was trying to follow standard article merge procedures and templates to save the important facts from Super Single in anticipation of its demise. BTW I support merge/redirect to Gavin Trippe, obviously. Brianhe (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gavin Trippe. As this is basically the idea of a notable person that has so far just stayed an idea, that's the best place for the information, which is where it's been merged already. No harm in keeping a redirect, that avoids any arguments over preserving edit histories, and should anyone want to use "Super Single" for another article, we can sort that out as and when we need to. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The snout count on this is split. (or 5-4 in favor of deletion if you count the nom) However, Tom Morris's comment concedes that he is probably notable. It's unfortunate that this started out as a probable autobiography but any POV issues can be fixed by normal editing which has partially been done. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen Spencer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable self published photographer WuhWuzDat 06:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another sad autobio by someone not notable even taking self-aggrandizing contents as true. (I deleted the most obvious copybios and based-on-self-published-material claims.) EEng (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A non notable self published photographer intones the nominator, who remarkably (i) describes him- or herself as "no longer very active on Wikipedia" but (ii) has already made forty or so edits today. Could the nominator be more active at Wikipedia than at a search engine? For Spencer is written up by the Guardian. (True, the Guardian is a small circulation newspaper of a minor island near one extreme of Eurasia. Yet it's a major newspaper of the internet anglosphere.) Self-published? Yes indeed -- like a number of highly notable photographers I could name. (An excellent example would be Kiyoshi Suzuki. You haven't heard of him, and want a celeb? All right then, Nobuyoshi Araki.) But not only self-published. And verifiably exhibited as well. ~~Yes, the autobio was indeed "sad". It has competition in sadness from at least one of the comments above.~~ -- Hoary (talk) 11:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC) .... with bits deleted Hoary (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Is this AfD, or RfC? In the wise words found here; "Please comment on content, NOT on the contributor". WuhWuzDat 15:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further comment...and YES, I am MUCH less active than I used to be, example here. WuhWuzDat 15:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's AfD, a fact that I was too sleepy to remember. Sorry about that! Though it doesn't negate my main point, which is that (no matter how uninterested I happen to be in photography of musical or other celebs) this chap has more than enough newspaper coverage to warrant a little article, even though he of course shouldn't have created it himself. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with reservations). It's kind of on the edge: notable enough (a few good write-ups in the Grauniad) but beyond that, I don't really see that there is anything to say. As there's not really any content there beyond links to the Guardian, it probably ought not to be kept - but if someone (preferably not the subject himself) were to create a new article with some content, I think it would pass muster with notability. –Tom Morris (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Guardian is a reliable source, that covers him, and prints his work. His work is notable enough to be found elsewhere as well. This news article from CBC News starts off with a picture from him. Dream Focus 04:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PC Tech Magazine

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable online "magazine" lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to be more of a blog than a "magazine". Fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A non notable website. Mattg82 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not just a blog (they do sell physical magazines [24]) but it still fails WP:ORG. Feezo (Talk) 13:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unable to find references. WP:CORP. Chzz ► 05:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Qworty (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Melvoin-Berg

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial coverage of subject fails WP:N requirements for BIO. Subject is mentioned in passing in a handful of "Halloween" news items. Article created by an SPA reads like a resume and features many SPAM links. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no extensive coverage [25]. LibStar (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one of his books is in worldcat, and that one (Wierdf Chi9cago) is in only 22 libraries. Not notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Also fails as a psychic--if he really had psychic powers, he would've foreseen that an AfD would go down in WP:SNOW for an article that he wrote about himself. Qworty (talk) 10:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 02:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holger Lagerfeldt

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article reads like advertisement for an unknown audio engineer/producer with little press coverage to meet WP:BIO and claims of notability fail under WP:Music (notability is not inherited). I also see possible COI issues. Kuriousgeorge (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "50 gold and platinum records during his career" - I'd like to see some evidence of this. In fact, I'd like to see some evidence for anything at all in the article - from reliable sources. Peridon (talk) 19:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:*Speedy Delete: The subject is a well known internet self-promoter who uses audio forums to spam and post personal links. On the first AfD and against all odds, he showed up on Wikipedia to say: "I came across this very interesting and at times amusing discussion via Google,..." [26]. We got to discourage users like this from creating their own pages and to stop Wikipedia as a vehicle to spam. 216.55.165.144 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Sock of User:Freedom5000. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does this say. "' This Is How We Party' ( skrevet med Holger Lagerfeldt), indspillet af S. O. A. P., 1998"? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. It means "written with". He may have helped write a tune or two that charted but thats not enough. This writer, producer has insufficient independent reliable (third party) sources to show notability per WP:N and that's a good reason to delete [27]. It's true that notability is not inherited, read this to understand why [28]. Moreover, biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety.[29].46.29.253.60 (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:COMPOSER, he is one of the composers/songwriters for "This Is How We Party", a notable song charting. ASCAP confirms the writing credit so this passes both notability, and verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient (zero) sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The ASCAP link I posted above is a reliable source, so there is more than zero sources. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject has also the bare minimums to make it per WP:COMPOSER but it has no sources to support notability. And since having bare minimums is not enough at Wikipedia, I'll have to agree with Dlabtot. Ubot16 (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - meeting the bare minimum of WP:COMPOSER means that the subject is notable, and there is at least one source so saying he meets a notability criteria, and then saying that he isn't notable is contradictory. -- Whpq (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To quote Whpq on another AfD he said delete: "This a case where notability is being made through association". What do you think this reason for eligibility under WP:COMPOSER now is? Honestly, one interview on any reliable third party source with details as to how the two or three authors came together to make these "smashing" hits would prob change my mind. But so far it's you who sounds contradictory to me. Then, 50 platinum and gold records? then show me where. I also know that somewhere in the guidelines there is something going like, just because a subject meets one requirement it doesn't mean an article should be included or that Wikipedia needs it. As a matter of fact, after reading the first AfD for this article, I'm more inclined to believe this is a case of Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. Ubot16 (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I absolutely agree 100% that those claims being unsourced, should be removed from the article unless they can be verified. However, that can be done by editting the article, without deleting it all. -- Whpq (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having not been overwhelmed with references for even a small proportion of the precious metal claimed, I'm coming off the fence. (Too cold up there, anyway...) A lot of association and not a lot of did. Even less backing, and in the pop music world you need good backing... Peridon (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is basically just a vanity page used to promote a subject and his business that has not yet been covered by the media. I tend to agree with the other users in this and the first afd that suspect this article is the result of Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. 83.170.85.92 (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike "The Godfather" Clemente

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:ENT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yup, his meager career as an actor fails WP:ENT... but what the article does not assert is that he is producer, animator and writer for National Lampoon's Spin Cycle,[30][31] so we may have a quite decent assertion of sourcable notability apart from only considering WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Courcelles, and per minimum of established "fame".--BabbaQ (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is laughable, you do wonder if BabbaQ even reads these properly, Courcelles merely relisted this debate and made no !vote. BabbaQ fails to explain how this person meets the newly invented criterion of "fame". LibStar (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what Libstar thinks he gains by insulting other users..hmm.. Anyway I will remain civil and just say that you have said Delete to a number of articles that I have said Keep on and guess what they where Kept. And so will Joanna Yeates be soon, and that is the main thing for me;). Cheers mate.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest Libstar to refrain from responding excessively as per WP:BLUDGEON. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON applies when someone responds to almost every single !vote in a large AfD, I am not doing it here nor is my intention to insult, could you please explain what you mean by "per Courcelles" and also which specific notability criterion of WP:ENT, WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE this person meets. It would assist everyone and make us not think you !vote blindly, you often turn up and give a short statement and always !vote keep, more detail would be required. Thanks LibStar (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious to anyone with an open mind that i ment Schmidts comment but wrot it wrong. Please stop assuming bad faith on anyone that isnt of the same opinion as you my friend Libstar. Its not attractive for a Wikipedian and not in real life either.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is not about attractiveness, this is about determining good arguments for keep or delete. Please explain why you say "keep per courcelles"? LibStar (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe for a moment that you meant "keep per schmidt" otherwise you would have said that in your first response. Secondly, schmidt didn't say keep but said the person may meet another notability guideline. Thirdly, assume good faith is based on what you wrote exactly, that is "keep per someone who relisted the debate". It would be assuming bad faith to assume you meant differently from what you wrote. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! BabbaQ pointing out WP:BLUDGEON, when it should be that they be taking that into account, specially in the Joanna Yeates AfD. BabbaQ has responded every single delete vote, and it doesn't seems to cease the intention. Every user has a different opinion, you should be expecting that and not taking everything personally. It's not everything about you. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with above. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:ENT. Sources verify a producer/writer role but not indepth to meet WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject doesn't meet the GNG or WP:ENT. Ravenswing 14:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing, fails notability. Ahmetyal 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
...And Delete per above. Diego Grez (EMSIUB) (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Takuo Kojima

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I discovered this article as part of Reference a BLP Drive. This source makes some substantial claims of Notability Discovering 23 minor planets. That being said Its the only reference that I can find that gives any direct coverage. Thus seems to Fail WP:BIO and does not qualify for WP:PROF. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that by 1996 he had discovered 23 minor planets. 3644 Kojitaku is named after him. About 100 articles here link to him. Nergaal (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, Revised The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. #71236 also seems to have been discovered by him in 2000, which implies that he made more discoveries besides the 23. Nergaal (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is adequate that covers him at the issue here WP:V. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This assigns him 44 discoveries and one co-. That being said, quite a few have significantly more than him. Nergaal (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This and this put him in the top 150 in terms of # discovered. Nergaal (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources seem to sufficient to establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources in the article, and I don't think the ones listed above in this AfD are enough to base an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep our practice is that discovery of a minor planet is sufficiently notable; Having discovered 33 of them, clearly notable . DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its WP:V thats the issue is it enough coverage to write a Biography? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (revised rationale, as I'd misread the original nom). Yes, I believe the IAU link plus the book cited by nom WP:V the claim of prolific asteroid discovery, the precise number likely changes with time, and we can certainly allude to that with "at least" or a more general claim than a specific number. Google Books also claims a hit in this book [32] which I expect could be used, with a hard copy, to eventually get additional verification. --j⚛e decker ^talk 11:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Dusti^*poke* 05:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew (Matt) Bennett

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable producer/director, fails WP:GNG, contested PROD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. I PRODded this the first time; proper BLP sources were never added. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MQS has again done a terrific job of sourcing an actor's BLP. The venom is unnecessary. I withdraw my 'delete' vote, and urge the nominator to withdraw this AfD. MQS, thank you for the work; the rest of the commentary I will attempt to bury under Christmas cheer. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if the commentary offended. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

STRONG Keep of an article on a notable producer and director, one who easily meets WP:BIO through WP:GNG, WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE, [33] I note with angst that the article was templated for deletion only one minute after its creation,[34] and then sent to AFD only eight minutes after the second deletion template was contested.[35] Surely this was not simply in reprisal? Or is this the manner now with which new editors are to be treated? Have WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD been now assigned as historical??? Is this the new way of Wikipedia? Shameful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It seems this fellow has greater notability for his stagework, than for his work in film and television.[36] Pity that this was not discovered before bringing it to AFD. The article WILL be expanded and peoperly sourced within hours. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your consideration and substantial help (MQ Schmidt is remarkably thorough). My skills as an editor here are clearly raw at best, but as an ardent user of Wikipedia, I chose to leap in and attempt what I felt was a worthy page. I hope the recent changes have proven that it is in fact a notable entry. I will continue to research what may be sufficiently noteworthy, add/clarify as appropriate and encourage others to do the same. Please consider removing the notice (and have a great holiday). --Silentcrow (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notice will be removed when this discussion is closed by an uninvolved party per one of the results described at How an AfD discussion is closed. As a newer editor, you're learning that there are a lot of rules that govern article creation, so don't be discouraged. You may find the essay at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines to be helpful. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waltermart Santa Maria

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted in 2008. No notability, no sources found. Just a small non-notable mall, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest (1) keep, (2) re-write of the article, and possible (3) rename it. Way back in 2008, it's just a small mall, but two years after, several branches were opened. I suggest renaming it to simply Waltermart, and grouping all details about Santa Maria branch into a single section.--— JL 09 ^talk_contribs 04:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. needs third party coverage which is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 05:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. --RL0919 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 01:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China Bowl

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposed pre-season game that was never played, does not seem notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Maybe it should be called "NFL-China relations"? Even though it didn't take place, it's still referred to because of the continuing efforts of America's most successful pro sports league in marketing its product in the world's largest Communist nation. [37]. If not kept, then redirect to American Bowl or NFL International Series. Mandsford 16:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hey here's an article about something that never happened!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's got several solid references, and lots of things that never happened have articles, e.g. Operation Sea Lion. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 01:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronos Web Tools

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable software project. Google shows only 17 hits with nothing notable. noq (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability and can't find any. --Pnm (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klassart

(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

I cant find WP:RS for Klassart, Possible Icelandic sources but I cant find them thus Seems to Fail WP:Band

Fríða Dís Guðmundsdóttir is ineligible for CSD as long as Klassart exists as she is their "lead singer" with no WP:RS thus seem to fail WP:MUSICIAN The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found and added sources documenting that they won a national contest in 2006, appeared at a major music festival in October 2010, and reached positions 1 and 2 on the 2 dominant national charts in 2010. Those distinctions satisfy the notability criteria.Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Yngvadottir's improvements of the article. ^walk victor falk^talk 22:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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