Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 6

< 5 December	7 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 06:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies based in Livonia, Michigan

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

Almost none of these are truly based in Livonia (GM, Sears, UPS, Walmart definitely aren't). The rest are redlinks or not even companies at all (two colleges). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unnecessary spinoff of Livonia, Michigan#Major employers, and, as 10₤ correctly notes, most of these companies are not based there. This one needs to stay in Livonia. Mandsford 01:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This list is problematic because it lists individual retailers who just have a store in Livonia. I'm OK if a list has 1 or 2 items that are questionable but this one only has a few non-questionable items. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a spinoff as listed above, unlike several of the other list that link to companies that are Headquartered in a city, this is just a list of all business in this city. I think it would be like creating a page to list all companies that are incorporated Delaware. I would suggest adding a new section to Livonia, Michigan that list companies headquartered in Livonia there. Leaving out he stores like Walmart that are just satellite lights of a major company. Jsgoodrich (talk) 04:00, 7 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 19:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepspeed

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

Largely promotional about a non-notable amateur off-road racing organization. Some minor coverage in specialist magazines does not establish notability, no independent ghits Kuguar03 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - there are a few third-party sources listed in the references section, but not significant coverage. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I had no problem finding independent reliable sources like Motor Trend and I added. This is an entry-level to lower class of off-road racing vehicle that is showing up in national-level events like BITD (Best In The Desert). If the tone gets promotional towards Jeep then it can be edited out, but as a notable race class it should be kept. Royal broil 04:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article definitely needs improvement but that's no reason for a deletion. Seems pretty notable given all the secondary sources.ArchieOof (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Might as well snowball at this point. I still don't seeing this topic as ever being notable, and the fact that the article was created by a SPA for clearly promotional purposes is troublesome, but if at least 3 other editors are willing to fix it up then so be it. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. An article being poorly written is no reason for deletion. I'd also like to say that Kuguar03 should show more discretion in nominating articles for deletion in the future - especially if the creator of it is new to wikipedia, as they were in this case. Having one of your articles being put up for deletion must be disheartening for such users, and can potentially chase them away from wikipedia.--Piast93 (talk) 17:38, 13 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 delete per G5. Prolog (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental hypocrisy

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

POV-pushing article by WP:Single-purpose account, attempting to synthesise various anecdotes about politicians, celebrities, groups and corporations in the US into a single article about a global topic, with an inflammatory title. In all cases, there is one or more alternative points of view of what the person or group did, so the article can't possibly be written objectively, especially with a title like this. Invitrovanitas (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nom says it all. Might well be speedy-able as an attack page? - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Original research for the purpose of POV pushing. Speedy delete if possible. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other commenters. Roscelese (talk) 00:12, 7 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 delete (no category supplied) as dicdef and neologism by Lectonar. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Road-hugger

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

Dictionary term which, if it has widespread usage, belongs on Wiktionary not here. NtheP (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found Road-hugger in any dictionary. It is a term that came up in a discussion about the removal of the Robert Moses Parkway in Niagara Falls. It is a term used to counteract "Tree Huggers" which, is already a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danldavis (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have put it up for speedy deletion. Worth a try maybe? It is a neologism. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:46, 7 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 01:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Banks (musician)

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

Uncited BLP for which I can't find sources, therefore I doubt the notability of the subject — Rod ^talk 22:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not established in article and searching does not turn up much. jonkerz ♠ 04:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability, no references, no links to other articles (other than places,) no incoming links from other mainspace articles (other than Banks (surname)). I'm sure Steve is a perfectly nice fellow, but there is no reason to have a Wikipedia article. -Arch dude (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Article doesn't even attempt to assert notability. Reminds me of WP:GARAGE. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:54, 8 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. There appears to be POV problems on both side of the debate from what I can see, as well as possible sockpuppetry on both sides; however the consensus appears to be to delete the article, as a subject which does not meet notability/NPOV criteria -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara County Expressway System

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

WP:OR. See discussion on a similar "network" Bakersfield Freeway Network which was recently deleted. While there are roads and freeways in Santa Clara County, there is no seperate system than the normal California Interstate, State Route and County Route system. Admrboltz (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article's tone and recent comments on the talk page betray a non-NPOV issue to the article as well. Imzadi 1979 → 21:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an essay, also WP:NOT a travel guide. --Rs chen 7754 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I have to agree that the article needs to be almost completely rewritten. Completely non-encyclopedic tone and full of POV, original research and unreferenced commentary. --Kumioko (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Due to recent events I am going to abstain from this and therefore I have stricken my comment. --Kumioko (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and rewrite to Expressways in Santa Clara County, California. Article has serious POV issues, yes, but could be rewritten to be more neutral and provide an excellent overview of the subject. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A subject that has questionable notability. --Rs chen 7754 22:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks like there is an official "system": http://www.sccgov.org/rda/expressways2/default.htm http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Asccgov.org+expressway+system But even if not, renaming to Expressways in Santa Clara County, California should take care of scope issues. --NE2 22:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Condense information and merge into the Santa Clara County, California#Transportation infrastructure. Dough 48 72 22:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But then why does Santa Clara get its own article for its expressways while the other counties don't? --Rs chen 7754 05:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears these roads have some importance to the county's infrastructure that can warrant a brief mention in the main county article. Another option would be to redirect to California County Routes in zone G as all these expressways are county routes in that zone. Dough 48 72 04:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an official "Expressway System". The phrase is not only used repeatedly in the master plan of the County (see reference 1) but this entity was also created and used in State law (see last two references). There is related history among this group of roads. There may have been a misunderstanding about POV that I already corrected (see "Tone" near bottom of Discussion). --AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AkosSzoboszlay (talk · contribs) appears to havea COI - [1] --Admrboltz (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not really a useful response to his pointing out (correctly) that your deletion nomination is incorrect. --NE2 00:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NE2. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NE2. --Ffquotes 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffquotes (talk • contribs) — Ffquotes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- First post by this account, ban/lock/trash. --NE2 19:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about we don't bite a newbie who may be playing "monkey see, monkey do" for his first edit, just in case that smell of sock is just the clothes dryer getting indigestion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. I think the site needed context development. That appears to have occurred. As City of San Jose is seeking to make all its streets and roads more "complete" it was important to see some of the history that allowed peds and bikes to begin using the expressway facilities. Perhaps a few balancing edits will help the article appear more in the tone of encyclopedic. After reading the current article, I do not find any part offensive, misleading or subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trafengr56 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC) This is the user's first edit. --Rs chen 7754 05:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with much regret. Although I contributed most of the original text and photographs to this article, I am saddened to see that it has been taken over by User:AkosSzoboszlay, an pro-bicycle extremist, as a vehicle for propounding his bizarre views. It is because of Wikipedia's abject failure to deal with such extremists that I have severely restricted my further contributions, along with many other experienced editors. I also recommend that User:AkosSzoboszlay be irrevocably banned from the Wikipedia project immediately for egregious violations of core policies WP:NPOV and WP:NOT. I also request that any available administrator initiate a CheckUser investigation against each of the new users who voted on this page to determine if they are sockpuppets of User:AkosSzoboszlay. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See my rebuttal Severe vandalism by Coolcaesar on Discussion page. I also undeleted this vandalism.--AkosSzoboszlay (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I severely restricted my further contributions in part because of people who use hammers to swat flies. --NE2 23:23, 13 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. No 'keeps', one neutral, 2 deletes (including nom); the lack of a clear "keep" from anyone is sufficient to render the consensus here to be to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Educational segregation in Sunflower County, Mississippi

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

Essay / original research? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX. *makes Elder Sign* Begone! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutrality aside, what original conclusion is it synthesizing that isn't in the sources cited? Have you even read the sources cited? Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The incarceration rate of black male teenagers and the dropout rates in Drew’s public schools is shockingly similar. A+B=C = smells distinctly of synth. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And you've checked the source cited to ensure that it's not simply a conclusion drawn by the source, have you? You've ensured that Constance Curry doesn't make any such assertion? (Hint: We know that she does, even without seeing the documentary, because it's mentioned in reviews of Curry's work.) Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, then, in that case I'll withdraw the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH concerns, thanks for clarifying that. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably enough sources to make a biography of Mae Bertha Carter, whom this article in part is really about.
- Curry, Constance (2003). "Mae Bertha Carter". In Swain, Martha H.; Payne, Elizabeth Anne; Spruill, Marjorie Julian (eds.). Mississippi women: their histories, their lives. Southern Women: Their Lives and Times. Vol. 1. University of Georgia Press. ISBN 9780820325026.
- Curry, Constance (2006). "Mae Bertha Carter: These tiny Fingers". In Glisson, Susan M. (ed.). The human tradition in the civil rights movement. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742544093.
- White Foster, Vonita (1996). "Mae Bertha Carter". In Carney Smith, Jessie; Phelps, Shirelle (eds.). Notable Black American women. Vol. 2. VNR AG. ISBN 9780810391772.
- Ravo, Nick (1999-05-06). "Mae Bertha Carter, 76, Mother Who Defied Segregation Law". The New York Times.
- Glisson, Susan (Autumn 1999). "Mae Bertha Carter 1926–1999". The Southern Register. Center for the Study of Southern Culture, University of Mississippi.
But there are sources that do indeed talk about segregation, educational and otherwise, specifically in Sunflower County. This is something that history books address, and is far from an original thesis concocted by a Wikipedia editor firsthand. The subject is peppered throughout Mills & Wright Edelman 2007 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMillsWright_Edelman2007 (help) for example.
- Mills, Kay; Wright Edelman, Marian (2007). This little light of mine: the life of Fannie Lou Hamer. Civil rights and the struggle for Black equality in the twentieth century. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 9780813191829.
Wikipedia doesn't even yet mention the fact that Sunflower County was where Fannie Lou Hamer grew up and was sometimes known as "Eastland's Plantation", after James Eastland (Ward Jr 2008, p. 358) harv error: no target: CITEREFWard_Jr2008 (help)
- Ward Jr, Thomas J. (2008). "Fannie Lou Hamer". In Brown, Nikki L. M.; Stentiford, Barry M. (eds.). The Jim Crow Encyclopedia. Greenwood Milestones in African American History. Vol. 2. Greenwood Publishing Group. ISBN 9780313341816.
And if you want someone other than Constance Curry expounding the thesis that in 2000 education in Sunflower County was still, in effect, largely segregated, try the Z. Smith Reynolds Professor of Public Policy at Duke University saying it at Clotfelter 2006, pp. 113 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFClotfelter2006 (help).
- Clotfelter, Charles T. (2006). After Brown: The Rise and Retreat of School Desegregation. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691126371.
Like it or not, this is a subject that is in the history books. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are certainly essay-like tendencies in the article, although I am not entirely sure about the OR claims. However, my main reason for supporting deletion is that racial segregation and racism was nationwide (albeit the institutionalization of this was probably at its nastiest in the southern states such as Mississippi), and there is little reason to single out Sunflower County as a particular example of this. Virtually all the descriptions of how the segregation and racism happened, and what it leads to, in Sunflower County is parallel to what happened in other places. Racial segregation in the United States covers the topic well already. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had added Category:Local civil rights history in the United States, which suggests to me, anyway, that what happens at the local level can be historically significant. Bringing up the old WP:NOTPAPER argument, I wouldn't mind seeing articles on local segregation history for every county in the U.S., provided that they can be reliably sourced. School segregation was very much a local issue, Sjakkalle, addressed in very different ways from place to place. So far, I have not seen an argument that compels me to support, so oppose deletion, per WP:PRESERVE (I was the dePRODder, too). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Uncle G has assuaged my concerns with regards to OR and SYNTH (although I'd suspect the author of the reference in question might well have SYNTH'd the fact I questioned in the first place...but that's neither here nor there). However I still have serious concerns about the article's tone and POV, and in addition it's potential as soapboxing - it reads, to me, very much as a "southerners were stupid evil bigots and should never be forgiven" kind of article. The subject, as mentioned, seems to be indeed notable. However I don't think "History of segreation in county" is the way to go for articles of this type. "History of segreation in state", however, would be a much more notable, cover-able, and encyclopedic subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But as an American editor -- and judging by your userpage, a Southerner -- would you not agree that so much of what makes up state or even national politics takes place at the county level? That's one of the unique aspects of the US system, it seems to me. For example, the lead for Jim Crow laws states that there were "state and local laws" (italics mine). Don't get me wrong: I'd be happy to see a state-wide article on segregation in Mississippi. (Although at this level of detail, the nominated article would probably need to stay separate.) I just don't see a need to delete this because it's only for a single county, so far. As for tone and POV issues, surely we have other ways to address those than deletion? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. I suppose you do have a point there. Wouldn't the county/local laws be covered under the state article, though? I reckon you do have a point about the content, so I'm chaniging to Neutral - if kept, though, the article probably should be completely rewritten from scratch. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I agree county/local laws should be covered under the state article. But if we get more county-level articles like this one, we'd need to have summaries in the parent article for the state, linking to local articles like this one. I'm under no illusions that this'll happen tomorrow, but there's such a fascinating and rich local history in your neck of the woods, where the battle for civil rights was fought town by town -- heck, lunch counter by lunch counter -- that restricting ourselves to a national or state-wide focus would lose so much, it seems to me. All politics is local, Tip O'Neil once said. Seems to me particularly true in this area... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Btw, after tinkering with it and trying to save it, I've cut the entire final section called "Incarceration." That does seem to me to be WP:SOAP and rather off-topic. It makes some vague hand waves at funding levels for an unnamed college and state penitentiary to back up some utterly unfounded assertions, imo. "The whole business of incarceration has ceased to be punishment and has taken on a life of its own" is unproven and highly POV. Also" "Mississippi state penitentiary received over 60 million dollars in funding due to the severity of racial problems that have led to the high number of crimes. In comparison, the local college barely received 20 million dollars. This proves that the more education one has in Sunflower County, the less chances of going to prison." is a clumsy argument. I agree that education is probably the best way to avoid crime and imprisonment, but comparing the budgets of an unnamed local college and a state penitentiary "proves" none of that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It might be better to attribute that view to the person who holds it, rather than removing it outright. See these and note in particular what they say about the thesis presented by Curry's epilogue:
        Burkett, Randall K. (2003). "FILM: Education and Incarceration?". Southern Changes. 25 (1–4): 13–14.
        
        Wallace, Belinda Deneen (Winter 2005). "Review of The Intolerable Burden by Chea Prince; Constance Curry". The Journal of Negro Education. 74 (1): 89–91. JSTOR 40027234.
        
        Wolters, Raymond (December 2004). "Movie Reviews: The Intolerable Burden". The Journal of American History. 91 (3). Organization of American Historians: 1138–1140. doi:10.2307/3663037. JSTOR 3663037.
        
        K'Meyer, Tracy E. (22 December 2004). "The Intolerable Burden.(Movie Review)". The Oral History Review. 31.
        
        Curry, Constance (2009). The Intolerable Burden — a documentary. Association for the Study of American Life and History, 94th Annual Convention, Hilton Cincinnati Netherland Plaza, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2009-09-30.
        
        There's probably a main article to link it to somewhere, too, given these:
        Standly, Benetta M. (2007). Education vs. Incarceration. United States Social Forum, Atlanta, Georgia, June 27–July 1, 2007.
        
        Anyaso, Hilary Hurd (24 February 2005). "The education vs. incarceration debate". Black Issues in Higher Education. 22 (1): 4.
        
        Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Education segregation is a sufficiently clear topic for an article. It isn't helped by adding topic on a separate issue, imo, no matter how many refs we can attribute this view to. If you wish to restore the section with refs, rewritten so as to not be a mere polemic against local and state officials and their ascribed motives, go for it. I'm not going to edit war on this one, I assure you. I just don't think the article needs it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 12 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Creek Brewery

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

Very short stub article about a brewery. The only references are to the company's own website and to a single review on a single website. Google, unfortunately, doesn't turn up a whole lot more. The onlything saving this from speedy deletion is the claim of being "Eastern Montana's only brewery", which, if that's the most significant fact setting it apart from all other companies, isn't a whole lot to say. Jayron32 21:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is the one regional news website covering them in one piece linked in the article. Aside from that, I see no other coverage. That's not enough to be included. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; was begun as a spin off of Montana Breweries after the creator's image uploads were removed from that list type article. Further discussion on the issue is here. Article is unlikely to ever be anything other than a stub, with virtually no external sources. A redirect back to the Breweries list might be appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 7 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 delete G12 as a straight copyvio of the company's homepage and visitmt.com. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bayern Brewery

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

This company does not appear to meet the minimum standards laid out for inclusion as an article topic, as detailed at either WP:CORP or WP:GNG. The only internal references are to the company's own website, and to a trivial mention in a "Visit Montana" type of tourism site. After searching both Google and Google News, I can't find any significant, reliable, independent article-length sources (as defined by WP:RS) which could be used as references. Jayron32 21:37, 6 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 deleted, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running on the cracks

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

Non-sourced personal essay; violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought) mhking (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a book review. Have attempted to get the author to improve the article (as it was previously CSD:A1ed). Reserving judgement on article to see what the author does to improve it. Hasteur (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because it is a book review. It's this book review ganked lock, stock, and barrel from Amazon. As such this is speedily deletable for being a copyright violation. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur. Tagged Speedy G12. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:28, 6 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Cichon

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

This photographer is not notable Coycan (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find reliable third-party sources that discuss this person in detail. In the absence of such sources in a biography of a living person, the article has to be deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He is a professional photographer that can be found listed on a myriad of photographer directory sites. What I cannot find is any significant coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, not notable --Edward130603 (talk) 14:40, 10 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 19:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kühnhackl

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

This hockey player is not notable. Coycan (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — He has played matches in the top 2 divisions in Germany and he has been drafted by a NHL team. Kingjeff (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kingjeff. Grsz 11 23:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – With reference to WP:NHOCKEY, it all boils down to whether or not the Deutsche Eishockey Liga (DEL) is considered to be a “top professional league” whereby playing just a single game would presume notability; or if DEL is considered to be a “fully professional minor league” whereby 100 games played are required before notability is presumed. I am leaning to believe that DEL is a European minor league, with play at a level below the Elitserien, SM-liiga, and Kontinental Hockey League, but I could be persuaded otherwise with the right argument. Dolovis (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure the DEL isn't at the level of those leagues, but it is a fully professional league, and the top one in Germany - which is a top 10 country in the IIHF rankings. Grsz 11 03:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The DEL is a major top level national league. One of the higher level leagues in Europe, actually. This is only a Yahoo! answers answer, but the list is quite accurate in my experience. On that basis alone, this is a keep for me. Reso lute 03:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The DEL is a top level national league. The only hesitation I would have would be if he were playing in it as a junior. However, since its such a well written article I have leaned towards keep. -DJSasso (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As the top league in Germany it operates with a talent level well below the AHL. If it is a “top professional league” then the listed top leagues at WP:NHOCKEY should be edited to include Deutsche Eishockey Liga. If it isn't, then 4 games played is 96 games short. Dolovis (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The leagues listed at NHOCKEY are examples, and are not meant to be an exhaustive list. Sometimes you just have to use common sense. Reso lute 14:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, we've traditionally considered the top seven European leagues as passing that bar. Or, if you prefer, the leagues that are invited to participate in the IIHF's Champions Hockey League. Reso lute 14:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it says "Played one or more games in an existing or defunct top professional league such as the National Hockey League, World Hockey Association, Elitserien, SM-liiga, or Kontinental Hockey League;" (emphasis mine). This list isn't complete, they are examples. Resolute is correct, common sense comes into play here. -DJSasso (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, DJSasso, I am seeking a consensus on whether or not the DEL should be considered "such as" the listed top leagues. Resolute's comment is more helpful, but it still leaves the question as to what the "top seven" Euro leagues are. Perhaps we should start a discussion on this question in another forum so that any ambiguity is removed for future notability challenges? Dolovis (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to take the discussion to the project page since this isn't the place for such discussions. However, I would note that NHOCKEY isn't the be all end all of notability, as it says at the top of the page neither meeting or not meeting it are grounds for deletion or keeping. They are just a guide for when sources are likely to exist. Every league isn't listed because then there are always more and more leagues that people want to try and add. It is vague on purpose to imply that the lines are fuzzy. Finding sources is what is important per WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 11 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. G5 speedied by User:Moonriddengirl. Procedural close. Courcelles 01:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Smith (artist)

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

Subject does not meet WP:Artist notability guidelines. Was put for speedy and declined on the ground of having won a notable award. However this award was a Pew Fellowships in the Arts, which to be honest I can't see as being that notable. It's a local grant of money to help Philadelphia area artists. The artist has had a few exhibitions, but none of any noteworthy standing that I can tell. Other than the Pew award nothing else seems closely noteworthy. Note: If the Pew awards isn't enough to claim notability coming out of this, then there are many other articles that need looked at under the same claims. Canterbury Tail talk 19:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on the notability of Pew: "Philadelphia’s thriving arts and culture scene owes much of its vitality to the nurturing role played by local foundations. One of the brightest jewels in this financial constellation has been the Pew Fellowships in the Arts program, which has dispensed more than $12 million to 237 artists in a dozen or so disciplines since its inception in 1991. In terms of dollars (currently $60,000 per grant), there’s nothing else like it in Philadelphia and only one larger grant-giving program anywhere. More important, the Pew philosophy of giving grants directly to individual artists is a rare exception in today’s corporate-minded foundation world, with its preference for funding arts presenting organizations." [2] Accotink2 talk 19:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Certainly not yet notable. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 7 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 Willie Nelson#Activism. The consensus is to redirect, and to protect from editing until such time (if ever) when it becomes notable enough in its own right -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TeaPot Party

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

Non notable "political" organisation founded by Willie Nelson after a drugs arrest. Exists only as a number of groups of Facebook and has no physical existance. Does produce Google results but mostly about Nelson's initial arrest and his comment to form the party

Note - the article has twice been redirected to Willie Nelson#Activism but the creator of the page undoes the redirect. NtheP (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The TeaPot Party is an American grassroots organization which so far claims chapters in all 50 US states and British Columbia, Canada. Obviously the person who wishes to delete this page has no comprehension of the gravity of the marijuana legalization movement in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Marcellos (talk • contribs) 19:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC) — Carlos Marcellos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Redirect as has been done twice before, without prejustice for recreation if it evolves beyond something Willie Nelson made up one day. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One should not let one's own bias affect the quality of the information on wikipedia. It would be fair to say that the detractors of the page are pursuing a personal agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Marcellos (talk • contribs) 19:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC) — Carlos Marcellos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Hardly. The only "agenda" we're pushing is Wikipedia's notability standards. Assume a little good faith and remember that there is no cabal. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless reliable sources can establish notability independent of Willie Nelson. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When researching wikipedia looking for what would constitute a notable event I came across a page mentioning "Mend", The debut album by the Scottish band De Rosa. Released in June 2006, The album was voted 16th in Mojo’s top 50 albums of 2006. While the band, De Rosa may deserve to have a page on wikipedia, how does an album voted 16th of 50 merit it's own page? The main TeaPot Party page on facebook has over 38,000 members and the numbers are growing, with TeaPot Party URL's being grabbed up at a fast pace. I think that by ignoring the significance of this movement you are doing a disservice to millions of wiki readers who may be interested in reading about this this subject. In closing all I have to say is that eventually there will be a wikipedia page for the TeaPot Party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.203.159.242 (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC) — 75.203.159.242 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and then protect it if that proves necessary to prevent edit warring. Alternatively, delete and salt. When "eventually" gets here, we can change our minds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are over a thousand news media articles in Google News that specifically mention the Teapot Party.

http://news.google.com/news/search?q=%22Teapot+Party%22 --Timeshifter (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes there are but the overwhelming majority of them say Willie Nelson has said he will found the party, or, join the Facebook group. There are none that give it any degree of notability and a separate existance from Willie. NtheP (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the notability came from the thousand news media articles. Not to mention the Facebook groups in all 50 states and several foreign countries. Sounds notable to me.

Around 7000 blog pages too:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Teapot+Party%22+Willie+Nelson&tbs=blg:1

20,000 web pages:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Teapot+Party%22+Willie+Nelson --Timeshifter (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And all these 000s of articles say is "Willie Nelson got busted for possession of pot so said he was going to found a political party called the Tea Pot Party and subsequently there are some Facebook groups" PERIOD There's no denying that is a verifiable fact about Willie Nelson that can (and has been) added to his article but to create a separate article about something that has no physical entity beyond a fad on Facebook? I don't think so, that's my rationale for a deletion or merge. If it takes on some greater presence and some activity like other groups that exist or have existed to support chages in the drug laws e.g. High Times Freedom Fighters then it might merit an article but at the moment it's nothing more than a PR statement. If there are almost 30,000 pages on it perhaps someone can improve the article past the current three lines and tell us more about what the party has done (will do?), it's organisation etc. NtheP (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"no physical entity beyond a fad on Facebook?"...Facebook is merely a conduit for the thousands of new members of the Party. The members are the physical entity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Marcellos (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Facebook is not a reliable, verifiable source by any stretch of the imagination. Clicking 'like' doesn't make one a 'Party member' either. Are there membership cards? Newsletters? Party meetings? Just having a FB presence, regardless of how many 'likes' it gets, doesn't make something notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let your personal biases affect the quality of article on wikipedia. And yes, there are party meetings, but due to current laws most are members only events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Marcellos (talk • contribs) 22:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please assume good faith. We do. We also believe in a quality encyclopedia that is reliable and verifiable. Does the Party have a website of its own? Coverage beyond "Willie Nelson formed it" in national or local media? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think some people are letting their biases against movements and organizations started/organized on the Internet get in the way of notability requirements. Teapot Party is another cannabis reform movement (of many). Where it goes, who knows. But it is already notable just like many other cannabis reform movements, web sites, etc. that have Wikipedia articles. Whether people like it or not is a different question. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it notable? Can it be proven to be notable? Are there reliable sources that report on it beyond, as has been mentioned, the "Willie Nelson is forming the Tea Pot Party" reportings? We're not "Biased against....started/organised on the Internet". We're actively attempting to determine notability, not discard it in an assumption of bad faith. So far there's been no evidence given that it's an independently notable group, only "WP:ITEXISTS therefore it's notable". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teapot Party announces first nationwide event The Teapot Party is launching a Meetup Everywhere community and encouraging nationwide gatherings on 12/15/10 and 1/18/11

http://www.meetup.com/TeapotParty/ ">— Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos Marcellos (talk • contribs) 00:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Carlos Marcellos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Meetup.com is not a reliable source. If these "nationwide gatherings" attract attention from the media, then the page might qualify for its own article. If not, however, the point will continue to stand: there are no reliable, verifiable sources that establish the TeaPot Party as an entity aside from Willie Nelson, in the same way a Facebook page for, say, "Michael Jordan's right hand" would be notable aside from Michael Jordan, regardless of how many followers it got. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you find it so hard to grasp that the TeaPot Party is a real organization.Many things exist only on the internet but that does not make them not real. If I was to follow your logic I could say that wikipedia is not real because it only exists on the internet. I am sensing a personal agenda by the detractors of this page. there are thousands of articles on wikipedia, why are you focused on destroying this one? --Carlos Marcellos (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC) — Carlos Marcellos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment First of all, nobody is saying the TeaPot Party is "not real". What we're saying is that the TeaPot Party is "not notable per the standards for inclusion of Wikipedia". Secondly, I think there's a bit of a misunderstanding at work here. If you look over the page, nobody has said they want to delete the page (yet alone "destroy" it). What we're saying is that the page TeaPot Party should be a redirect to Willie Nelson#Activism, or perhaps Willie Nelson#TeaPot Party, and that the one paragraph of information TeaPot Party contains can be placed there - where, I might note, it will, quite likely, be seen by more people than it would be on its own seperate page. And yet we're accused of bad faith, censorship, and having an agenda bent on "destroying" this article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless reliable sources can establish notability independent of Willie Nelson per Jimmy Pitt. Protect or alternatively, delete and salt per WhatamIdoing. — $Jeff G. ツ$ 02:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that there is only one paragraph is that I have waited for others to add to the article so that authors would have a chance to add their own flavor to the article. I admit, the movement is in it's infancy, that is why I planted the seed, all I ask is that you guys give it enough time to grow. If the TeaPot Party turns out to be bogus I would be the first one to send the article into the trash can.--Carlos Marcellos (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without predjudice. Whose Your Guy (talk) 07:34, 13 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Framework for Privacy Analysis of Programs, Technologies, and Applications

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

This topic does not appear to be independently notable, but rather a internal policy of the Department of Homeland Security. I can find no serious secondary source discussion of the Framework. Sadads (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ray^Talk 14:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't fit in an encyclopedia, and it appears that most/all of the article is copy/pasted. --Edward130603 (talk) 15:03, 10 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dergarabedian

Paul Dergarabedian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

This is not notable, no sources, and yet a blp. Outback the koala (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources could be found to indicate notability. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 12 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, convert to disambiguation page Mandsford 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patton tank

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

The Patton tanks have little in common. Just sharing the namesake of Patton does not make them part of a family. Tanks of the U.S. in the Cold War covers the same topic. Marcus Qwertyus 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 18:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 18:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Redirect to M48 Patton (most important in the series). Sharing a common name does not make a relationship. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They have a name in common, as well as their military role as US main Battle Tank. The US Army considered this a tank series, regardless of manufacturing details. R.P. Hunnicutt bothered to write a well-regarded book on the subject. Why not provide some information to a reader who looks up “Patton Tank?” —Michael Z. 2010-12-06 21:50 z

The T-34 T-44, T-54/55, T-62, T-64, T-72 and T-90 tanks (to name just a few) are all adaptations of the same hull, so no. Just having the same namesake and function does not make it a family. Marcus Qwertyus 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patton tank should probably redirect to the M48. So I changed my vote. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be opposed to a disambiguation page. Marcus Qwertyus 23:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a disambiguation page, in the same vein as USS Enterprise. I just don't think a similarity in nomenclature is a significant enough relationship to warrant an actual article. I don't think redirecting to any one tank is a good idea, and I don't really buy the "family" argument. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab page Mjroots (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert - Convert to a disambiguation page. The article and template may not be warranted, the the fact remains that these tanks (M46, M47, M48, M60) do share a formal/informal name, and it needs to be addressed somehow. - Jonathon A H (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to a disambiguation per the above. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 9 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fazaldad

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

Fails WP:BIO. Guantanamo detainee about whom very little is known. No Google Books, News Archives or Scholar results, and few regular Google hits. The one independent source given, Worthington, gives a short paragraph about him, concluding with "Fortunately, rather more is known of four other Pakistanis seized at this time". This (Worthington), an author who has described all known Guantanamo detainees, is as far as I can tell the only available reliable independent source with somewhat significant coverage, but it is not sufficient to meet our guidelines. Fram (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:N. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I believe this nomination is based on some serious misconceptions.
- WRT WP:BIO. The nomination fails to mention the Summary of Evidence memo drafted to explain the justifications for his detention. The process followed to prepare these memos completely fulfills all the requirements of WP:BIO.
- WRT independent sources -- WP:BIO talks about "independent sources" in several contexts. Selfpublished sources are not considered independent from the subject, and claims in them do not establish notability. References that merely quote from original (primary?) sources are not considered intellectually independent. Neither of these objections apply to the the memo. Fazaldad played no role in drafting the memo. The actual authors of the memo sent for, read, collated, analyzed documents about Fazaldad from half a dozen other agencies, reconciling disagreements, stripping out duplicates, or allegations they did not consider credible. This is an independent document.
- WRT credibility of the assertions in the memo -- official government publications have always been accepted as WP:RS for the official positions of the governments in question. Individually we are all entitled to hold a POV as to how credible the allegations in memos like this are. But the wikipedia's core policies prohibit us from letting our opinions leak into our editorial decisions. IMO, suppressing WP:RS that make assertions we don't like is just as much a lapse from policy as editorializing and inserting one's POV into articles.
- This nomination doesn't explicitly make this assertion, but I know some contributors misinterpret WP:BIO, as if it required press reports as sources. It doesn't. Rather, the first paragraph says: "Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." Notability can be established by non-press WP:RS, as was established here. Geo Swan (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have never requested press reports, I have requested independent sources. Sources published by the authority that has detained this person are quite clearly not independent. WP:BLPPRIMARY is relevant here as well. Fram (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You write: "Sources published by the authority that has detained this person are quite clearly not independent." What meaning of "independent" are you using here? I quoted the two meanings of "independent" used in WP:BIO. By both of those meanings the memos are independent.
      Did Fazaldad write the memo? No? Then the memo is independent from the subject. Are the memos composed entirely of long and unanalyzed quotes from a primary source? No? The authors analyzed, collated, reconciled and synthesized other documents from half a dozen other agencies.
      If there is some other meaning of independent you are using could you please clarify which wikidocument you are citing?
    - You write: "WP:BLPPRIMARY is relevant here as well." Really? Are you asserting his CSR Tribunal memo is a primary source? Are you asserting it is a primary source in spite of the authors reading, collating, analyzing, reconciling reports from half a dozen other agencies? Geo Swan (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you actually bothered to read WP:BLPPRIMARY? Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. (bolding mine, italics in original). Are you really writing countless articles about detainees without even knowing such things about our BLP policy? If so, could you please just stop editing any articles about living people? Fram (talk) 07:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. IQinn (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. So why don't you accept that Fazaldad's memo fulfills these requirements? Geo Swan (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does not fulfill these requirements and this source alone can not fulfill these requirements. IQinn (talk) 03:27, 6 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) 17:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I'm not sure if the Fazaldad memo can be used to establish notability but even if it can it's only 1. More sources to consider would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writing BLPs based entirely on court records is an absolute no-no. Geo Swan, you keep being a problem editor in this area. Are we going to have to open a RfC/U, or are you going to stop relying on primary sources? Fences&Windows 23:00, 12 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. AfD is not a venue for request updates to articles, and articles are not deleted when editing is all that is needed -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SiteScreen

SiteScreen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]] • AfD statistics)

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

This article ist not is not correct anymore SiteScreen now belogs to the company Emediate. On behalf of the companies involved: Please delete this whole article Delete --Alt_Muc 11:27, Dec 3rd 2010 (CET)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Under what policy do you propose deletion? If the article is factually incorrect, the preferred solution is to update it, not delete it. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update as needed with referenced information about acquisition or merger. Cullen328 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I could update the article I would. But I don’t have proper Information about how SiteScreen is used or marketed by Emediate and what they are doing with it. It very likely is not in accordance to the article. Furthermore Emediate is a separate DANISH enterprise. That means the new target market is very likely to be Denmark, so it’s not relevant for English speaking countries any more. The article is irrelevant because it is not correct anymore and, if nobody comes up with correct information how SiteScreen is used by Emediate, it should be deleted. After all, Wikipedia is all about to spread relevant and correct information.

There is no reason not to “reactivate” the article once the information written down is correct and has proper sources with it. Alt_Muc 14:13, 7 December 2010 (CET)

Comment Alt_Muc, the company's website is still active and the Emediate name and a Copenhagen address appear at the bottom of the screen. There is no indication that the company intends to limit its marketing to Denmark. A notable company does not cease to become notable just because it is acquired by a Danish parent company. Wikipedia covers the whole world and many Danish companies operate throughout the world. Any changes to the article have to be based on reliable sources as references in the article, but nothing you have furnished so far justifies deleting the article. Cullen328 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless someone wants to challenge whether the company was notable in the first place. If there is verifiable information that Sitecreen was bought by Emediate, all that warrants is changing from present tense to past tense. If neither SiteScreen nor Emediate can prove the sale took place, that's their problem. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:51, 8 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 delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chikadirt

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

Delete Slang used in one school. No evidence of notability. Also Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:27, 6 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. A clear consensus here, and thanks to WhatamIdoing for the work done on the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Bowen

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

Yes, there is probably a spot reserved in hell for nominating a page for a 3 yr old cancer victim for deletion, but I think I was predestined for that regardless. Anyways, this is pretty much a WP:ONEEVENT/WP:NOTNEWS and (maybe a dab of WP:NOTMEMORIAL) situation. The subject received coverage because of the disease and fund-raising in his name. Admirable, but not quite in the league of Ryan White. There are 35 refs in the article, about a 1/3rd to the family's memorial page, 8 local coverage, 6 hospital news, and the rest a smattering of findagrave.com, blogs, deleted wikisource texts, and the like. What's there isn't enough to get this into "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one" territory of the event/people guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate the article - it's so full of POV stuff praising St. Jude's Hospital and criticizing his medical care from others. It really, really needs a rewrite, as well as more citations that are from independent sources (as noted by nominator, most are to St. Jude's or to the memorial page). But the notability is clearly there. He was featured on several TV shows. There is an annual 5K race for kids named after him [3]. There is even a stretch of state highway named for the kid. Bottom line, his notability has spread way beyond WP:ONEEVENT. The article needs a lot of cleanup, but AfD is not cleanup, and the subject is clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate it because it was a poor article, even though it is. There are expectations noted at WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria that I do not feel this subject has met. The coverage is local, has a short duration, and there is not a great diversity of sources; local news, a personal website, and the hospital newsletter are not compelling. It has a small chance at the lasting effects criteria with the race and the highway, but it feels a little trivial IMO. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I agree with Melanie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.190.92 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — 76.111.190.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update I've just done a major clean-up effort, removing all sorts of unencyclopedic and promotional materials. There are now 22 sources, and the average quality of the sources left is rather higher, although it's still true that at least a third are either from the father or the hospital.
The independent coverage is largely local and of short duration (2004 and 2005). Every source since then is primarily focused on fundraising, not the titular subject of the article. It might be more appropriate to merge it into a section on fundraising done for St Jude's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Whatamidoing, that's much better. --MelanieN (talk) 22:07, 12 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Carman

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

Minor league hockey player who has not yet established himself to meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY. Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball. PROD was removed with the comment “... on a senior national team it satisfies notability...”, however this athlete played for junior national team, not a senior team. Dolovis (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. He did not play on a senior team he played on the U-18 junior team and not the senior team so the prod remover was incorrect in his assessment. -DJSasso (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Around this time next year (perhaps) he'll satisfy NHOCKEY. He doesn't yet. Ravenswing 17:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Full disclosure that I am the articles creator. Looking through a biography by his college, in his freshman season he was named to the NCAA West Regional All-Tournament Team. Weatherman05071 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which still doesn't meet NHOCKEY. No college honors short of being named an All-American, leading the NCAA in scoring or winning the Hobey Baker do. Ravenswing 20:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, I am sorry to cause a problem then, being new to this I am still learning what is acceptable and what is not. Weatherman05071 (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No worries, we were all new once. Basically when creating an article just find some sources that talk about the person in depth. In other words not just a game summery. If you can find a few of those then usually the player warrants an article. The NHockey guideline is just a guideline that helps you know when you are likely to find such articles. So you can cut the middle man out if you go find those articles first when you create the page on a player. -DJSasso (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That aside, it's a well-written article. Once you've got a decent footing in our policies and guidelines, you'll be all set. Ravenswing 21:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:16, 8 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. Krakatoa Katie 22:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1982 Demo

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

Delete This article has absolutely no references anywhere on this page. There is also no valid information for this demo. This article is also not notable at all. For more information, read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Also, there are only about 151,000 results if you type in "Exodus 1982 Demo" in Google. It seems like a lot, but this is the only article about the demo. Finally, this article is a major stub. You differently should of researched this article a little bit more. I'm not saying this is fake, I actually own it, but until you can find for information, this page has to be deleted. Tnd900 (talk) 17:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Exodus article, here are some sources that mention it: The Art of Kirk Hammett,Allmusic:although it does not specify, alludes to Hammett recording with the band before he left for metallica, Discogs bio:mentions Hammett recording, and Mtv. If someone were to find a reliable source with tracklisting or release date, I would probably change to keep.- Theornamentalist (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable. None of the other demos have articles. At the very most, merge and delete. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:18, 6 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) 15:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. This discussion was originally closed as "delete" by Mandsford but he accidentally deleted this AFD instead of the article. This page has been restored but out of the 2 "delete" !votes I noticed that one is actually the nomination itself and the other is making a merge and delete argument which in most cases can't be done. Therefore, I think the best course of action is to relist this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I look more foolish than usual in this instance, but as Ron notes, it was indeed an accidental deletion. I think that the article title should be moved to something like "1982 Demo (Exodus demo tape)". Mandsford 18:55, 6 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 by User:Sphilbrick, closing discussion as moot. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QualitySolicitors.com

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

Multiple issues regarding COI, promotional content, notability. The article was clearly written by someone working for the organisation in question (user "Delphys50", who's only ever edited topics related to this particular affiliate scheme, claims to be the organisation's chief executive - [[4]] - and see the edit history, where it spent months in development going through various drafts before going public), it's written like an advertisement with numerous unverifiable claims, and there's no indication why this organisation in itself is notable rather than those of the member firms (it seems to be a franchise-type thing, rather than having "branches" as claimed in the article). Not sure whether an encyclopedic stub could be salvaged from what's there now; as it stands, it's a press release for a non-notable organisation. Fosse8 (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
Speedy delete, entirely unambiguous advertising with no salvageable text:

It is a selective membership organisation with the aim of developing a recognisable legal brand name to allow law firms to compete with non-legal brands due to be permitted to provide legal services due to the Legal Services Act 2007 reforms. It has a policy of locating its branches in convenient and visible locations and in November 2010 launched the UK's first retail legal store....

covers all areas of law. It offers a range of "customer service" orientated innovations including no hidden costs, a free first consultation and a promise of a same-day response to all client enquiries....

branches are famously frequently launched by well-known celebrities such as X-factor stars Stacey Solomon and Jamie Archer, soap star Roxanne Pallett and Britain's Got Talent judge Amanda Holden....

A world where law firms are advertised by soap opera stars is amusing to contemplate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11 and tagged as such. Blatant advertising. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11 nothing but solicitation, non-notable. Only reason not to speedy is so that we can G4 delete if it comes back. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:09, 6 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 delete. G7: Author request HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fahd Saleh Al-Muhayani

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

Negative WP:BLP based on one source. Fails WP:BIO. No other reliable indepth sources could be found for this person using Google, Google Books, Scholar or News Archives. The list he is on consists, according the one source of the article, mainly of "“second tier” militants who had worked under more senior operatives". Not enough good sources to base a Wikipedia article on. Fram (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, poorly sourced negative BLP with insufficient coverage to warrant an article. ~ mazca ^talk 13:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recommended above. The subject is not notable, and the sources are indeed poor.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:32, 6 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 delete. G7: Author request HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Majid bin Hamed bin Abdullah al-Haseri

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

Fails WP:BIO. Person who receieved some attention for one event (his death), but not sufficient to meet our notability guidelines. Google hits are mostly Wikipedia mirrors (only 38 distinct Google hits[5], and only 13 for the shortened name from one of the sources[6], and only 8 fro an even shorter form[7]). Google Books, Scholar and News Archive return nothing beyond the two sources of the article. In the end, we have one article about his death, and one where he is named in a list of people. This is insufficient. Fram (talk) 12:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as recommended above. The subject is not notable.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:32, 6 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 06:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons, Suffolk

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

Not notable - fails WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Up merge to Round Maple, insufficient sources to even consider the possibility of future expansion Gnan garra 11:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any sources to demonstrate notability and there's not really anything worth merging. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Round Maple article. Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Of course, you're free to add a mention of this topic to any article where it might be appropriate, if it is reliably sourced. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grade II buildings are not inherently notable & there is nothing to suggest that this article could ever be expanded beyond the basic EH listing information. It was originally covered by a sentence in Round Maple which can be reinstated. Nancy^talk 18:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But Quicks Farm could, see http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-490837-quicks-farmhouse-edwardstone. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 13:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can't see how any of that info makes it notable, though. The reference calls it "a good example of an evolved farmhouse" which makes it sound like othing particularly special Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability for an article. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Agree with Born2cycle and Nancy.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have thought that this shows some notability as is is a reliable source. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 13:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yes it is a reliable source, but it doesn't actually show any notability other than it is a Grade II listed building, a very common thing in rural Suffolk. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:19, 12 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 Islamic extremism per WP:IAR. As with extremism in general (see the book added as further reading there), there are two aspects of this, which can be referenced in particular (religious fundamentalism and terror tactics, which have overlap but aren't necessarily identical), so I've made a {{SIA}} at Islamic extremism. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Extremism

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

This short stub fails WP:V (permalink, in case it improves) The only referenced information in it is not found in the source cited, which only discusses Islamic fundamentalism, and the difference between "Islamist", explained as Islamic fundamentalist, and "jihadist", explained as someone who also endorses Jihad as a means to achieve a fundamentalist Islamic society. The word "extremism" doesn't even appear on that page (but see quote below). So, this article is best deleted as consisting only of WP:unverifiable opinion (WP:POVFORK) right now. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the source cited:

“

We shall use the term "Islamic revival" to cover the whole range of newly founded and active Islamic movements. [...] "Islamist" refers to those with primarily political agendas and "jihadist" to those for whom violence is the principal tactic. [...] In political terms [Islamic revival] includes movements that are engaged in national politics as parties and lobbies, some of which have auxiliary paramilitary forces. On the extreme are movements that use assassination, bombing and other assaults as part of an effort to seize political power by coups d'etat.

”

Assuming you can coin the term Islamic extremism from that quote, Islamic terrorism seems a suitable target for a redirect, but note that the capitalization difference means we're talking about a different page; the one nominated here doesn't need redirection, only deletion. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:26, 6 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 06:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flushing Farm

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

Not notable - fails WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ upmerge to Round Maple as previously mentioned in this cfd Using google to search for the buildings there's nothing of apparent substance to raise any expectation of possible furture expansion. Noting that this building is a Grade II listed building and lacks any additional significance beyond when it was built. Gnan garra 11:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any sources to demonstrate notability and there's not really anything worth merging. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a listed building, which probably could have more content added to it in the future, It's main sauce at the monent is http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-276465-the-flushing-edwardstone, but there may still be more sources. I may also re format Round Maple for if this article is not notable and needs to be merged. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 11:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's only a grade II listed building, which isn't very remarkable. There's probably over 100 Grade II listed buildings in Long Melford according to the source you quote (http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/england/suffolk/long+melford) and I don't think that on that kind of basis that they would all deserve a Wikipedia article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - not all that remarkable, in England approximately 374,000 listings of which 344,000 are Grade II, [8] Gnan garra 12:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grade II buildings are not inherently notable & there is nothing to suggest that this article could ever be expanded beyond the basic EH listing information. It was originally covered by a sentence in Round Maple which can be reinstated. Nancy ^talk 17:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability for an article. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge to its nearest proper settlement.Kudpung (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is Round Maple (with a section on the topic) if not notable enough to have a separate article. It has http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/en-276465-the-flushing-edwardstone, which is a reliable source anyway. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 17:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable as per Kudpung, Nancy, etc--J3Mrs (talk) 20:56, 11 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 01:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quicks Farm

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

Not notable - fails WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Up merge toRound Maple, as previously mentioned in this cfd Using google to search for the buildings there's nothing of apparent substance to raise any expectation of possible furture expansion. Noting that this building is a Grade II listed building and lacks any additional significance beyond when it was built. Gnan garra 11:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any sources to demonstrate notability and there's not really anything worth merging. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grade II buildings are not inherently notable & there is nothing to suggest that this article could ever be expanded beyond the basic EH listing information. It was originally covered by a sentence in Round Maple which can be reinstated. Nancy ^talk 18:33, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient notability for an article. Richard Harvey (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, agree with Nancy.--J3Mrs (talk) 20:59, 11 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) 13:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of free gujarati tools

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

Article was previously deleted via proposed deletion, and has been recreated. This article is (and will always be) nothing but a link repository, and Wikipedia is not a link repository. -- Lear's Fool 08:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a link repository and nothing else. We are not DMOZ. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, in theory, an article on Gujarati operating systems, or something like that, could be created. That would require a complete re-write of this article from scratch. Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 7 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 06:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim actors

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

There's really nothing to say about this except: irrelevant intersection. Nothing special about being both a Muslim and an actor (in today's day and age). Bulldog123 08:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as a trivial intersection. Much to my surprise, after considerable searching I'm unable to find much discussion of "Muslim actors" as a specific field of discussion. I can find discussion of Islamic theatre (both modern and traditional), mentions of several specific Muslim actors, a whole bunch of stuff about Iranian actors and Iranian cinema, and discussions generally of portrayal of Islam in media, but nothing specifically about "Muslim actors". So I'm forced to agree that, however unlikely it seems, "Muslim actor" may well be a trivial intersection. I'm open to changing my vote if someone finds the sources I couldn't. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty much indiscriminate list. There's nothing special about being a Muslim actor. This is no more notable than a "list of Muslims" or a "list of actors". JIP | Talk 12:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another indiscrimate and pointless list that needs to be wiped off the face of Wikipedia. ----Divebomb is not British 13:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Far from a trivial intersection. I've added a short intro reflecting that; much more is available to buttress that view, along the same lines.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly baffled. You searched the words "Muslim actors" in quotes... found swill like this: "In 2008, an Indian mujahideen group purportedly wrote an email saying that Muslim Bollywood actors must stop working in films or face death..." and somehow believe it substantiates a list of all Muslim actors... much less a prose article on the subject. Bulldog123 21:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all the refs together. Look as well at all the mentions on the web of the intersection. And address those as a whole, rather than focus on one. Anything less is a transparent effort to mis-lead and confuse your fellow editors.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll go one by one. Here [9] you googled the words "Muslim actors" and found a book about terrorism where the words show up on exactly 1 page. That page briefly mentions how the BBC has trouble finding "Muslim actors" for their dramas because not many devout Muslims are actors. Irrelevant link #1
Here you once again simply googled "Muslim actors" and found a BBC news article about how devout Muslims who are also actors tend not to want to play "gay roles." Somehow, through sheer original research, you connected it to the link above. Amazingly, this BBC news article has almost nothing to do with the subject of Muslim actors, but rather, the subject of "homosexuality" and portrayals of it in the Muslim community. You'd be better off making the list List of LGBT Muslims with this link (though that would also be a WP:WEIGHT issue). Suffice to say, Irrelevant link #2
Your third link talks about how Ridley Scott wanted to employ Muslim actors in Kingdom of Heaven. Nice trivia. Irrelevant link #3
Your fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh links all provide the same tidbit of information suited for Cinema of India. Irrelevant here.
Needless to say but, I can put two words in quotes as well and bring up a lot of disparate material. Check it out: Left-Handed History by Ed Wright, The Expressive Body: Physical Characterization of the Actor by David Alberts, Celebrated Left-Handers by Leigh W. Rutledge... All right, Epee. I expect you to start List of left-handed actors. Bulldog123 01:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment makes my point. When we have as many sources on left-handed actors as we do on Muslim actors, it will be notable. I'm not aware that we have reports in Parliament about the paucity of left-handed actors, in the papers about the difficult to get them to act in certain movies, in India about them changing their names to be right-handed, and people reportedly trying to kill them because they are left-handed actors. Or the counterpart of Muslims on Screen & Television (MOST), a resource center providing Hollywood productions with connections to Muslim actors (try telling them that there is no such intersection). Plus, as required by wp:before, I'm sure that you saw that what is now in the article is only the tip of the iceberg of books and articles focusing on the intersection, which reflects its notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll just go down with the sinking ship, Epee. Now you claim there are more sources for Muslim actors? Please point me to where they are: [10]? I beg of you. Bulldog123 22:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think describing Epeefleche's contributions to the article as "swill" is remotely warranted, and Bulldog123 should consider Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks, I'm nevertheless not convinced that these mentions are non-trivial or constitute significant discussion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable intersection.Griswaldo (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining and a possible festering BLP problem. I've removed Tony Shaloub from the list, as there is no indication in his article or in any source I've found saying he is a Muslim. In general, they are difficult to prove.--TM 00:24, 10 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 06:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-four Hours (novel)

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

Non-notable book, there is no speedy deletion criterion for books, so we have to go with AfD. Corvus cornix_talk 07:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A1 - Article lacks sufficient context to identify which of a large number of books entitled "Twenty-Four Hours" it might be referring to, and therefore is unable to be meaningfully expanded. (Failing speedy delete, it also should be deleted for failing the general notability guidelines.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a bit confused. Instead of welcoming a new user and asking them for a more detailed explanation and sourcing, Corvus nominated the article for deletion two minutes after its creation. Not everyone is a born Wikipedian, people learn how to edit. You have the opportunity to help or assist, so why the rush to delete the article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because spamming is frowned upon. Corvus cornix_talk 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So is biting the newbies, not to mention quick-draw deletion nominations. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neither of which is a policy, nor is there anything in this article which claims notability, not is it anything other than a book review, which is a violation of WP:OR and WP:NPOV, not to mention WP:V. Got any more acronyms you want to throw at me to show how much superior you are to me? And why is it all right to BITE the creator of Educational Segregation in Sunflower County, Mississippi? Corvus cornix_talk 22:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That article was not nominated for deletion two minutes after it was created, and was extensively worked on in userspace first. They knew what they were doing, and the article had time to be worked on after being added. I'm not disputing that this article should be Deleted, just that it's borderline on assuming bad faith to zap an article so quickly, IMHO. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, two sentence book review with no claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 22:34, 6 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. TN X Man 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winter War of 2010

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

Prod contested. Unreferenced article on a non-notable college campus event —KuyaBriBri^Talk 07:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/early close - Falls short of a G3 Speedy Delete (blatant hoax) in that the event in question probably happened, but I'd think there's no real question that this is not a serious attempt to encyclopedically document a notable event. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When reading the article, I must admit that I miss the carefree and wonderful times of my studies. @students of the University of Notre Dame: Keep the event in your memory (or post at Facebook, which is an improved collective computer memory), but don't waste time of people building encyclopedia. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local event specific to one campus only. JIP | Talk 12:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clearly non-notable event. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nothing notable about it at all. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 17:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't this being speedied? Delete ASAP. Kansan (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:39, 6 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. There is no clear consensus between keeping or redirecting (although there is a clear consensus not to delete); I would suggest that the discussion on the subject (and possible redirect) be continued on the article's talk page -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark romanticism

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

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article's talk page requested support from reliable sources in early 2007. Nothing has been forthcoming. Links which purport to support the existence of this literary school are either dead or not WP:RS (e.g. a self-published web-page by students). The existence of a literary school and its appropriate characterization - including membership - should be relatively easy to support from the critical literature. As it stands, a mix of WP:OR and WP:SYN.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Comment I am inclined to agree that as it stands the article looks like OR and SYN. At the very least, on the basis of these sources, it should read something like "this term was used once in 1974", which would hardly meet the criteria for notability. However, I will hold judgement while I do a search for reliable sources.--SabreBD (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a widely used term/literary subgenre [11]. Any problems of WP:OR and WP:SYN should be fixable by responsible editing instead of by deleting. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because there are no sources cited is not justification for deleting. In two minutes with google I found references to a scholarly journal published by Washington State Univ Press entitled "Poe Studies / Dark Romanticism" and to an exhibition held by the U of Delaware in 2001 under the title "Dark Romanticism" (which, interestingly, dealt only with British writers, not mentioned in the article). While I know nothing about this field, it's clear that the term has been used rather more than just "once in 1974". Jimmy Pitt talk 15:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and~~ Make redirect. The "scholarly journal" isn't scholarly in the academic sense, they don't usually have most of the articles being 2 pages, its basically a society website and in regard to the exhibition curators will use anything to get the visitors in. Actually reading some of the available sources indicates that Dark Romanticism is largely a synonym for Gothic fiction, used to suggest a connection between Romanticism and the Gothic. See for example the Routledge Companion to Gothic, which indicates that it was fashionable after Thompson used it in 1974, but is now used with more reserve. This becomes more obvious where it is used for British writers normally classified as Gothic fiction. I suggest the best route is to make this a redirect to Gothic fiction, put the term as an alternative in the opening sentence and then explain how it was/maybe still is, used. Wikipedia doesn't usually have different articles for the same things, as indicated in third tip at WP:SAA.--SabreBD (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So which is it? Keep or Redirect? It can't be both. But provided sources are cited to support the assertion that it's a synonym, a redirect seems sensible. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s): It's important to look at search results carefully to see if they support the case you want to make. Yes, googling the phrase "dark romanticism" does return a bunch of hits, showing it to be a phrase which authors have used for all kinds of purposes. Just browsing the first few pages, you'll see it applied to everything from gothic literature to detective stories to Garcia Lorca to "1980s synth-wave's dark romanticism." What you don't get is any clear-cut identification of a single literary sub-genre bearing that title (except, arguably, the Thompson book). What we have to decide is not whether the phrase is used but whether it has been used by reliable sources to identify a unified topic suitable for a Wikipedia article. As for the article being fixable, editors tried and failed three years ago - because solid sources aren't there. I can live with a re-direct to Gothic fiction, if the Thompson book supports it. (Incidentally, take out the material on transcendentalism and you have little more than a stub.)KD Tries Again (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Comment: Okay, the question seems to be: Is there any difference between "Dark Romanticism" and "Gothic romance/fiction"? I'm not a literary historian or theorist, but I found books specifically mentioning Dark Romanticism in the title (and all the sources seem to identify a unified topic). It seems that the term has its origins in The Romantic Agony (Oxford, 1951) by Mario Praz.[12] The German article Schwarze Romantik (Schauerromantik) has two books on the topic:

Mario Praz: Liebe, Tod und Teufel. Die schwarze Romantik. München, 1963. ISBN 342304375X.
Karin Gollesch: Nachtseiten. Die "Schwarze Romantik" in der deutschsprachigen Prosaepik. Wien, Univ., Dipl.-Arb. 2004.

Furthermore, we have three titles in English:

GR Thompson: A Dark Romanticism: In Quest of a Gothic Monomyth, Washington State University Press, 1974.
The Gothic Imagination : Essays in Dark Romanticism, ed. by GR Thompson
Poe studies/dark romanticism : history, theory, interpretation (2003) [13]

Unfortunately, I can't find the mentioned books/studies available online. It could serve us for better identification of the topic.

--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Again, examined closely there's not much here -

The Romantic Agony - I am very familiar with this book in English translation. It analyses the persistence of sado-masochistic and other sexual themes in Romantic and Gothic literature. Far from the term originating with this book, I do not believe it uses the term at all, but since it's a densely footnoted five hundred pager we really need someone to provide a positive reference rather than have me go look for the term. (Searching the version on Google books returns no hits.)
Liebe, Tod und Teufel. Die schwarze Romantik. This is the German translation of The Romantic Agony, or La carne, la muerte y el diablo en la literatura romántica. I can't find that subtitle anywhere in association with the original Italian version and don't recall it in the English. And at the risk of OR, I'd point out that "liebe" is just a wrong translation of "carne" - "fleisch" is the obvious German word. A subtitle apparently added by a publisher does not amount to a reliable source.
Gollesch looks like an unpublished thesis, as does the other cite at German Wiki. Which brings us back to Thompson.

Sorry to be long-winded, but critical examination of sources if important. Look, we're supposedly dealing here not with obscure authors but with Poe, Melville, Shelley, Byron - it sends up danger signals that we're reduced to dubious subtitles and unpublished dissertations to establish even the existence of this topic, let alone its content.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. As I said previously, I'm not a literary historian or theorist - I'm one of the very few people who bother to ask here for an explanation. People could search for the term or its definition. The main purpose of this discussion is judging all the possibilities and finding the best solution. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am offering verifiable responses rather than opinions. I don't want to turn this into the article's discussion page; simply to point out that we still have nothing more (as said above) supportable by reliable sources than "dark romanticism was a term used by G.R. Thompson in two books." Surely not enough for an article, which is why I recommend deleting or re-directing. KD Tries Again (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

Keep/merge/move This encyclopedia identifies the concept with the German genre of Schauer-Romantik which is a notable branch of the Gothic style. There seems to be good potential to develop this topic further in accordance with our editing policy and deletion would disrupt this. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not quite sure of what is being said here Colonel Warden. Is your argument that Schauer-Romantik is the Dark Romanticism in this article (of Poe etc)? Reading the entry in the encyclopedia, it doesn't seem to suggest that it is the same thing, but that this fed into English and later American Gothic and the three major authors in this article as it stands are not mentioned. To me it seems that this should be in the Gothic Fiction article as an important influence and form, rather than in this one, but perhaps that is what is being proposed.--SabreBD (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be numerous terms for this genre. Determining exactly how this would all be best presented seems beyond the scope of AFD. All we need establish here is that the delete function should not be used as ordinary editing will suffice. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: It looks like dark romanticism as a sub-genre encompassing Melville, Hawthorne and Poe is just OR. The encyclopedia source is at least sound, even if it's tertiary. It's enough to persuade me that we need a redirect to Gothic fiction and that the term and its German cognates need to be mentioned there.KD Tries Again (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Family Guy (season 9). for now. Courcelles 06:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Kidney in Town

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

per WP:CRYSTAL. There is very little information on the episode here. The page should not be created until there is more info about other than the episode name and air date. JDDJS (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to Family Guy (season 9)...I'm pretty surprised Gage created this with no plot. CTJF83 chat 04:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. JDDJS (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This has been done for nearly every article in the ninth season so far. Completely unnecessary. Plot information will be released in less than two weeks, and I'll simply be recreating the article anyway. Gage (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting till a plot summary is available doesn't hurt anything...plus you can just undo it afterward, so nothing to recreate. CTJF83 chat 06:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Gage should have waited until plot details had been announced before creating this article. This article has no usefull infomation on it whatsoever. --Klltr (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 06:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy (season 9), per Ctjf83. JJ98 (Talk) 02:38, 9 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Thomas Performing Arts Centre

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

fails WP:ORG. no substantial indepth coverage [14]. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in reliable independent sources here and here, which were both already in the article when it was nominated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important cultural institution in Kochi [15]. The content is verifiable, the article is expandable by using multiple reliable sources. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:40, 6 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 delete per G12 by Phantomsteve. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Harris (artist)

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

This article is written in an entirely unencyclopedic manner. The list of awards- the subject's claim to notability- consist of prizes and commendations in non-notable magazines and similarly low-key exhibitions. As an unsourced BLP which does not even contain the birth year of its subject, I think this is well below par. sonia♫ 04:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Bill Harris seems to be only locally known artist, all of the sources I found are Fredericksburg newspapers/magazines: [16], [17], [18]. I don't think he meets our criteria for inclusion, but I'm willing to change my opinion if more information will be provided during the discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:40, 6 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. The consensus for Cliburn is to keep; there is little mention about Simister, so that is defaulting to keep - please renominate seperately if you feel it should be considered for deletion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cliburn (surname)

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

I am also nominating the following related page for the reason stated below:

Per MOS:DABNAME:

Persons who have the ambiguous term requiring disambiguation as surname or given name should not be in the same section of the disambiguation page as the other links unless they are very frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g. Elvis, Shakespeare). For short lists of such persons, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx and/or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list. For longer lists, create an article called Xxxx (name), Xxxx (surname), ...

These two very short surname pages were created within the last 24 hours by the same editor and I believe are completely unnecessary. I would have nominated them for speedy delete except that the editor who created them is an administrator which probably makes nominating their deletion automatically controversial.

In both cases here, we have very short surname lists: three names at Cliburn (surname) and two names at Simister (surname).

In the case of Cliburn, per the MOS guidance above, "For short lists of such persons, new sections ... can be added below the main disambiguation list [of the disambiguation page]", the three links to the articles about the persons should be merged into a surname section at Cliburn (disambiguation).

In the case of Simister, there is a total of three uses, the two persons and a small village whose article is at Simister. Per WP:TWODABS there is no need for even a dab page here, much less a separate surname page. Links to both persons can be provided for the reader seeking either person in a hatnote at the top of Simister. Born2cycle (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are not articles about the respective surnames. They are pointless splits from disambiguation pages that don't need splitting. Hesperian 04:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that there is no disambiguation page for Simister (Simister (disambiguation)), and that there is no need for one. The two surname uses (which are the only other uses) could be most effectively handled via hatnote links at the top of the primary topic article per WP:TWODABS: "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, ...". --Born2cycle (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless articles. Bad idea to start splitting dab pages without good reason. Mhockey (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment there is an ongoing discussion about how names should be handled on dab pages at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation‎‎ of which the creator of this page and the deletion nominator are involved. I would suggest that discussion be resolved before this RfD gets closed. I have also suggested the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy be involved in this discussion. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "the creator of this page and the deletion nominator are involved." Aren't they the same person? Hesperian 05:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jwy means the creator of the pages nominated to be deleted (an administrator) and the nominator of this deletion (me) are both involved in the referenced discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Anthroponymy has been informed of this ongoing discussion. Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into Cliburn (disambiguation). Corvus cornix_talk 07:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What Simister (surname)? There is no Simister (disambiguation). In the nom I suggest hatnote links to the two uses. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cliburn (disambiguation)Speedy keep now we have a genuine article about the surname, but oppose any attempt to remove the people (especially the pianist) from the general disambiguation page. ~~This is all starting to look a bit pointy - where there are only three holders of a surname, and only brief etymological information besides,~~ this seems to be a situation where the surname holders are most conveniently combined on one page with the other dab entries. Why give people yet another navigation step (or stretch out the hatnote on Cliburn even more) when the dab page would still be a nice short one even with the surnames on it?--Kotniski (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Simister (surname)? Also part of this... thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - With Simister the surname page is not quite so annoying, as there is no dab page for it to duplicate, but I still prefer the hatnote solution (it saves people a navigation step, which is good as long as the hatnote can be kept brief, as it can here).--Kotniski (talk) 07:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
respond to the edited version after strikethrough: there is no reason to keep the entries on the dab page once the anthroponymy article has been created. People who are commmonly known by only the single name get entries on the dab pages; people who happen to have a particular surname or given name are listed (separately, not with the topics that could have the ambiguous title) on the dab page only if there is no anthroponymy article. There seems to be a lot of effort to change this, without any effort to actual change the appropriate guidelines, which went through a lot of discussion to get to in the first place (per the background reading on the anthroponymy project). -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are valid although short WP:Anthroponymy articles. MOS:DABNAME says that they don't need to be created, but it does not (and cannot, since they aren't dab pages) prohibit their creation. Nothing pointy about it -- this is the way that Anthroponymy list articles get created, by an editor who takes the time to split the partial title matches from their temporary holding place on the disambiguation to the appropriate anthroponymy list article. See WP:Anthroponymy and especially its background reading. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But their place on the disambiguation page only needs to be "temporary" if there's a significant amount of information (list of people, or etymological information etc.) about the surname. Do you think there's going to be a significant amount of people/information for these two surnames in the near future? If not, I don't see what's to be gained for anyone by putting them on separate pages - that just makes you do an extra click to find them, without noticeably increasing the usability of the disambiguation page.--Kotniski (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what the guidelines says, no. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is JHJ seriously suggesting that these pages were created to "improve Wikipedia's coverage of ... information related to the names of people" (per WP:Anthroponymy) and not "to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term" (per WP:MOSDAB)? Mhockey (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing this issue with JHJ for about a week now, and carefully reading everything he has posted about it, and still cannot understand what he is ultimately driving at (probably because he has not answered most of the clarifying questions I've asked him about it, such as these). All I can say is that he seems to have a peculiar aversion to the idea of using just surname to refer to people, or search for people, that he is unable or unwilling to explain. Sifting through a lot of history has not shed much light on this, except I can tell you is that this has been an issue from at least 2006 [19]:

JHJ: No one is likely to enter "Allen" in the search box to find "Tim Allen".

Charles Matthews: No one is likely to enter "Allen" in the search box to find "Tim Allen" is a comment with no merit at all (who is in a position to claim anything of the sort?).

I suggest Matthews' rhetorical question continues to apply today. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. You did note that Matthews' rhetoric was in support of keeping the surname list article, right? So it is ironic that you feel it supports your proposition to delete the Cliburn surname list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rhetoric was in rebuttal to the specific point you made (and continue to make today) about the use of surnames for searching for persons being unlikely. The larger point is irrelevant to this, but I have no dispute with the existence and utility of splits from dab pages covering names which have at least dozens of links, as Allen (name) does. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that rebuttal lead to the change in my position, from getting rid of the surname lists as indiscriminate lists to instead the creation of the anthroponymy project for housing the lists -- since they aren't disambiguation pages. Which is the consensus Charles Matthews and I (and the rest of the involved editors at the time) came to. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not being disambiguation pages" does not mean they don't provide a disambiguatory function; it just means they are not subject to the same style guidelines as are true dab pages. No one who has taken the time to wade through those archives, and at least Bkonrad and I have, has been able to find evidence of the formation of consensus for the claims you've been making that go way beyond page style considerations, but concern whether surnames alone are used to search for persons who have those surnames. And you certainly have not provided any quotes or links to anything indicating that any such consensus ever existed, though you keep repeating your claim that it did. Further, there apparently was not enough consensus to update the relevant guidelines. For example, Conclusion 2 at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames (which is linked at the top of the anthroponymy project page) states: "Articles on surnames are useful as disambiguation ...". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge back Cliburn to dab page as there is no need for a separate three-persons surname page. Weak keek/neutral on Simister as there is no real dab page to merge the names, and as soon as such a surname page has been created for whatever reason (even a stupid one), it's not worth the drama to get them deleted. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the "drama" might be worth it to establish that consensus to delete such articles remains as has generally been the practice per the archives at the Anthroponymy project. By making the effort in this case to establish that consensus remains that the reason to create such articles is stupid (thanks for helping do that), other instances like this can be justifiably speedy deleted. Please see the related more general discussion about this here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no minimum length for surname list articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps none explicitly stated, but since MOS:DABNAME only mentions separation in the context of there being too many to be a section of the dab page, the implication is clear. And the convention seems to be create them when they help more than they hinder, and to delete them when they don't. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Pending_deletions_archive for about a dozen examples of the latter. Note that all but one of the surname articles nominated for deletion were deleted, and that the only one that wasn't, Kohring, does have some content about the name besides the people linked, and even then there was very little participation in that discussion so that doesn't say much about consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The implication is that if the list is long, then is must be split off. There is no implication for short lists, which can be split whenever an editor feels like creating the anthroponymy list article. Flipping "long lists must be split" to "only long lists may be split" is a common logical fallacy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But what's the reason to split (at the cost of causing readers an extra level of redirection) if it's not too long? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To separate the list article from disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep asserting that the page is not a disambiguation page. If its purpose is not "to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term", what is it? To provide a minimal amount of information about the surname? Really? Placename dab pages often provide information about toponymy, but that is not their main purpose. Why should surname pages be different? Mhockey (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question of Mhockey's is key, and has already been ignored once. It needs an answer.

I would also add the question: If Cliburn (surname) is not a disambiguation page, then why are Van Cliburn, Stan Cliburn and Stu Cliburn no longer listed at Cliburn (disambiguation)? We're now in the situation where if I type in "Cliburn" looking for Stu Cliburn, I'll end up at a disambiguation page that lists only a village, a railway station, and an (alleged) article about the surname. But I'm not looking for any of those topics. I'm looking for the article on Stu Cliburn. Hesperian 23:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to JHJ's argument, as best as I can understand it, if you were looking for the article on Stu Cliburn, you would not be entering just "cliburn" in the search box, because you would not expect the Wikipedia article title of the article about him to be Cliburn. If you don't believe me I'd be happy to find references that add up to him essentially arguing this, again, as best as I can understand.

What makes it difficult to know for sure is that JHJ has also demonstrated lately an uncanny and very annoying knack for ignoring pointed questions and statements about his positions (when he doesn't dismiss them as "legalese"), at least when it comes to these surname-related discussions. This makes it particularly difficult to discuss it with him and even come to a point of agreeing to disagree about any specific point, much less finding consensus. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question hasn't been ignored. Current consensus is that lists of name holders (that is, people who are not commonly known by just the single name, but have the single name as their given name or surname) are not disambiguation pages. See MOS:DABNAME, WP:Anthroponymy and especially its background reading. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't ignored Mhockey's question, why can't any one of us locate your answer? Perhaps you've answered it in your mind, but unless you post an answer here it's still being ignored as far as the rest of us are concerned.

Perhaps it will help if I reformat the question in a complete-the-sentence format:

The purpose of this page is not "to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term"; the purpose of this page is ____________________.

When I look at the references you provide, I see no answer at MOS:DABNAME, nor at WP:Anthroponymy, though the latter links to Wikipedia:Deletion policy/names and surnames which says the exact opposite of what you claim: "Articles on surnames are useful as disambiguation ...".

By the way, you're now also ignoring Hesperian's followup-questions, and this is exactly what you did with my pointed questions for a whole week. Perhaps they need to be posed in the complete-the-sentence format as well?

I'm sorry, but after putting up with over a week of this crap at this point I think it has to be said that your behavior resembles that of a troll. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search this page for the text "background reading". I don't know why you can't locate it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're really stretching my ability to continue to assume good faith. Are you seriously claiming your opening statement here is evidence of you not ignoring the question which was posted after you made that statement, in response to it? Now you'll probably also ignore this question, an if Mhockey asks his question for a 3rd time, you'll never-the-less claim you already answered it. This is the crap I've been putting up with for a week, and I can't believe you're continuing to spew more of it.

As I've pointed out before (another point you can add to the long lists of points and questions you ignore), everyone who has looked at that "background reading" -- at least Bkonrad and I -- can't find whatever the heck you think it says that supports your position. If you think something in that "background reading" is relevant here, please provide quotes of that material. Otherwise please stop claiming it's there. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Would it be possible to conduct this discussion in a more, let's say, respectful manner?) I think all it comes down to is this - sometimes (generally when there are a lot of people with a particular surname, as well as other meanings for the word which is the surname) it's more convenient for readers if we split the list of people off onto a separate page from the disambiguation page. Other times (when there aren't so many people with the surname) there isn't anything to be gained by doing that. General agreement here is that, whatever may be the case with other surnames, Cliburn is one of the occasions when there isn't anything to be gained by making such a split. Can we all, if grudingly, accept that? Then there's the question of Simister, which is slightly different - perhaps that's the one we should be addressing? What makes the better hatnote, a shorter one with a single link, or a slightly more intrusive longer one with two links that saves people a click?--Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obvious that everyone participating here so far but one person agrees with this, and the one who disagrees can't or won't explain the basis for his position and is either unable or unwilling to answer pointed questions about it, yet continues to espouse that position. How you have a discussion in this situation at all, much less a respectful is, frankly, beyond me. But I'm open to learning. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no, it would not be possible to conduct this in a more respectful manner. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've got countless surname articles (Category:Surnames). Like JHunterJ mentioned, these kind of things are the bread and butter of WP:Anthroponymy. I'm gonna try and make a useful stub of this article and save it from deletion. If everyone pitched in we might be able to make a pretty good one. I suspect the first of the surname, Robert, who is recorded in 1364, is somehow connected to the Robert who built Cliburn Hall in 1387. The hall still exists today, apparently it was fixed up in the 1600s by a member of the Cliburn family. There's a photo of it in Google images search but I doubt we can use it. Anyway, a photo of the hall would be pretty cool for this article, sine it was built by a earler bearer of the name, and sits in the same town which gave rise to the surname. It'd be relevant to the article on the town too, since we've got a little section about it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't have a real problem with moving the people to the disambig list, if that's what the consensus is, since there are only a few names. But the article actually about the surname should be kept separate. I've tried to make it into a proper stub now. It still can easily be expanded a bit to show stats: like how the name ranks in the US and UK. Things like that.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has probably been created in responce to the move discussions at Talk:Freston, Suffolk#Requested move and Talk:Cliburn#Requested move. Personally I think creating thiese "sub disambiguation" pages was a reasonable responce to the discussions

This is what happened;

I proposed a move at Talk:Freston, Suffolk#Requested move (when I was still User:Homan's Copse)
Me, JHunterJ and Born2cycle discuss this at Talk:Freston, Suffolk#Requested move
I made a comment at Talk:Freston, Suffolk#Requested move saying "What about Cliburn...."
Born2cycle Proposes Cliburn→Cliburn, Cumbria
I make a comment at Talk:Cliburn#Name holders not ambiguous? about Simister
JHunterJ creates Cliburn (surname) and Simister (surname)
Born2cycle nominates them for deletion

Looking at JHunterJ's edit summery, I think the creation might also have something to do with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Anthroponymy. This probably also has something to do with Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.

Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 10:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what relevance all this history has - what purpose do you think this surname page now has? Do you think it should be about the history of the surname, as suggested above, or should it also serve as a means of keeping the people with the surname off the general dab page for Cliburn? I've no objection to having an article about the surname here, if we can find something to say about it - all I object to is the idea that once we have a surname page we shouldn't list the people on the dab page any more, which just seems like pointless rule-mongering that would make it harder for readers to find the articles they want, for apparently no gain. --Kotniski (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so now we have a stub article about the surname - which is different from most of the articles in Category:Surnames, which are almost all lists, as far as I can see. If the stub stays, the question becomes: should the list stay in the stub article, or should it be moved back to the dab page? To put it another way, is the purpose of the list to "help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term (i.e. Cliburn)", or is it to provide information about the name? To my mind it is unhelpful to the reader to confuse the two. If I am looking for info about the surname, I can reach the stub from the dab page. But if I am looking for an article about someone called Cliburn, I now have to plough through a lot of irrelevant info about the history of the surname, to find the article I am looking for. Mhockey (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the people should be listed at the dab page, though I have no objection to their also being listed on the surname page (since their number is so small, there shouldn't be any problems maintaining the list). --Kotniski (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brianann MacAmhlaidh for helping us out here. What prompted this Afd is the creation of these articles for no apparent good reason. As near as I can tell a good reason for a surname article is either (1) some content about the surname in question, or (2) as a dab page split for exceedingly large dab pages and long lists of people with that surnames, and even there I believe a "List of people with surname X" article would be more appropriate. But I don't see the point of a content-less stub that splits out the persons with that surname from a short dab page (or, in a case with only a few total uses and so no dab page, from the hat note of the primary topic article on that homograph) to list them in the stub surname article instead. Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you don't have a problem with moving the list of persons back to the dab page, I presume you don't see the point either.

I agree with Kotniski. If there is notable/sourced content about the respective surnames in these articles they can stay, but the list of persons with these surnames are so short they need to stay on the dab pages (or hatnotes), but may also be listed in the surname article.

By the way, Mhockey has asked his question three times now; still no answer. I'm just saying... --Born2cycle (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mhockey: the purpose of keeping partial title matches (including people who happen to have a given name or a given surname, but who aren't commonly known by the single name) is to keep readers who are looking for one of the "topics that might have the ambiguous title" ("ambiguous topics" was what I used to call those, except that some readers do not understand that term -- is there a better short phrase?) from having to plough through a lot of irrelevant information to get to it. The background reading links at the anthroponymy project lead to the discussions that lead to that consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK I think we understand, but in this case, there are only three people listed, so there isn't a "lot of irrelevant information" (in fact the people are probably more likely to be relevant than are the other assorted topics on the dab page), so there doesn't seem to be any reason for taking them off the dab page. (Which is not to say they can't be listed on the surname article page as well.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's not "a lot of irrelevant information about the surname" that readers have to plough through there, as Mhockey said. So there's no reason to keep them on the dab page, and no reason to ignore the guidelines to list them in the surname article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's completely twisted. The only possible reason for taking these people off the dab page is so that users of the dab page don't have to plough through a lot of irrelevant information to find other entries. If there isn't a lot of irrelevant information (just three names), then there remains no reason to take them off the dab page. If there is a guideline somewhere that tells us to do what you suggest, then it should be amended sharpish, since it is clearly contrary to common sense (serves no purpose), consensus (witness these discussions) and actual practice (surname holders very very often and quite uncontroversially appear on dab pages all over the place).--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JHJ, thank you for finally clearly defining what you mean by "ambiguous topics" ... "topics that might have the ambiguous title". I wish you had done that a week or so ago. If I understand you correctly, "topics that might have as their Wikipedia article title the homograph in question are ambiguous topics of that homograph" is an accurate statement. To be clear that this concept is defined in terms of title, I'm going to use the term "ambiguous title topics" instead of "ambiguous topics", which also avoids the semantic problem of having "ambiguous" modify "topic". Anyway, by that definition any topic that would not have a homograph in question as its title is not an "ambiguous title topic", thus any topic that might have a title that includes, but is not entirely comprised of, the homograph, is also not an "ambiguous title topic", and so any person whose surname matches the homograph is also not an "ambiguous title topic", unless the person happen to be so commonly referred to by her or her surname that the title of their Wikipedia article might be just the homograph surname.

Fine, but then what use is this notion of "ambiguous title topics" so defined? In contrast, allow me to define "homograph topics" to mean all the Wikipedia article topics to which a given homograph might refer, regardless of whether each article might have the homograph as its title.

Back when the concept of "ambiguous title topics" was relevant to how titles were disambiguated it obviously played an important role, but since then community thinking and consensus seems to have evolved to realize the main function of disambiguation is to aid readers in finding the articles that they seek. That is, going back to a version of WP:D from a couple of years ago, it stated: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title."[20] Significantly, it doesn't say that any more. However, even then, those words were in conflict with what it said lower down in the same version: "Ask yourself: When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and clicks 'Go', what article would she most likely be expecting to view as a result? ...When more than one possibility exists, there should be a way for readers to find their way quickly from the page whose title is that term to any of the articles which might reasonably be called by that term. ". That is, disambiguation is not just about helping readers find their way to articles about just the "ambiguous title topics" of the title of the article they landed on, it is about helping readers find their way to articles about all of the "homograph topics" of the search string they are using to find that article. It's a big and important change, and is consistently supported in the current revision of WP:D, which today says, "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead.".

And, so, concepts like WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are now defined entirely in terms of how likely the "homograph topics" (not the just the "ambiguous title topics") are to be sought using the homograph in question relative to how likely any other "homograph topics" are to be sought using that homograph as search criteria.

Anyway, I think we all agree that "a lot of irrelevant information about the surname" does not belong on dab pages for the homograph that is the surname, and justifies the creation of a surname article with all that "irrelevant information" about the surname as content, but that doesn't mean that the links to the articles about the persons with that surname should be removed from the dab page, except when there are so many that a split is warranted. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B2C, it's too bad you didn't read my reply in one of your many other splinters, nor can refrain from random passive-aggressive bolding. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I saw that once this weekend on my phone, but then couldn't find it again to reply to it and assumed I dreamed it or something. Had I found it I would have replied in about this same manner then since that was on Saturday Dec 4, almost a week after I first asked for the clarification about "ambiguous topics" on Monday Nov 29 in the Freston discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This all looks like progress. Today's edits to WP:D#Partial title matches are also helpful. Partial title matches belong on a dab page if a topic could reasonably be referred to (and searched for) by the partial title. So New York City, Burton upon Trent and Hinton Blewett belong on the dab pages New York (disambiguation), Burton and Hinton. The same principle should apply to surnames (if anyone disagrees, can they please say why?). That conforms with the basic principle of dab pages set out at the opening of WP:MOSDAB. Where there remains a difference is whether there should be a stiffer test for surnames than other partial titles, i.e. whether it should only apply to people who are "commonly known by the single name", as JHJ puts it. And if that test is applied, how do we make the judgement? Are there any people who are not known by their surnames in certain contexts? If so, which contexts are "common" and which are not? Mhockey (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on the initial version, I might have opted for delete, but this is at least a start to an article about the name. older ≠ wiser 17:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are a questionable basis for notability. They seem to be acting as a retroactive and specious justification for a dab split, not a stub article with potential for expansion with facts, there is no evidence it would be information sought by a reader. Users want to get to information, not admire a maze of pseudo-articles, redirects, and disambiguation pages: delete. — cygnis insignis 19:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think readers are not interested in information about surnames? My experience of the world is that people quite often take an interest in the history and etymologies of personal names (especially their own). Why should Wikipedia decline to help them? --Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question. If Cliburn (surname) is not a disambiguation page but an article about the surname itself, then why are Van Cliburn, Stan Cliburn and Stu Cliburn no longer listed at Cliburn (disambiguation)? We're now in the situation where if I type in "Cliburn" looking for Stu Cliburn, I'll end up at a disambiguation page that lists only a village, a railway station, and an (alleged) article about the surname. But I'm not looking for any of those topics. I'm looking for the article on Stu Cliburn. Hesperian 23:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Kotniski fixed the problem but your question is still valid since JHJ is still arguing that guidelines and practice indicate that persons with a given surname don't belong on dab pages for the homograph of that surname (except those exceptionally known by surname only) (that's my wording of his argument). However, his page now indicates an indefinite wikibreak so don't hold your breath. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well written surname article. Don't see any reason to delete. -DJSasso (talk) 03:10, 11 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 delete WP:SNOW, WP:SOAP. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wikileak test

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

POV article attacking Wikileaks access_denied (talk) 03:51, 6 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. The consensus is that both lists should be kept -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of X American actors

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

I'm re-nominating this list because it seems attitudes have changed since its first nomination, and because the first nomination had only a few participants. The reason remains the same. This is an irrelevant intersection with a very vague, very open criteria for inclusion and ends up being little more than a never-ending WP:BLP, WP:NOR and WP:V-violation magnet. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American entertainers and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish actors for precedent.) Bulldog123 03:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD History - (Hopefully a fair summary) - This began as a nomination of List of Irish American actors. Following discussion below, List of Italian American actors was added to the AfD at a later stage and the name of the AfD changed. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of Irish American Actors - Even a cursory search (link) reveals that "Irish American actor" is a term that people use and have discussion about, so the intersection is non-trivial. Issues about the scope of the list and who does or does not belong on it are for the list's talk page; AfD is not for shortcutting inconvenient arguments or for clean-up. Also, I'm unaware of any significant change in policy or community opinion since the last AfD resulted in an overwhelming Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a cursory search that makes this very list show up #1 on google? Bulldog123 03:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is the search I mean, yes, although I'm referring to the links further down that list. If you're honestly debating that "Irish American actor" is a term commonly used in casual, professional and critical literature then I'll find you specific sources but I wouldn't have thought there was any serious debate about that. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few links down, we find www.irishcentral.com with headline articles like "Is Sarah Palin an anti-catholic bigot?" I'm not seeing the academic connection yet. As a matter of fact, doing a Google Books search brings up pretty much nothing on the subject. Bulldog123 04:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at the same search you just linked to? I see the phrase being used in around 99,000 results, including such books as "Making the Irish American: history and heritage of the Irish in the United States", "Historical dictionary of Irish cinema", "Looking for Jimmy: A search for Irish America", "Beyond the Notion of Race", "The Irish-American Family Album", "Ireland and the Americas: Culture, Politics and History", "Screening Irish-America" and "A Companion To 20th Century American Drama". I could go on but three sources is generally a good guideline for notability and I'm already at eight. There's obviously a significant academic discussion of the contribution of Irish Americans to American culture through the medium of acting. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you listed is great material for Irish Americans and Irish cinema. But no, I don't see the part where those links provide material for an obvious "academic discussion of the contribution of Irish Americans to American culture through the medium of acting." You're also making it seem like this list is a prose article when it's just an indiscriminate trivia list. Take a quick scan of the entries. For example, check the Julia Styles link: [21]. All it says is: "Her mother (half English, half Italian) makes ceramic pots, her dad (Irish) sells them." What does that sidebar remark have to do with an academic discussion of Irish American contribution to cinema through acting? Half the list is like that. Bulldog123 05:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing content and topic again. If there are things on the list that are trivial or don't belong, they can be deleted directly per the usual practice of edit-revert-discuss. This discussion is whether the list itself should be deleted, not some portion of its content. And I'll once again direct you to the following sources and their content summaries (these are back-of-book summaries, not quotes from inside, as the interior coverage is extensive, and they're just two of a great many similar books):

Screening Irish-America, "Screening Irish-America is a major work in Irish-American screen studies. [...] [T]he book contains contributions by leading scholars in the field. Topics include John Ford, the Irish-American gangster, Irish-American stars and the representation of the Scots-Irish and religion."

Bowery to Broadway: The American Irish in Classic Hollywood Cinema, "James Cagney's 1931 portrayal of the Irish American gangster, Tommy Powers, set the standard for the Hollywood gangster and helped to launch a golden age of Irish American cinema. In the years that followed several of the era's greatest stars, such as Spencer Tracy, Bing Crosby, Pat O'Brien, and Ginger Rogers, assumed Irish American roles as boxers, entertainers, priests, and working girls, delighting audiences and at the same time providing a fresh perspective of the Irish American experience."

I can't see any rational reason for disputing that there's significant coverage of this sufficient to declare it a non-trivial intersection. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. When I look at Category:Lists of actors, I don't see any other nationalities. There's a religion (List of Muslim actors, but interestingly no List of Christian actors), but no List of American actors, no List of Irish actors, no List of British Pakistani actors — nothing else like this at all). While I'm mindful of WP:OTHERSTUFF, the whole point of lists like this is that they're navigational—they help end-users find content—but it's hard to make the case that this is navigational if it's the only one of its kind.
I should probably also draw your attention to this discussion. Category decisions are relevant to lists because of WP:CLN, and in this case, people by ethnicity discussions have been exhaustively thrashed out at CfD. Category:Irish-American actors has been moved to Category:Irish Americans which is now in Category:American people of Irish descent.
In other words, with all due respect for DustFormsWords (a user with whom I often agree), I think that in this case it's hard to say that there's any navigational purpose to this list because of the complete lack of other parallel lists, so I rather agree with the nominator. ~~Delete~~.—S Marshall T/C 05:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) Contrary to what I just said, I've just discovered that there's a List of Italian American actors after all. Maybe we should include that in the discussion?—S Marshall T/C 05:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian American actors does in fact exist, as does List of Muslim actors and List of Native American actors. Also, hilariously, List of African-American pornographic actors. I don't think you can draw a conclusion either way from a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS analysis of this one. There is no reason why any intersection of ethnicity/nationality/religion and profession shouldn't exist, where there's significant discussion in reliable sources to support it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim actors is a joke-article which should be speedied... I'll nominate it separately. Bulldog123 07:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's co-nominate List of Italian American actors, List of Native American actors and definitely List of African-American pornographic actors (which is much more urgent to delete!) The substantive concerns strike me as similar in all cases. Any objections?—S Marshall T/C 05:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to give Italian American actors it's own AfD, but if you insist... I have no problem including it. Bulldog123 07:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object. They raise different issues, being one that's reasonably similar to this (Italian American), one that's on the basis entirely of race rather than race/nationality pairing (Native American), and one that deals with a profession that is either entirely different or a subset of "actor", depending on how you see it (African-American pornographic actors). Plus I have a longstanding concern that mass AfDs encourage a poorer standard of scrutiny. Argue this one, and then if you get a consensus use it to make the next one go faster. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO - sorry for double posts - but I think there's value in letting this one run as a test case, as in AfDs that include the words "Jewish", or "African-American" you inevitably get someone thinking someone else is being racist. I don't think passions about Irish Americans run quite that high so it might be a good chance to get the underlying logic locked down without things getting out of hand. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the African American porn actor list... I'm going to agree with you and leave that for a separate AfD. I have, however, added Italian Americans, because, like you said, passions don't run quite as high for these groups. What about the List of Native American actors?? Separate or here? Bulldog123 08:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer separate, on the grounds that it's a different argument (race/profession intersection, rather than ethnicity/nationality/profession intersection). - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep list of Italian-American actors for the same reasons as the Irish-American list, being that the intersection is the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources, mostly in the context of the establishment of the unique cultural identity of "Italian-American". - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my "delete" above, because I'm vacillating. Now I'm starting to think DustFormsWords might be right here after all.—S Marshall T/C 13:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consider that "List of African American actors" would obviously be of interest, as would one of Native American actors, because that would be an important part of the history of these minority groups and would be important information on how they have been viewed by the majority. There is no reason not to treat the Irish and Italian Americans the same. They also have important histories as distinct minority groups in America. On the other hand a list of, for instance, Ukrainian American actors would indeed be a intersection of unrelated qualifications. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Because Vera Farmiga and Jack Palance could very well be considered "Ukrainian American actors" just as much as Al Pacino could be considered an Italian American... you see. I think you're opening up a can of worms. Bulldog123 00:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I picked the Ukraine as a country which probably does not have too many immigrants to America, maybe I should have picked some other place. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you're not proving why a list of any individual with Irish or Italian ancestry relates to scholarly or academic sources. For that matter, where are these sources that define "Italian American actor" and "Irish American actor" as a relevant intersection: [22]? The closest one I could find is: [23]. Is this all we rely on? A few sections of a book that's otherwise devoted to filmmaking and not "acting?" Bulldog123 21:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are those I provided above. There are a great deal more but I'm disinclined to do the work until you make some explanation of what's wrong with the ones I've already mentioned. In theory, there would be no reason we could not have a list of Ukranian-American actors, provided that it could be demonstrated there had been significant discussion of the topic. The relationship between "academic study" and "the value of a list" is discussed at WP:LISTPURP, being that once a topic is shown as being the subject of significant discussion (and therefore notable), a list of articles related to that topic provides value to users interested in that topic for the purposes of information and navigation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Griswaldo (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a list that groups together articles by a shared and defining common characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create lists on wikipedia merely because of a "shared and defining common characteristic." As one Wikipedia's most prominent editors, I'm sure you know that. Bulldog123 21:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, we do actually create lists for exactly that reason. Or rather, others create such lists on that basis; you never have. While we're getting personal here, as you have, you haven't created much of anything here, so I'm not sure what your basis is for understanding these issues or for thinking you can school others on them, particularly someone like Alansohn who has created more articles than you have article space edits. Aggressively trying to delete these lists seems to be most of what you do here, and such an agenda is not a good basis for understanding article creation or community consensus on these issues. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd say participating in AfDs and CfDs helps a user learn more about policy than making random articles. Secondly, I admit I spend most of my edits on wikipedia deleting indiscriminate categories and lists. If users like me didn't exist, this encyclopedia would be a cesspool of trivia. I wish there was a log to show all the material I saved you from. Bulldog123 00:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case Bulldog doesn't need to defend himself; an ad hominem attack has no value here, as Bulldog hasn't appealed to his own experience or authority in making his arguments. Either his arguments are persuasive or they aren't, and his editing history has nothing to say one way or the other to that. - DustFormsWords (talk)
Agree in part and disagree in part w/Dust. An editor's editing history can certainly be of moment in certain instances, without being an ad hominem attack but rather a remark as to the weight of their editing. An example is our template allowing editors to point out if another editor is an SPA -- that is focused entirely on editing history. Also, I would think that if an editor has a long history of bringing AfDs that don't reflect wp:before searches, or consensus, that is also reasonable fodder for discussion. That said, as Dust points out one can simply look at Bull's comments at this AfD (and the article, and the comments of others) to form one's opinion of them, and whether they are persuasive or not; nothing more is required, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both lists as encyclopedic indexes of article subjects, on top of the intersections being notable in their own right. If instead the inclusion criteria of who qualifies as Irish American or Italian American is the nominator's problem, then those lists should be discussed as a whole; the entire structure of such lists should be listed for deletion or (my preference) discussed in an RFC. Such issues are in no way particular to these two lists, and it makes zero sense to delete these lists as long as any lists of Irish Americans or Italian Americans exist, because subdividing them by occupation is a completely sensible way to organize them, especially where that ethnic group's history in a particular occupation has been noted. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (both). The intersection is indeed a notable one, with entire books written about it (as in the 2005 book Hollywood Italians), as nom would have known had he performed a wp:before search. This is now reflected summarily in the intros of each list; google searches of course yield far more in the regard. Issues he may have with inclusion criteria are appropriate for him to raise at the respective talk pages, but not reason for deletion. Nor is being a magnet for controversy; if that were reason for deletion, we would delete the wikipedia articles on abortion, Hamas, and everyone named George Bush.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Dust's source here, you must have not looked through it very carefully. Once again, it's a book devoted exclusively to portrayal of Irish Americans in American cinema. It does briefly mention that some Irish American actors play those roles (i.e., James Cagney), and that's fine... but please explain what you plan on doing for the rest of the individuals on this list - the ones who don't portray Irish Americans. Prune them? Also, you're repeating that George Bush/Hamas analogy even though it didn't make any sense the first time. Nobody is saying "delete everything that's controversial." George Bush and Hamas are heated articles but they're not magnets for dubiously sourced entries and BLP violations because they are not indiscriminate lists of people. Bulldog123 07:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of why Irish-American actors aren't used to play Irish-Americans is as relevant to their notability as discussion of when they are. There is no reason that notability of Irish-American screen actors doesn't establish notability of Irish-American actors generally, given that screen acting is the highest paid level of acting, in exactly the same way that a "List of American writers" would not suffer for only including American published writers. Although I'd be surprised if notability for stage actors couldn't also be found. A further source is here:

America on film: representing race, class gender and sexuality at the movies Beginning at page 58, a chapter entitled "Bleaching the Green: The Irish in American Cinema" discusses at length Irish-American characters and the Irish-American actors who do or don't play them, providing a history of the work opportunities for Irish-American actors over time.

Actually, that source is a fascinating read, particularly about the way Irish-American actors positioned themselves in opposition to African-American actors, and dealt with the sterotypical and racist roles they were being given playing defined Irish "types". - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I don't disagree with you that it's an interesting read. I love history, especially the history of cinema. That's why I would actually support all these lists to be removed and instead replaced by Portrayals of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Cinema - or something along those lines. Hell, I'll even start the article if there's support for it... but you're constantly skirting the issue here. I want to know what Demi Lovato, Abigail Breslin, Rosie O'Donnell, Christian Slater all have to do with the fact that in the 1940s QUOTE "Gene Kelly had often played overtly Irish American characters, but by the 1950s, his characters were considered simply American" END QUOTE. And if you agree that the answer is "nothing," then you (and all other !keep voters) have two options: re-vamp the list to include only people like Gene Kelly (with a note for why he's being listed as an Irish American actor) OR delete the list (and all lists like it) and make a prose article on the subject (as suggested). There is no third option that doesn't make this an irrelevant intersection - which you all stress it isn't. The re-vamping option is acceptable, but it's going to cause a lot of problems with users who simply "won't understand" why they can't add their favorite actor despite him being of Irish/Italian/whatever descent. Bulldog123 10:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have more than two options, Bulldog123.—S Marshall T/C 20:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless they want to come across as disingenuous to their earlier points. Then, yes, the third option is just "keep as is" - but of course that throws out the window all the "backed by reliable sources proving intersection blah blah blah" stuff. Can't have your cake and eat it, so to speak. Bulldog123 21:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again - and I don't know how many times I have to say this - content has nothing to do with AfD. The list could be filled with the names of Smurfs, and it would be still be kept because the TOPIC is allowable, and AfD is not for cleanup. If the list were populated with Smurfs, the appropriate process is to close the AfD as Keep, and then immediately purge the list of uncontroversially irrelevant entries, add at least one relevant entry, and then discuss the remainder on the talk page. AfD only cares about the potential of the page, not its current state. From WP:BEFORE: "[P]lease consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Emphasis in original.- DustFormsWords (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you bring that up. So you admit that what you're requesting is a complete re-vamping of the article, right? Adding entries based on their relationship to "Irish American cinema" and not merely "because they have Irish heritage" - which would prune 90% of the list as it is. By adding information about why they are listed as Irish Americans, this list becomes more of a prose article, based on their relationship to Irish/Italian Americans in cinema. Now please explain why it's easier to keep this list instead of just deleting it and starting over (with a more specific title). If you don't agree with any of what I said, you just went back on your entire point. By the way, a List of Irish American actors containing smurfs would be viable for AfD (because clearly the list is not clear enough as to its inclusion criteria) -- I don't know what the heck you're talking about. Bulldog123 01:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not requesting any change to the list. I'm perfectly happy to leave it as it is. I'm saying that if you have a problem with the content, it has nothing to do with the AfD. You can take that up on the list's talk page, after the AfD closes, or begin building consensus for it now so it's ready to implement after we close as Keep. In your hypothetical, a List of Irish American actors containing smurfs would NOT have a problem with its inclusion criteria, it would have a problem with its content, being content that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Wikipedia has absolutely no difficulty in defining "Irish", "American", "Irish-American" or "actor", either separately or in combination, and we do it the same way we define everything else - by reference to reliable sources. Where sources don't agree we present all notable viewpoints. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly happy to leave it as it is Great, so you admit that it is an indiscriminate list that simply includes anyone with Irish heritage and who is an actor -- and has no connection, as far as we can see, to the sources you keep touting above (about how Gene Kelly was pigeonholed into Irish American roles, etc.. etc...). Perfect. When are you going to change your !vote to delete then? Bulldog123 04:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm reasonably happy that everyone except you understands my argument. It's disappointing that you can't get your head around it, and will probably keep mis-nominating lists as a result (which isn't to say you don't often make good nominations, in with the bad) but at the point where you're putting words in my mouth it stops being a mature discussion and there doesn't seem a lot of return to be had on continuing it. If anyone other than Bulldog remains confused as to any of my points, please feel free to question them, but I'm otherwise leaving the argument here. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to get crickets when you ask an empty room. It's also easy to get crickets from people who simply can't follow this conversation anymore. No, I admit I don't understand your argument because it seems to change a lot. You just said "I'm not requesting any changes to the list." Did you not? Although earlier your entire point was "There is a connection between Italian/Irish Americans and acting." You pointed to sources showing how people like Gene Kelly were pigeonholed into Irish American roles. I agree that seems reasonably notable, and it's possible that - in that case - Gene Kelly could be considered an "Irish American actor" (though it is kind of WP:WEIGHTy) it just doesn't apply to everyone. Yet... here you say you don't advocate removing anyone. Can you understand how that doesn't make sense? How is Demi Lovato and Gene Kelly both equally "Irish American actors?" Bulldog123 23:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable intersection, violates BLP and list policies. These lists should not exist in an encyclopedia. If you want to write about the influence of an ethnicity/religion on something, write a sourced prose article. I have asked this before, what is the purpose of having a list of names (there's nothing else here) classified by ethnicity, and/or religion?--Therexbanner (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These arguments seem entirely fallacious to me. The purpose is navigational, intended to help readers find related topics. Categories, lists and navigational templates are encyclopaedic for the same reason that paper encyclopaedias have indices and tables of contents. DustFormsWords and Postdlf have shown that the intersection is notable by linking to some of the reliable sources that have noted it. There is no BLP violation because it's not "negative information" to call someone Italian American or Irish American. And finally, there is no list policy against it.
Having said all that, I'm still not entirely convinced that it's a good idea to pigeonhole people by ethnicity on Wikipedia. If we are going to, then I certainly don't understand why it's so important to keep list of Irish American actors when we don't have a list of Irish actors. We're inadvertently treating "Irish American" as more important or relevant than "Irish". In short, I'm concerned about the systemic bias issue.—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing in common with the alphabetical listing/index used by an encyclopedia and these "navigational" lists.

Show me a real encyclopedia that labels people by ethnicity or religion, when it has nothing to do with their notability.

In regards to the "negative information" point, I strongly disagree. I wouldn't want people/articles labelling my ethnicity, or religion based on "sources". It often can be offensive to label people as part of an ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation that they do not want to be associated with.

Some information like citizenship is more objective, but when dealing with ethnicity/religion/orientation having a source is not enough. (Which is why guidelines state that these things should be left out, unless they are important to the subjects activities.)

In relation to ethnicity, there is absolutely no way to determine that unless the person self-identifies as X. Claiming someone is ethnically X, would require tracing the genealogical tree of the person for generations, and then calculating the relative percentage of inter-mixing.--Therexbanner (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments aren't well tailored to the results you want. Excluding those for whom their ethnicity was not important to "the subject's activities" does not justify the outright deletion of these lists, only the removal of certain entries. Further, in many instances, the notable people will be verifiably the children of immigrants if not immigrants themselves, so once again if the claimed ethnicity is too attenuated, such as a single great-great-great ancestor (a concern for which I am sympathetic) then that again is a good argument for removing individual entries rather than removing all entries that are considerably less trivial. On the other hand, if you don't think ethnicity should be documented in any case, well, that's interesting, but far from any consensus view of the topic, and such a blanket prohibition on certain information will only hinder Wikipedia's coverage for benefits that I am unable to discern. Even if we presume that ethnicity is a negative fact in some instances, the BLP problem is cured by proper sourcing and explanation, not by removal where it is verifiable (not to mention for those who personally identify as X-Americans and so obviously do not take "offense").

@S Marshall: There is Category:Irish actors. As to why there isn't a corresponding list, there's no good reason and so we should presume that eventually one will be made. There are plenty of other lists of actors by nationality indexed at List of actors. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support identifying those people who's ethnicity/religion/orientation is not important to their activities, and removing them from these lists?

With proper sources, I think that would solve the policy/guideline issues. --Therexbanner (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that the lists can be fixed with editing, even if that editing doesn't happen we need to take you off the "delete" column.

I think a better, more clear threshold issue is to make sure first that the lists only include those for whom the ethnicity is significant, which would require explaining in the list what the basis is for declaring that to be part of their ethnic heritage (not simply providing a citation). Most entries don't do that. And I think it would be easier to establish some general rules for that issue than a rule to figure out whose ethnicity was relevant to their career. Certainly when it comes to something like acting, which involves casting and the depictions of different "types" of people, I believe it's a reasonable presumption that those with a strong ethnic identity had it affect their career in some way. And those effects could be diverse: an Italian-American could say "I always got typecast as a mobster" or "I was surprised I didn't get typecast as a mobster" and either way the intersection would be relevant. I would eventually like to see all entries annotated as to those effects, and maybe then once the lists are developed in that way those entries that both have little to go on for a claim of ethnic heritage, and/or nothing to say about how that ethnicity affected their career, could be dropped off. But that's a process that calls for the scalpel of editing, not the wrecking ball of deletion. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the above well-put points of our senior colleague Postdlf. In particular his especially well-put last sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better, more clear threshold issue is to make sure first that the lists only include those for whom the ethnicity is significant, which would require explaining in the list what the basis is for declaring that to be part of their ethnic heritage (not simply providing a citation). I'm glad you mentioned that. You do know that's not this list and that has never been this list. What you're asking for is something completely different and the people regularly editing this list are not going to be willing to make such a drastic change merely because a few individuals said so in the AfD. In other words, your view appears to be a delete view, yet you're demanding a keep. Bulldog123 00:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. First, I don't think the list is delete worthy in its current state, because it's a valid list topic and its content would not need a complete rewrite for it to be at all valid. Second, I don't think (and consensus tends to agree with me on this) that room for improvement in a list or prose article is grounds for deletion. If you do, then that rather throws into question just what your deletion !votes mean, if "delete" in your interpretation can include "needs a lot of work." Your comment implies that if the list were further developed in the ways that I have suggested, that you would at least find it significantly less objectionable. I don't know that these improvements will ever happen, but I have no reason to believe that they won't. I assume good faith on the part of the current and future editors of this list. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you don't think the list is delete-worthy in its current state, then we're still not on the same wavelength. Further developed to the point of completely changing, yes.... and further developed to the point where it's more an article than a list. I also don't think the title works, as it would be too misleading. But the point is that this list and lists like it (the X-American lists) have been contested for years and years and years. There has been no progress with them. You can assume good faith on the part of the current and future editors, but it's blind faith, and not because they are all "agenda-driven," but because there's no way to go about this without resorting to some kind of original research. You say, I don't know that these improvements will ever happen, and your prediction is correct. They won't because they can't without significant original research. In a few years, this AfD and ones like it will pop back up and we'll have a new batch of users making the same arguments you all are now. An endless cycle that could have been stopped today. Bulldog123 03:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of concept (with all due respect to the talented Ms. Breslin). Your suggestions for improvement are appreciated. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Both per sources discussed in DustFormsWords post of 05:04 on 6 December way up at the top of this debate. I don't know of a significant American ethnic identity whose contributions to the arts, sciences, or humanities haven't been discussed in multiple works, and these two certainly have been. Comparisons to a "real encyclopedia" are clearly against WP:NOTPAPER. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 01:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in that post are all about Irish Americans (and we have that article as you can see). Bulldog123 01:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here, here for a very superficial search. Let's also remember the underlying thought behind all of our notability guidelines - the vast majority of reliable sources are not available online, in English, and/or for free. If I can find this many in less than 10 minutes, we need to extrapolate how many we could find in an exhaustive search with access to them all. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 02:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding those three sources: This isn't an article about portrayals of Irish Americans in early American cinema/theatre. This isn't an article about Irish American filmmakers and their films (i.e., The Brothers McMullen via Edward Burns) and finally, this isn't a list of participants in Irish theatre - not even a reference to Irish Americans in that one link, btw. All your sources are for different lists and different articles. This list - is and always has been - since the very moment of its inception - a list of any American individual with Irish heritage who is an actor. That is the list up for AfD. Bulldog123 04:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one specifically discusses the Irish heritage of the actors being responsible for the "three-dimensional nature of those characters"(p.49) , and the second discusses Ford's specific use of "Irish-born and Irish speaking Maureen O'Hara", unless she somehow doesn't qualify as an Irish American actor. The subjects of the articles at this AfD are Irish American actors and Italian American actors. The fact that each of them uses a list-based format and each uses the title style of "List of..." is irrelevant. Both of those are clearly notable topics. You are arguing that there are not reliable sources discussing Irish or Italian American actors as a specific topic, and that those topics are therefore not notable. This has been refuted by many others here. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 05:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to create a list that contains Maureen O'Hara based on that one source's commentary on her... fine. However, you're not addressing the fact that this list does not contain just Maureen O'Hara. As I've been repeating over and over again, I want to know what Demi Lovato, Abigail Breslin, Rosie O'Donnell, Christian Slater, etc... have to do with those handful of sentences you pulled from books that supposedly talk about "an Irish American way of acting" (when, in fact, devote no more than a few sentences to such a topic). Secondly, no, the other sources have not "refuted" the skepticism surrounding the intersection - and they certainly have not "refuted" the main point of this nomination - which everyone keeps evading. That this is a list of any and all American actors with Irish heritage regardless of whether that Irish-Americanhood had anything to do with their careers. Hence, the intersection is 100% irrelevant for the vast majority of them. You seem to have found something potentially substantiating Maureen O'Hara. Where are your sources for the other hundred+ entries? Now, I can do the exact same thing you're doing for List of left handed actors. Find a couple of tangentially related sources: [24] [25] [26]. Then announce notability because of this one sentence here: "It seems there are a disproportionate number of left-handers in the pantheon of successful actors. A possible reason is that lefties naturally develop the facility for adaptation and self-transformation, integral to their engagement in a right-handed worldIn some cases, it has helped the kind of body awareness necessary for mimicry". By your very thin standards, we have just proved it to be a notable intersection, and, following the same logic, undergirded a List of left-handed actors... regardless of whether or not their left-handedness had any effect on their acting. Cue the retort: "This is not an AfD about left-handed actors." I know. It's not. Bulldog123 06:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are based on standards for categories, not lists (and indeed, if we were talking about a category, I would agree with you...look at this; I have agreed with you in the past). Unlike categories, adding an article to the list does not burden that article with a tag on the article (intersecting every occupation with every ethnicity would create a flood of mostly useless category tags on many bio articles), and the subdivision does not interfere with other lists or articles in the way that a subcategory of American astronauts by ethnicity would hinder category navigation by splitting up Category:American astronauts. And unlike categories, which can't explain varying degrees of inclusion, you can annotate and source why the individual is included and in what way the list's criteria is important, so you can see that, oh, Maureen O'Hara actually emigrated from Ireland, but Abigail Breslin is...unclear, maybe should be removed if it turns out she maybe just said in an interview that she thinks she may have had an Irish great-great-great-grandfather. But barring the completely trivial or the inapplicable, lists can tolerate some flexibility of inclusion criteria because of that ability to explain that categories completely lack, so readers and editors can see from a well developed list the relationship of the entry to the list's organizing concept. Incidentally, deleting lists such as these will only make it harder to get a consensus to delete the categories, which is completely counterproductive in my view.
This is a list of articles, not a list of all Irish Americans who ever lived and who acted. And lists of articles index those articles by shared encyclopedic characteristics. It doesn't matter that the encyclopedic characteristic is not equally significant for all entries, so long as its inclusion to them is verifiable. You don't need to be able to say a paragraph on each one to justify the list as a whole. The fact is that these are real and notable ethnicities, and we have articles on notable people of those ethnicities, and this is a real and notable occupation.
It's enough for me then to justify the intersection with acting to say we're just sublisting the list of people by ethnicity by occupation. A complete list of all articles of Irish Americans would probably be pretty long. But let's assume we start with that, and make it a sortable table with a column for occupation...and then the list gets too big, and it's split into numerous sublists, one structure of which would be organized...by the information in that original column for occupation. The purpose is navigation, the purpose is indexing articles, the purpose is aiding in article creation as those who are interested in, say, the experience of Italian Americans in cinema, a topic on which an article could certainly be written, would be greatly aided by a list of notable Italian American actors. Those are all long-recognized, valid purposes of lists.
But the further fact that the distinct history and role of certain ethnicities in American acting has been the widespread subject of multiple reliable sources should remove any doubt that these lists' criteria are encyclopedic. Multiple reliable sources do intersect these ethnicities by this occupation. Which means that the intersection is not only encyclopedic but notable, and so even for those few who don't recognize the pure indexing, navigational function of lists, that justifies using it as the basis for a list of articles we have that match that criteria. Even if we cannot write a paragraph on its significance for each entry.
And yes, I do think these lists, and others like them, could be developed a great deal more. Which goes back to my comment above, that room for improvement is never grounds for deletion. postdlf (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, surely -- along the same lines -- Bull has seen the refs in the intros to each article.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 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 06:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MCW Consultants

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

No references in reliable third-party sources to indicate the notability of this article; it doesn't even seem to assert its own notability. Ghits determine lots of links to it, but they are associated with the company. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 03:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I found nothing but press releases and listings on various credits. No claim to encyclopedia level notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability, doesn't meet guidelines. PK T(alk) 00:36, 7 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Heffernan

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

Notability. I can't find reliable, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this Canadian DOCSIS cable modem engineer--there's a paper he coauthored in Google Scholar [27] , and a few references to him in the discussions groups and such of various standards bodies (e.g., IETF), a mention here [28].

The references do take a bit of care to sort through, I don't believe the article describes this Ed Heffernan [29], a technology executive who is, perhaps, more notable (in the Wikipedia policy sense, at least.) j⚛e decker ^talk 03:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, doesn't meet the guidelines. PK T(alk) 00:35, 7 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. Not surprisingly, a hard one to call! The consensus is just in favour of deleting; the arguments on both sides are very compelling, with many respected editors on both. The consensus seems to be that the event is notable, and mentioned in relevant article(s) - but that this list is not in itself notable enough for the list to exist -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights

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

Violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information); this list appears arbitrary -- what makes the Oxford Street Christmas lights any different or any more notable than anyone else's Christmas lights? mhking (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are the Christmas lights on the busiest shopping street in Europe. The switching on of the lights has also become something of a tradition, it is attended by thousands of people and receives considerable media coverage, as is already evidenced to some extent by the citations in the article. A lot more could be found. The list is getting too long to include in the main article and is more appropraite for a separate 'list' break out article. Rangoon11 (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Well layed out and cited list that is a good extension of the Oxford Street article. I think it could be merged into the parent article without making it too big but as it stands I think it's fine. - Pmedema (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If any "turning on the lights" ceremony is notable then Oxford Street would be near the top of the list. However, we need to observe some kind of notability for this list. Would even one of these notable people think the ceremony was worth even one line in their autobiography? I very much doubt it. The people are individually notable, the ceremony should be (and is) mentioned in the Oxford Street article. But the list isn't notable. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here is a reference to the turning on of the lights in a book about the Spice Girls which you may find illuminating: [30]Rangoon11 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see any problem with this list. Yes, it's trivial and kind of a waste of time. However some people might be interested in the information. The light ceremony has a section in Oxford Street and some readers will have an interest in the list -- which is too large to merge there. It is also well-sourced and a matter of public record so no harm is done to individuals. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"However some people might be interested in the information" WP:INTERESTING is not a valid reason.LibStar (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The list contains an entry which is either cryptic, mispunctuated, or just plain wrong: "2006 — All Saints (Peter André & Katie Price aka Jordan, G4, Andy Abraham)". The use of parentheses in this context implies that Andre, Price/Jordan, G4, and Abraham are all members of All Saints, when in fact none of them are. This is cited to [31] which mentions only the involvement of All Saints. This needs to be fixed as soon as possible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now corrected.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I personally think we have better things to do, but evidently the BBC, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail and whoever else dedicates entire articles to this think otherwise, and it's substantial coverage in reliable sources that count. If anyone ever creates an article about Oxford Street Christmas lights, it would make sense to merge this information into that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of indiscriminate information. I agree with Dingo1729.Edison (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I am really strugggling to see how it is indiscriminate information, it seems to me to be exceptionally specific and tightly defined.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting but hardly worthy of an Encyclopedia entry. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion This might work better if the article were renamed simply Oxford Street Christmas Lights and the slight content from Oxford Street added to it. Then other things could be included, such as the death in 1959 from some of the lighting falling down. I'm reluctant to make the changes having seen the fiasco when Colonel Warden boldly changed the title, focus and content of an article in the middle of an AfD discussion. I still think the list is rather trivial and it might be removed during ordinary editing if there is enough other interesting content added. I'm still voting delete for the article as it stands. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would work for me. However if the article is deleted the content will be lost and a name change will become rather a moot point. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone could just copy this article, save it, and use it to start the new one if this one gets deleted. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will go ahead and start the new article, expecting this one will be deleted. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out Oxford Street Christmas lights. The information interested people would want on the topic is now there without the need for a seperate list, or overloading Oxford Street. I don't think anyone would question that the lights, and the celebrity lighting ceremonies, are notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your proposed approach. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, unfortunately this could get complicated if, for example, this AfD gets closed as keep. Also, though not too important, it loses the edit history. I think we need admin help here, and my proposed course of action would be:

Delete Oxford Street Christmas lights as a clear WP:CFORK
Early close this AfD as Moot or No Consensus defaulting to Keep
Rename this article as Oxford Street Christmas Lights
Add some more content
Nominate the newly named article at AfD
Notify the people who have posted here what we have done

5 and 6 might look as though I'm being pedantic, but I really think they need to be done to show that this isn't just an underhand tactic to try to defeat an article deletion. I'll try to find an admin to get an opinion on all this. Dingo1729 (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have caused a problem. I guess I didn't understand all the issues involved. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under NOT as indiscriminate list with no established notability. In terms of moving the article; do not cut and past content from this article as that violates the licensing policy here (called a cut/paste move). There may be notable coverage for a full article - but I encourage you to work on the Oxford Street article, get the content in and then split it out if it does prove too much. I did some poking around and I don't think there is likely to be enough for a full new article. I fixed the cut/paste moves with some redirects for the time being --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable list. Yworo (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So numerous entire articles on the subject in major news outlets like the BBC, Telegraph and Daily Mail are not sufficient to establish notability? Why not? I am not seeing many convincing arguments here for deletion, just opinions. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat misdirection; because those articles deal with each individual celebrity turning on the lights. There is a significant difference between that and establishing the notability of the topic of who turned on Oxford Street Christmas lights. I see no sources that deal with that issue --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 23:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand your point. The articles are on the subject of who turned on the lights in a particular year, if the turning on of the lights was not a notable event in and of itself then the BBC would not report it year after year. Period. I would hope that the BBC is generally understood to be a serious news outlet, and not one driven by 'celebrity' reporting. Even if one was unfamilar with the BBC a quick look at their news web site should reveal that. I note also that a year-by-year list is given in The London Companion, a reputable and well known book (at least in the UK). I see no convincing arguments as to why these completely third party and highly reputable sources do not establish notability for the subject of this artice, leaving aside all the other citations in the article. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legitimate WP:SPINOUT list of a clearly notable topic. While the subject may be completely unimportant, we have no requirements that any article topic be important, meaningful, or significant as long as it is notable and verifiable. All of the entries are sourced, and I fail to see any cause for deletion. Multiple articles in reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic (people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights) demonstrate that this meets our notability guidelines. The delete arguments put forth above do not seem to be much more than WP:IDON'TLIKEIT or some attemot to introduce a judgement of importance into the notability guidelines. Either way, such arguments are not based in policy. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am no fan of lists, but in this case notability is clearly established by the sources. Dlabtot (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete utterly fails any definition of 'notable'. Worth saving as a section in the main article perhaps, but equally perhaps not. - ۩ Mask 02:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is not important or encyclopedic. Drmies (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oxford Street or Delete. No sources saying that this list is notable/encyclopedic. Not an encyclopedic topic. Only notable inside the context of Oxford street Christmas lights. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no requirement that the list be notable, only the topic of the list. This recent RFC saw that idea resoundingly opposed here. The sources provided specifically discuss the people turning on the lights. Whether or not any of us find the concept important is irrelevant because those sources meet the only definition of notable that we apply - this one. The one that specifically says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity" and allows that those may enhance notablility, but cannot define it. The list is discrminate, specific, well sourced, and meets all the requirements at WP:SALAT and WP:IINFO. Many of the Delete comments seem to run contrary to consensus from that RfC and the Notability Guideline itself. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However. For this list we have to establish the notability not of the Oxford street lights but of "people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights" (necessary distinction). The idea of list articles is to draw together encyclopaedic information, to form links and connections etc. In this case the list is much more suited to being in the article itself. This is one of the fringe cases, for sure, but people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights is simply not a demonstrably notable topic. To reiterate; the lenght of this list and the shortness/insignificance of the topic means I believe it should be dealt with in entirety at Oxford Street --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am OK with a merge into Oxford Street#Christmas lights if that will not overwhelm that article. If it is appropriate for inclusion as a merge, but the amount of information in the list is too much for inclusion there, WP:SPINOUT tells us to make it its own stand alone list - and we end up right back here. Lists of alumni, or of people from cities/towns, often end up following this process. I just don't want to see the material merged and then later deleted in a content debate on the page where it is not broadly watched and debated according to this process. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well if this closes delete I was going to do a 2 or 3 column list which should keep it short enough --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Shocking this is even being defended (no criticism intended to the people themselves who support keeping). Indiscriminate indeed. If this passes as keep, I think we need List of top ranked golfers who have never made a hole in one in the PGA, List of dog breeds that have not won Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show overall, and List of glass glowers whose art has appeared in the Smithsonian. This event is soooo notable we have exactly five sentences about it here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the Oxford Street Christmas Lights do get a fair amount of coverage, but when I started to look around, I realised that other Christmas lights in London get a lot of celebrity turnout and media coverage as well, and are annual events that seem to be quite a notable part of 20th and 21st century cultural life in London. It's not a reliable source (though I would bet that everything on there can be verified in reliable sources), but have a look at this website for an idea of the sort of "Christmas Lights" events that have been held over the past decade in London. In particular, look at the links at the bottom that give the history for each year. Also, scroll to the bottom here and you see a list of those that have turned on the lights in Regent Street. Finally, if you look at this page, you will see the details of the celebrities that attended the switching on of the Oxford Street lights in 2006, and Andre, Price/Jordan, G4, and Abraham were the supporting cast to All Saints, if you like, explaining why they were mentioned in the Wikipedia list at one point (this error was pointed out above by User:Metropolitan90). On whether the list should be kept, I think the information is easily worked into either the Oxford Street article (technically a restoration as the material came from there in the first place - the Oxford Street article could also be much expanded, which would solve the problem of this list overwhelming the article), or used as the seed of an article on public street lighting at Christmas in general and the associated public events/celebrations associated with them being turned on, though good luck in thinking up a title for that. Maybe Christmas street lights? But that doesn't really cover things like the Christmas Tree in Trafalgar Square. Maybe commercial and celebrity culture in the urban landscape at Yuletide? :-) Anyway, the article title or merge destination doesn't really matter, as long as this verifiable material is kept somewhere. Decades of celebrities turning on these lights clearly warrants some content somewhere, even if people can't agree on the exact form it should take. Carcharoth (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC) I left advice for Rangoon11 here on how to correctly attribute when splitting out new articles. I've also fixed the attribution issues by making this edit and this edit, though the new article was started a few minutes before the content was removed from source article. 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I think that your idea for a general 'Commercial and celebrity culture at Christmas' article is intriguing, and would make an interesting article. I still think that the topic of the Oxford Street Christmas lights is more than large enough to justify its own article though. I will confess that on reflection I gave the article which I created the wrong title and subject, it should have been simply 'Oxford Street Christmas lights'. If I had taken that route then I think that this AfD could have been avoided, or at least could have been made a lot more straightforward.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Oxford Street or expand to an Oxford Street Christmas lights article, if that's notable enough. It doesn't seem notable enough to stand alone. --DanielCD (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable event and the list meets all requirements of WP:LIST and WP:SAL. Those that argue Indiscriminate apparently don't understand what that really means. Nothing indiscriminate about the inclusion criteria for this list. --Mike Cline (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I think it would improve the project if we didn't even have lists, only categories, but we do have lists, and this list fulfills the misguided policies we have in place, so I said 'keep'. Dlabtot (talk) 03:36, 8 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The annual switching-on of the lights is a notable event, as evidenced by plenty of RS, and everybody listed has a WP article (which implies that they are notable). Satisfies WP:LISTPEOPLE. Jimmy Pitt talk 19:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But do you honestly believe that the biographies of any of these people would mention their turning on the Oxford Street Lights? Oxford Street is Notable, Christmas Lights are Notable, most of the people are Notable. But that does not necessarily mean that someone turning on Oxford Street Christmas Lights is Notable. As an analogy, Prince Charles is Notable and Toothpaste is Notable, but Wikipedia would not consider it Notable what brand he uses. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, the fact that many notable people make the list does not make the topic "List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights " notable. none of these people would put on their CVs that they turned on Oxford Street Christmas lights. it simply is not an encyclopaedic topic that people would go searching for in WP. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These people tend to be celebrities, so the concept of a CV doesn't apply as such (though I think I know what you mean - there is an equivalent term, but I can't think of it right now). It depends how famous the celebrities are and how desperate they get (if they fall out of favour in the merry-go-round of public adulation) on whether they mention that they did this. If an agent is looking at ways to increase some random B-list celebrity's exposure, this wouldn't be a bad way. But if someone is already very famous and doing well, they (or their agents) might well see this as below them. Has no-one looked at the pages I linked above? Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC) i.e. people are missing the point here that the topic is not really Oxford Street, it is not really Xmas lights, but the topic is 20th/21st century celebrity culture. Tons has been written about that, and there is plenty of scope for an article about that, but this list is not it. Just please don't dismiss all celebrity-related stuff as non-notable.[reply]
Comment The references in the article, specifically 1-6, 9-12, and 15-17 are reliable sources that even have titles that are exactly about persons who have turned on the lights. The subject is clearly notable and has resoundingly passes the WP:GNG and WP:V. There is not a single argument in this discusssion that refers to notability that has presented any evidence to the contrary. The notability guidelines are designed to assure the viability of an article, and are not written to judge the worthiness of an article. The article is viable, and the sources directly support the topic. Nobody has put forth a single policy based reason for deletion, and many of the arguments actually are in direct opposition to the GNG which says "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity." Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 12:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh that line means that "he/she is famous" is not an argument for notability :) None of the sources critically address the topic of "people who switched on the Oxford Street christmas lights". As a topic there is no critical commentary on the topic (which is the main idea of GNG). That the Oxford street lights are notable, and that the celebrities are all individually notable does not relate to the notability of this topic. Notability is not inherited. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Are you saying that you would prefer a separate article for each year that the lights are switched on? To suggest that an article dealing with the switching on of the lights in a particular year does not help to establish notability for an article concerning the switching of the lights every year seems to be very curious logic. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Umm, no. Not at all! That would definitely not be notable. I think you are misunderstanding the problem though; the articles you mention are useless for the notability of this as a topic; we want significant critical commentary on the topic of people who switched on these lights. So as an example a retrospective article looking at people who had turned the lights on and critically asserting this was notable in some way would suffice. As yourself the question; why is a list of these people notable? --Errant ^(chat!) 12:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that "famous" is not an argument for inclusion without sources, but the rule must be read both ways. If "It's important" cannot be used to support an unsourced article, "It's unimportant" cannot be used as an argument for exclusion of a sourced article. And your suggestion above asks the wrong question. We only ask "Is a list of these people notable?" We don't ask why under our policies. The why is irrelevant. Sources decide if a topic is "worthy of notice" and we decide if there is enough written in those sources to support the article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 13:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The authors of The London Companion seem to think it is: [32]. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict)The point I was making was no one is using "It's unimportant" as an argument. The main deletion argument is a failing of GNG through a lack of significant critical commentary of the topic of the article. And, yes, we do ask why. This is us asking why; or to put it another way "what exists that satisfy GNG and specific notability criteria". The criteria for lists is specific; requiring notability to be established for the specific topic of "people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights" @Rangoon11; I believe that asserts my point. No critical commentary, no indication of significance. Just a bare list of people. The problem is whether this is distinctly notable on top of Oxford Street lights --Errant ^(chat!) 13:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia does not currently have an article on the Oxford Street Christmas Lights, so it isn't 'on top of' it at present. The switch on is an event of importance: [33]. The only question is what form of article it is covered in. As I have said earlier in this debate, I now feel that an article on the lights generally, with the list included, would be the best solution. However the easiest way of getting to that point seems to be to keep this article, on the proviso that its title is then changed to 'Oxford Street Christmas Lights' and the content expanded.Rangoon11 (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rangoon11. The two obvious courses of action are:

A) Delete this article and then create Oxford Street Christmas Lights with this as part of the content.

B) Keep this article and rename it Oxford Street Christmas Lights and extend the content.

The result is the same either way and I am indifferent to which is done. I think it was a mistake to relist this AfD vainly hoping for consensus rather than going ahead with either A) or B).Dingo1729 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The RS coverage militates in favor of a keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Oxford Street Christmas Lights section in the Oxford Street article.

I am not the least bit impressed by a nomination of AfD that was made just 4 minutes after the article was created! Obviously, and very predictably, the article has undergone some considerable improvement since the first 4 minutes of its existence. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 10:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It was a simply list when created, and it's still a simple list now. The only 'improvement' is that each entry has been referenced, and I don't see anyone in here claiming it was a hoax. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The excellent source provided by Rangoon11 demonstrates the notability of the topic beyond any doubt. I have added a citation to the London Gazetteer. Our editing policy is to retain the article for further improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why are Oxford Street's lights more notable than any other? More coverage. Yes, the BBC will cover it, being somewhat London based and oriented themselves and still suffering from the old 'if you are outside London, dial 01' mentality. Can we see lists of who switched on the lights in Ross on Wye too? If not deleted, I would go for a Merge to Oxford Street as there is a list of the people who switched on Blackpool Lights in the article on Blackpool Illuminations. (A more interesting list in places, including Johannes Rau (Prime Minister of North Rhine-Westphalia) and on another occasion a famous racehorse...) Peridon (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are Oxford Street's lights more notable than others? Perhaps because Oxford Street is the largest shopping street in Europe, and runs for a mile and a half through the very centre of London, one of the two or three most important cities in the world. Rangoon11 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (reply to Peridon): That's what notability means here - more coverage. In my experience, the lights in Carnaby Street and South Molton Street are better but the Oxford Street ceremony seems to get more coverage and so it's fine as a topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why are Oxford Street's lights more notable than any other?" Isn't that a bit like asking, why is Buckingham Palace more notable than any other house? Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 14:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Must make a note to give up irony for the New Year... Peridon (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While Oxford Street is obviously uber-important, anyone who thinks you could not construct a similar list for every town and city in the UK using RS for each individual entry, is dreaming. I could make at least 5 different such lists for my metro area, and it's not even in the top 3 in importance in the country, if that. On that score, this article in its current form is pure and simply 'it can be done' listcruft frankly. So, we are left with the assertion that reproducing the list as a whole has been considered a noteworthy topic in RS - and the single reference presented to that effect so far, the London Companion, is nothing more than a coffee table trivia book (read the introduction). However, seeing as it can be sourced, I see no reason why the list cannot be merged to the main Oxford Street article, it is hardly a big list if using col-2 or even 3, so it's a merge from me, and by that, I mean actually do it, too. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, there is not much to merge (apart from a few added references) as the material was already in the Oxford Street article. See my post earlier in this AfD. The material came from here. Is there a difference between merging and simply restoring the previous list in the Oxford Street article and referencing it using the references from the edit history of this article? The difference between the lights in smaller metropolitan areas and these ones is that most of the people turning the lights on will have articles, and people like blue-linked lists more than red-linked (or plain text) lists. Also, some people have made lists of various light-switching on ceremonies and festivals (again, as I mentioned earlier), see this website and look at the history recorded there. But I agree, nearly all this (including the history of the Regent Street lights) is better presented in the articles on the locations themselves. But certainly the Blackpool Illuminations article shows that it is possible to have a stand-alone article if approached in the right way. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure I follow your point, but if it's that I should be voting delete, I've no great issue with that. As for other towns being less able to listify with bluelinks, I doubt it. I picked Norwich at random, as a pretty small place in national terms, and apparently Linda Barker and Bryan Gunn are switching theirs on this year. [34] I shudder to think how far down the chain you would have to go to find a place where you couldn't make such a list with bluelinks - the whole point of them turning up is that they are likely to be notable to someone, surely? Although there have been mutterings in the media this year that the expense of booking these appearances is not justifiable in light of the economic crisis. MickMacNee (talk) 02:14, 14 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. Improvements have been made to the article since the nomination several weeks ago, including a source showing a Grammy nomination. Mandsford 22:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skylar Grey

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

The range of sourcing and coverage is not significant to warrant this artist having their own page. The key issue is that the page is called Sklyar Grey yet the credits in the songs listed are given to H. Hafferman and there is (unless I'm mistaken) no proof that Hafferman is Grey's birthname. A whole page is not required to say Grey has written a number one song and contributed to several others. I'm but given the current state of the article there are WP:BLP issues too significant to warrant just a discussion. This person is IMO not yet notable. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 02:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Equally, the entry gives credit to 'Skylar Grey' for musical renditions produced by Alex da Kid, and for vocals performed and written by Eminem, and by Dr Dre (with associated ghost writers (N.B. NOT including Skylar Grey).

Weak delete with no prejudice for recreation. Borderline case, some mentions out there, but they're trivial by WP:RS standards. Article subject is not considered notable by WP:N at the present, but could meet criteria in the future. Until then, delete.--res Laozi speak 03:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as you said, no proof of this person being H. Hafferman. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 11:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per concerns noted above. PicodeGato (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striked as blocked sock. DQ.alt (t) (e) 19:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to reasons listed above. STATic message me! 20:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I provided better sources for several of the concerns mentioned. If there are any other issues, please let me know. Thanks, JackSparrow (talk) 07:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 03:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"String of hits gives Da Kid a break", Music Week, 17 July 2010 says Skylar Grey is Holly Hafferman.
Delete, fails WP:MUSICIAN. Abductive (reasoning) 12:44, 27 November 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, Black Kite (t) (c) 01:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Skylar Grey is H. Hafferman - you can confirm with her manager, Todd Mandel and Online Marketing Manager, Jeanne Hart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.214.203 (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 76.169.214.203 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Suggestion – move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (talk · contribs) 01:55, 1 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her single with Diddy is climbing up the billboard charts which would seem to mean she satisfies WP:BAND now. Is there really any doubt that she was one of the writers on the Eminem/Rihanna song? That means she's also a Grammy nominee. While it's odd that her PR people haven't done a better job getting information out about her, it seems there's little doubt that she's notable now that the song has charted. --JayHenry (talk) 05:28, 11 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OOoOO

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

Non-notable band lacking GHit and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A google search for oOoOO comes up with 12,300,000 results; a google news search comes up with 16 related articles, which is more than the bands Family force 5 (10 results) Psychedelic Horseshit (1 result) Evil Nine (1 related result) Tragic Black (0 related results) and Rabbit Junk (0 results), all of which currently have pages. Therefore oOoOO is just as notable, if not more so, than a multitude of artists who currently have pages on Wikipedia.Blackmagnetictape (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The search for "oOoOO" yields the following statement on the last page of the search. "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 622 already displayed." The majority of those are unrelated to the article subject. Regardless, Goggle hits has no bearing on Wikipedia based notability. Please advise how the article meets the criteria in WP:MUSIC. Each article must stand on its own merits, the existence of other articles has no bearing on this article. ttonyb (talk) 05:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be noted that my statements regarding google hits was in response to statements already made regarding that: also the claim that the majority of results were unrelated is untrue: a search for oOoOO "witch-house" results in a comparable number of results. Furthermore, oOoOO fulfills the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself (a number of publications have reviewed this artists work) and Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability (Is currently one of the most popular Drag artists, as well as one of the first). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackmagnetictape (talk • contribs) 05:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be enough reviews of the most recent work to support notability. JNW (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Can you cite those please? I only see a pitchfork review of his work, which to be honest, pitchfork has had controversy in the past in regards to reviews. I can't say they're a reliable source. It seems he's only mentioned when this supposed drag term comes up, which apparently these articles then in turn tend to focus on the band Salem, which apparently have been accused of coining the genre "drag". Thus not focusing specifically on oOoOO. I don't see how exactly that is notable. Diskotech (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[35]],[[36]],[[37]],[[38]], [[39]], [[40]], [[41]], and more from blogs. You can't possibly have looked very hard for reviews. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh, I know, i didn't look. Hence why asked about their claim. If they're gonna claim it, they should back it up. Yes? Also, many of these reviews come from sources not deemed acceptable by wiki standards. Diskotech (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its notability is sourced reliably.Thisbites (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's confusingly titled due to the capitalization of the name, but the page is reliably sourced, meaning that WP:MUSIC is met, as described above. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 17:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He only seems to be mentioned very very very briefly (usually named dropped), whenever articles in regards to this questionable genre called "drag" come up. Articles tend to go over into detail in regards to Salem, rather than oOoOO. The only mentionable article would be the dazed digital interview. Is that enough justify for an article on wikipedia? Diskotech (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are also reviews of their latest work, enough to support notability.Blackmagnetictape (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed - Also, a review does not qualify as an article about the artist ([42])"To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy."Dhloe (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Dhloe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 00:56, 5 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability shown by full articles about the subject (not reviews) in The Guardian, Pitchfork, Dazed & Confused and XLR8R. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Guardian is perhaps a "non-trivial" article, Pitchfork is about the "Drag" music not oOoOO, Dazed & Confused is an interview with a member of the band and as such is not a secondary source, and XLR8R is about Greenspan who happens to be in oOoOO. ttonyb (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:GNG states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Therefore whether it is an interview or more of a feature article surely does not affect any claim to notability either way. However, most interview content is not suitable for usage as a source. Note that oOoOO is not a band, rather a nom de plume for Chris Dexter Greenspan. You're right about the Pitchfork article, though. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok, that leaves the question then: does one article from the Guardian and another from xlr8r fall under "significant coverage"? That could be very debatable. Diskotech (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that an interview does count as coverage under that GNG guideline, but not as a citable reference for article content. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – By it very nature, an interview is not independent of the subject and therefore, they are primary, not secondary sources. ttonyb (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the information in the interview is not independent of the subject (and therefore is not usable as a source of information), if the people conducting the interview are independent of the subject, then this would still be considered as the artist being the subject of a non-trivial published work. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The caveat being that an article cannot be supported solely by primary sources. ttonyb (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again, while this is true regarding whether an article is usable as a source, what's being discussed in this debate is if this subject is notable. Interviews ARE invalid as citable sources, but the existence of interviews of the subject does support the case for notability. Blackmagnetictape (talk) 19:30, 12 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TuneUp Utilities

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

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Fleet Command (talk) 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created in November 2009 and has been unsourced since. Just recently (see the talk page) has there been sources included in footnotes. However it's only the software's website about us and a few reviews. I don't feel this program is notable for Wikipedia. The article offers nothing different from the product's website (namely the "features" page). Even their website lists most of the reviews that's now in the article. It's also written like an advertisement and one editor refused to accept that another editor (and also an administrator) tried to fix the problem, even reverting his edit as "vandalism". —Mike Allen 06:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egads. Delete per nom. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 07:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Per nominator. Fleet Command (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recently, footnotes are added to the article. Perhaps nominator does not know. According to Wikipedia:Notability, this article is clearly notable. Article has reliable secondary sources. It is also not written like an advertisement. It's just detailed and are not advertisement. Anyway, if it is too detailed, its details can be reduced. 80.191.138.129 (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:AGF, stick to discussing the content of the article, and do not make personal attacks against the nominator. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he must be colleague of mine who has gone sentimental. I think you can safely delete his comments per Civility. Do you mind if I? (I did so.) Fleet Command (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - How did your colleague suddenly know about this deletion discussion? —Mike Allen 22:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Aha? You think Wikipedia is something top secret that no one knows about it? Perhaps he saw your comments, didn't approve of it and joined in to help; full of sentiments, like all newcomers. The important thing is that he has the right to do so. If you don't approve of his comments, I don't see why you are jumping at me who also did not approve of his comments and removed them. Fleet Command (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh god.. I am not "jumping on you". I asked a question. —Mike Allen 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has already established its notability via PC Magazine (2010), Gralla, Preston (2009), Wilson, Jeffrey L (2009), MarjorGeeks (2004) and Rosenblatt, Seth (2009). The nominator should definitely read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Just Not Notable and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Not Encyclopedic. If there is advertisement in the article, we can re-write that section from a WP:NPOV language; but deletion is out of question. Fleet Command (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read a lot of those essays. And? If you are having to use primary sources (particularly from the site's about us page) then that is an indicator the program is not notable. Wikipedia is supposed to offer more than the subject's website. People just add any and everything to Wikipedia, and this is why the site is not taken seriously. —Mike Allen 22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excuse me? All those sources that I introduced above are primary? Nonsense! There is no primary sources in the article besides the two for the version number and first release date; those two are perfectly allowed per WP:PRIMARY. I already said that twice in the talk page and even quoted from WP:PRIMARY but you simply refuse to acknowledge and choose to ignore them. But I don't think that the closing administrator will ignore them. Furthermore, this is the third time that you try to make it look like as if the article is completely made up of primary sources. This straw man discussion is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Fleet Command (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I don't see how all the reviews listed (if they were listed in the article) would make it notable? I'm tired of you wikilawyering me. I did not make this AFD in bad faith, I did not raise a concern on the talk page in bad faith, and I did not edit war with you. I have raised a valid concern about this article, so please quit making it seem like I'm attacking you. —Mike Allen 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you "don't see how all the reviews listed" would make it notable, read WP:GNG. As for you being on the attack: You called me "paranoid", you accused me of not assuming good faith, you called my act of defending the article Wiki-lawyering, you violated WP:BRD, you nitpick at my every move, you try to make everyone believe that primary sources are ENTIRELY not allowed and you employ straw man discussions! Yet you still have failed to produce a valid discussion as to what constitutes a difference between a detailed article and an advertisement. You have started a section called "Prose and advertisement" and you talk about everything in it except the prose and the advertisement. You do all of these and "feel" this article is not suitable for Wikipedia. Are you not on the attack? Fleet Command (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - After due consideration, I think the answer is "No, you are NOT on the attack". But I'm sure I cannot shake hand with you say "It was a pleasure to meet you sir; your attitude towards disagreements and oppositions is very commendable. Please allow me to call you 'friend'." Regrettably, that's the aim of Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        By the way, you're the one that suggested I go ahead and take it to AFD if I "didn't think it was notable".[43] Also, the only edit I reverted of yours (with an edit summary) was your reversion (as "vandalism") of User: Ckatz. [44] Please quit hounding everybody on what they did and didn't do. It's getting old now. —Mike Allen 22:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't remember having objected your act of AFDing the article. And yes, I did revert Ckatz as vandalism because I sincerely think it was vandalism. I neither see what's wrong with my doing that and I don't know why would you repeat it here except for giving me a bad face. Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Since you enjoy quoting policies, let me introduce you to the WP:Vandalism policy. Under What is not vandalism: "Some material—sometimes even factually correct material—does not belong on Wikipedia, and removing it is not vandalism. Check to make sure that the addition was in line with Wikipedia standards, before restoring it or reporting its removal as vandalism." Keep that in mind the next time you revert an edit as "vandalism". Thank you. —Mike Allen 07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article appears to be not much more than a features list (WP:IINFO), and lacks more than the occasional minor mention on technical websites, that one would expect of any minor software, no matter how obscure (no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection But dear sir, the article cites PC Magazine, PC World (magazine) and PC Advisor in addition to Seth Rosenblatt, the editor of CNET. Surely, you do agree that they are reliable secondary sources, don't you? Please look at the article more carefully before participating in AFD. As for the feature list however, I'm planning to add history and critical reception based on the aforementioned sources. Fleet Command (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Counter-objection: these websites typically provide such brief reviews for hundreds (thousands?) of pieces of software each year. Whilst such coverage is generally (though often barely) adequate to decide whether to download/buy the software, it generally does not include sufficient depth for an encyclopaedic article. The fact that this article is based upon such material is probably why it is simply an unencycloapedic features list. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm afraid that's wrong again, sir: The article reviews are quite long and comprehensive. Their analysis are also quite in-depth. Why don't you see for yourself? As you can see, I've added a critical reception today. Given enough time, I can add more encyclopedic data. As for the recurrence, Notability is not temporary: One single secondary review in a reliable source is enough to make an article notable for centuries to come. Recurrent reviews are not necessary. Fleet Command (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - In this case, notability is not given at all. "Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics." —Mike Allen 22:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This is the forth time that you are repeating this assertion (which is clearly wrong) without telling exactly what and how. Mike Allen, I warn you that you are (either unintentionally or deliberately) committing a serious misconduct of misrepresenting Wikipedia Notability policies and hence you are in violation of Wikipedia:Civility. Either tell us exactly which part of WP:GNG is not met, or I will report your conducts to Administrative Noticeboard. Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If I'm "wrong", then so are four other editors here. I wish you would quit accusing me of violating all of these essays, guidelines and policy in this AFD. Every comment you have towards me is claiming I am wrong, violated Wikipedia policy or attacking you. Take it to the appropriate noticeboard. —Mike Allen 07:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't you dare comparing other editors with yourself. Apart from being very polite, they neither misrepresented anything nor employed vilifying tactics. You are still misrepresenting: Civility is not an essay, guideline or policy; it is one of the five pillars and may not be overruled, not even by consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that a piece of software gets reviewed in a magazine whose main activity is reviewing software does not make it notable. A review may establish that the software is good, bad or indifferent. However, what we need to know is: is it notable. The answer, I think, is no.--Korruski^Talk 15:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection With all due respect sir, this type of opinion of your does not really count in Wikipedia: You see, sir, according to Wikipedia:Notability as long the article receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, it is defined as "notable" and hence merits presence in Wikipedia. This software, as I mentioned above, has received enough coverage in reliable sources. Hence, although I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it. Wikipedia also does not. Fleet Command (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Well, thank you for your polite disagreement! However, I don't think it is as simple as you make out. For example, take a read of WP:IMPACT. Yes, it is just an essay - but it does suggest that at least some of Wikipedia agrees with my opinion that notability means more than simply finding independent sources that talk about your subject - it means finding sources that demonstrate that your subject has impact. As it puts it, 'Think beyond the mere search for those multiple independent reliable sources.'--Korruski^Talk 17:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are welcome. I do not simply disagree with an essay on the pretext that "it is just an essay". However, you should take note that WP:IMPACT does not sanction the extermination of an article on the basis that it does not have impact! In fact, if it did, we had to take out most of the Wikipedia articles on software. Furthermore, what is the measuring instruments for metering the impact of this article? You feelings? Seriously, sir, you would like to disregard Wikipedia policy and take out the time and effort spent on this legitimate article on the pretext that you feel it does not have impact? Consider it this way: Do you like to see your own contributions taken out on the basis that someone somewhere has a feeling they do not have impact? Last but not least, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and derives its huge impact on public from the collaborative impact of small articles together as a whole, not from the average of each article's impact. Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I would be ok with taking out most of the Wikipedia articles on software. Very little software is truly notable. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. Yes, in this case, the measure is my 'feelings' as you disparagingly put it, or my 'considered opinion' as I would prefer it. It is on the basis of considered opinions that consensus is formed and, ultimately, it is upon consensus and not upon a rigid adherence to the letter of the rules that Wikipedia runs, whatever you may believe. Also - while your civility is greatly appreciated, calling people 'Sir' online is not only a little pompous, but it is fairly likely to be inaccurate.--Korruski^Talk 09:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I assure you, Korruski, I don't mean to be disparaging or pompous at all. In any case, unlike you, I and WP:GNG are not okay with taking out most of the Wikipedia articles on software. Please do take into consideration that WP:GNG is a guideline and hence a codified consensus; going against it is like going against a consensus. Fleet Command (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confer 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise your software. Give it a rest. Objection overruled, your honor! (preemptively) SnottyWong ^confer 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:IINFO is now resolved. Thanks to JMetzler. Fleet Command (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been improved a lot since it was flagged for deletion. It is no longer written like an advertisement and describes the main functionality of the software in a neutral fashion. It is no longer unsourced or uncited as various reputable secondary sources have been added. And while it may be argued that getting reviewed by major computer magazines whose main activity is reviewing software does not make a software notable per se, receiving the editors' choice award of such magazines (see Wilson, Jeffrey L (2009) as an example) means that the software is among the best in its category, which certainly makes it notable. JMetzler (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Dear JMetzler, please allow me to commend you on your recent work on the article. Your contributions are highly appreciated. You have my gratitude. Fleet Command (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - PCMag and PCWorld represent reliable soruces that have provided indpendent reviews of the software which establishes its notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Products become notable on the basis of substantial reviews in RSs, and this product has them. Major computer magazines do not review everything released, so getting a review is sufficient sourcing--as with all other review sourcing for the purposes of notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nom seems to simply say the article is in poor shape, not that its not a notable topic. which it appears to be.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unless anyone can convince me that the Bahasa Indonesian Wikipedia, the Chinese-language Wikipedia,the German-language Wikipedia, the Italian-language Wikipedia, the Portuguese-language Wikipedia, the Russian-language Wikipedia, the Slovak-language Wikipedia and the Spanish-language Wikipedia can each have a cognate article but the the English-language Wikipedia should not... -- Jandalhandler (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And all have the same problem as this article. Your point? TuneUp Corporation should just link this article from their "feature" page; it would save them from writing out and selling all the features since this article already does that for them. —Mike Allen 05:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Each separate article appears to have its own structure, with different advantages and different problems. The English and German versions have the merit of providing a product/version history over and above listing features. Hints of negativity included -- you might not find such in a commercial marketing summary. -- Jandalhandler (talk) 10:33, 5 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been improved since AfD nomination, is no longer promotional in tone, references are reliable and the references / awards demonstrate notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 14:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Spending a moment to clicking on the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, I see many major news sources review this. Dream Focus 16:23, 7 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate successions of the English crown

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

This article fails WP's policies against original research. While I enjoy alternative history myself, WP is not the place to host what-if speculations. An article on the fact that some people enjoy this as a hobby might be possible, but not the alternative universe research itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The discussion is still ongoing. More sources have been added(though some deemed unreliable), and more can still be provided(other people such as the article's creator should be asked if they can provide more sources before deletion is even considered). Likewise, the issue that others have raised is NOT Original Research, but rather that the sources are unreliable. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is not a lack of reliable sources, but that the sources are being used to create an alternative universe where someone else besides Elizabeth is the monarch of England. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this article is an exercise in purely speculative alternative history (and thus falls afoul of WP:CRYSTAL). By its very subject matter it is lacking anything even vaguely resembling mainstream scholarship, and therefore has, and likely will continue to, offer an open invitation for WP:UNDUE weight to the 'tiny minorities' on the WP:FRINGE that promote this or that line of claimants. This leads to inevitable WP:POV-pushing and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only turning into a battleground because some people have pushed their personal opinions, and made personal insults. Likewise, it is not "Creating an alternative universe". Every so-called "Alternative universe" has used sources to show why someone else may have a claim. Perhaps your objection is not to the article itself, nor its structure, but the concept of "someone else besides Elizabeth" having a legitimate claim to be monarch of England? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would rather suggest that it has become a battleground because a certain individual insisted on offering various conspiracy theories for my skepticism of WP:FRINGE sources (which sources have been dismissed by WP:RSN). This supports my original argument for deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant as regards your argument, as this article has nothing to do with "future history". Nobody offered conspiracy theories. I asked why you felt the need to make personal attacks, and derogatory statements, without offering any suggestions as to how the article may possibly be improved? I would disagree with the "purely speculative" part of your argument too, as all three so-called "purely speculative" Lines have links with Reliable Sources.41.133.47.252 (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - (i) Alternate history is directly analogous to future history, so the citation of WP:CRYSTAL is relevant. (ii) I refuse to answer your loaded question. (iii) Your assertion that "Lines have links with Reliable Sources" is, at best, questionable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. The article as it stands is perhaps unsalvageable. I tend to think that the title could, however, be the subject of a useful, well-sourced article. The Jacobite line is well known and can easily be sourced to reliable sources. Beyond that, I think an article dealing with the variety of historically significant alternate or potential claimants to the English throne could in fact be quite useful and interesting - those who were discussed as alternatives to Elizabeth I in 1603, various potential and actual Yorkist claimants after 1485, the Lancastrian claims of various Portuguese and Spanish monarchs, the claims of Arthur of Brittany and his sister, and so on, can easily be found discussed in reliable sources, and could be the subject of an interesting article. I will also say that I think the claim that this is creating an "alternate universe" is ridiculous. The Jacobite claims of the Duke of Bavaria exist in this universe. His aunt recently died, and her obituary in the Telegraph mentioned her father's position as the Jacobite claimant. The Jacobite claim is theoretical, but it is not something which exists in an alternate universe. The Duke of Bavaria is not (de facto) king of England, but he is the genealogical representative of Charles I, and would be king according to the laws in effect in 1688, something which can be confirmed in numerous reliable sources. The problem with this article is OR - original synthesis, in particular - and notability, especially with regard to the non-Jacobite lines. It is not anything to do with alternate universes. john k (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This topic is genealogical claims to the English crown diverting from the accepted line of succession at certain historical points, and as such seems encyclopaedic. There is another article to be written about actual claims and claimants who existed in history: these might or might not cover the same ground. For example, the Jacobite succession both exists in genealogical theory and is claimed by certain people today; in a previous era such claims had real-life political implications. Why should we not include these? This is quite different from alternate history. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not a repository of speculative alternative history supported by debunked unreliable sources. Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But are you saying that any article on this topic must necessarily be "speculative alternative history" or simply that this one is? If the former, then your position is untenable: genealogy is simply not the same as counterfactual speculation. If the latter, then fix it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter, but it still fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If the genealogical lines truly are notable, they can have a presence in the royal houses/ancestors of those people articles, which in most cases already exist. There is no need to group them together like this. Ironholds (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the article as it stands is that it's based on too many assumptions and too much synthesis of sources. Whilst we don't automatically delete anything that's not directly sourced, the information does need to be something that no-one would reasonably dispute. In this case, the information is open to dispute, particularly on whether or not you include female succession. Should reliable sources be found which cover these alternate lines of succession, by all means include that (provided the article makes clear who is claiming what). However, as it stands, the only line that is covered in a reliable source is the one in the Channel 4 programme. Therefore, as it stands, I suggest we merge this article to Britain's Real Monarch and only include the line of succession proposed in the programme (as shown here). The other lines of succession might be suitable for a transwiki to Wikiversity. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Jacobite line can easily be sourced to numerous reliable sources. On the talk page I noted that the line up through 1911 can be sourced to the 1911 Britannica article about Jacobitism, and that all but the current claimant are at least mentioned in that article. Noel McFerran's website includes an article by the 19th century genealogist Ruvigny tracing the line to the turn of the last century or so. Plenty of sources mentioning the more recent claimants can also be found - Crown Prince Ruprecht's claim, for instance, is mentioned in the recent Telegraph obituary of his daughter. In a Yahoo groups post I stumbled upon via google, Mr. McFerran has also listed a number of articles in the mainstream press describing either Albrecht or Franz as the Jacobite claimant. The idea that the "Britain's Real Monarch" line is somehow better sourced than the Jacobite line is ridiculous. The former was the subject of a single, mostly specious from what I can gather, TV documentary. The Jacobite line has been known and followed with some degree of interest continuously since 1688. I suspect that one can probably find contemporary references to the Jacobite claims of each and every Jacobite claimant. john k (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a notable subject and yes the article could certainly do with improvement. But there have been several wars fought over some of these claims, the latest as recently as 1746 and it is clearly notable, though somewhat incomplete with Monmouth and several other branches omitted. I saw a TV program recently which traced the Plantagenet line to someone in Australia. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. The alternate theories seem pretty well grounded in principle, and it ought to be noted in some appropriate place that they exist; but the succession after the first few generations is trivia. (If Henry Pole or Anne Stanley had obtained the crown, Lord Loudoun or Lord Jersey would not be king because he wouldn't exist: his ancestors would not have made the same marraiges.) —Tamfang (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main reason given for the deletion nomination is "original research" - but that just isn't accurate. The Jacobite/Stuart descent line is well-known and recorded in dozens of books. Both the Clarence and Brandon cases have been written about, most notably by the doyen of royal genealogy (just deceased this past month) William Addams Reitwiesner. The article could be improved, particularly with better sources, but that could be said for 95% of Wikipedia articles. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Noel - I've always found Reitwiesner's materials to be quite interesting and accurate, but I was uncertain whether he can be considered a reliable source in the sense meant on wikipedia. Is there anything that can be brought to bear on this issue? His essay on the Brandon line, for instance, seems to be well-researched and accurate, but it was self-published on Reitwiesner's own website. He wrote books on genealogy that were published, but generally by rather obscure presses. What are we to do with such things? john k (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the good news is that I've confirmed there are reliable sources on the Jacobite line. The bad news is that I found the reliable sources from Jacobite succession (at least, that article seems to have been cared for enough for an unreliable sources to have been challenged by now), which means we've got a messy overlap between the two articles. However, this is now definitely a a debate for content/sourcing/merging. Keep, merge, rename or redirect but Not delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable fringe theories. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Jacobite line has always been notable; the Clarence line became notable with Britain's Real Monarch. Perhaps limit mention of other lines to people who actively claimed the crown or were considered potential claimants such as Arbella Stuart and the De la Poles. Jess Cully (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not OR--there is a great deal of documentation available, especially for some parts of this. Even if this is regarded as alternate-worlds, rather than history, alternate worlds ca be notable if they are discussed enough in the secondary literature, as this is. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 6 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do not understand why this has been Relisted. It seems to be a pretty clear Keep to me. If the Administrator desires consensus, he is clearly unaware of the goings-on here. Pretty much everyone has voted to keep, citing Reliable Sources. A couple of people have stated that the article could sue further Sources, plus have made suggestions s to possibly reorganizing the article. The only one seeming to object is Hrafn, yet he has made his position clear, including much usage of personal insults. This nomination should have been removed, and effortand energy instead focused on possibly tidying up the article a bit. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is at least clear that there was, and is, no consensus to delete -- that is normally a keep. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not alternate history but an account of various real pretenders or claimants to the throne. We might actually reference some fictional alternate histories too - I was reading Pavane myself recently. The topic has good potential and so should be retained for improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 12 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 by precedent and consensus. According to past discussions here at AfD, bilateral relations of medium-sized nation-states are per se notable. The overwhelming consensus below is that this particular case is clearly notable. Plenty of reliable sources exists in the article already to prove the notability of the International relations between these two nations. The nomination smacks of disliking one part of the article, focusing on incendiary religious controversy, when neither nation has a majority Muslim population. The article has been rescued by adding additional sources. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Philippines relations

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

the fact that neither country has resident embassies says something about their relations. as the article stands, 2 of the 3 sources merely verify the existence of non resident embassies. most of the coverage relates to Philippine Muslims being upset about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy [45]. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per long term relations and fairly significant current trade relations. An organization of Filipina women operates in Denmark, which demonstrates the rather larger scale migration of Filipinos to Denmark and the sources demonstrating the loans combined with the fact that relations are almost 65 years old demonstrate long term notability. The fact that a small country like Denmark and a relatively poor country like the Philippines do not currently have embassies in each others capitals is not a sign of lack of notability.--TM 18:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep—this is getting quite boring, LibStar: when will you start following WP:BEFORE? What is wrong with this for instance? Most of the coverage relates to Philippine Muslims being upset about the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy – so what? ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of relevant reliable third party coverage to establish notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Per TreasuryTag reasoning. Also references has established the written facts.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Also references has established the written facts" but not necessarily notability. LibStar (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^chat 18:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Firstly, there is no rationale for a speedy keep here per WP:SK, so !voting Speedy Keep in this case is essentially the same as a Strong Keep (which is itself no different than just Keep). Secondly, the sources in the article and the source presented by TT above do show that there are Filipinos living in Denmark (and probably Danes living in the Philippines), but that's not really what this article is about. This article is about the connection between the two nations, in particular their governments, and I'm not seeing much of a connection there. The relationship doesn't seem to pass the informal guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations. SnottyWong ^chat 18:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll bite...
There is no rationale for a speedy keep here per WP:SK, so !voting Speedy Keep in this case is essentially the same as a Strong Keep (which is itself no different than just Keep). OK, whatever. Scarcely relevant here, though, since the closing admin will likely have read WP:SK.
The relationship doesn't seem to pass the informal guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations. That informal guideline – informal guideline – is not the be-all-and-end-all. WP:GNG can and does apply. ╟─Treasury Tag►pikuach nefesh─╢ 18:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is an informal guideline, but it seems to be a pretty reasonable one. It would certainly help your case if this article passed at least one criterion from that informal guideline. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 19:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly help your case if this article passed at least one criterion from that informal guideline. No. No. No. You are completely wrong. So long as the subject meets the GNG then it is notable. There is no concept of "helping one's case" or anything of the sort, especially from a guideline which is not a guideline. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I'm not advocating that we treat the wikiproject's notability guidelines as gospel, but I think that completely ignoring them because they haven't been personally autographed by Jimbo himself is overly bureaucratic. In my opinion, GNG hasn't been passed. You can find any number of sources which include both of the words "Denmark" and "Philippines", but what we're looking for are sources which significantly cover the relationship between the governments of both countries. Obviously it is trivial to find sources which say that there are Filipinos living in Denmark, and Koreans living in South Africa, and Australians living in Iceland, but those sources don't document a notable relationship between the countries (which, after all, is what these bilateral relations articles are about). The fact that Filipino Muslims are angry about a Danish cartoon has nothing to do with the relationship between the governments of the two countries (especially when you consider that all Muslims, no matter from what country, were angered by that cartoon). SnottyWong ^express 22:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is getting ridiculous and disruptive. The calls for speedy keep here not only have good reason for doing so, I would say they are valid even. Regardless, per TM and Treasury, there is notability on the subject, sources can be found easily if nom would bother looking beforehand. I feel like a broken record. Outback the koala (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's ridiculous and disruptive is the fact that people feel the need to create articles on non-existent subjects. Please post links to sources which document a notable relationship between the governments of Denmark and the Philippines. Also, please let us know which criterion of WP:SK you believe this nomination satisfies in order for a speedy keep to be "valid". SnottyWong ^chat 22:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Copenhagen Post: Ministry paring down numbers of Filipino Au Pairs and A good opportunity. Apparently 70% of au pairs in Denmark are Filipina. A bilateral agreement regulates this. FYI for future interested parties, the Copenhagen Post is an English language online newspaper in Denmark with a very searachable website.--TM 03:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be a minor immigration issue which affects about 2000 people. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations for examples of events which constitute a notable relationship between countries. SnottyWong ^chatter 15:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, a bilateral agreement affecting migrant laborers and significant coverage of that issue in a major national newspaper seems like a strong indication of notable relations to me.--TM 15:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability arises from specific circumstances, and, once it arises, for Wikipedia purposes it is permanent. This is the same as in other cases--the IR of all pairs of medium sized nations is notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where is the WP policy/guideline which says "all pairs of medium sized nations is notable. "? Is this a case of inventing criterion to suit the AfD? LibStar (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a case of suggesting an criterion to meet one of the common situations, based on the inevitable finding of sources for the articles of that class. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a case of suggesting blanket criteria where no WP:CONSENSUS for such criteria exists, based generally on an "inevitable" thin sprinkling of tangential sources, mere mentions and search-hits. Such lax criteria result in poor precedents, like 'keep all high schools', which in turn result in DYSFUNCTIONAL AfD keeps -- like WP:Articles for deletion/Colombo International School -- kept WITHOUT A SINGLE SOURCE in either the article or the AfD. Therefore my !vote is also to reject the proposed "all pairs of medium sized nations is notable" criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a case of suggesting blanket criteria where no WP:CONSENSUS for such criteria exists – so rather like the WikiProject guidelines then? ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 19:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject criteria have at least a localised consensus and are not blanket. I would note that Denmark and the Philippines (i) have never engaged in a war (ii)do not have significant trade, (iii) are not/were not allies, (iv) do not share a border, (v) have not been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict & (vi) have not been engaged in a significant trade dispute. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment on the talk[46] this is not policy. These are at most suggestions and your opinion of what is notable. Outback the koala (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) They are FAR more authoritative and rational than DGG's less-than-credible "all pairs of medium sized nations is notable". (ii) Lacking any of the significant relationships on that list, we're likely to be left with a WP:IINFO grab-bag of minutiae, not an encyclopaedic article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are FAR more authoritative and rational than DGG's less-than-credible "all pairs of medium sized nations is notable". I'm afraid not. At worst, they are equally inauthoritative. You opine – without explanation or rationale – that DGG's position is "less-than-credible" which is, ironically, a phrase perfectly describing your argument that WikiProject ramblings are to be regarded as anything more concrete than any contrary ramblings from anyone else. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 09:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will take WP:NOTPOLICY over "less than credible" any day. It is "less than credible" because it is a dogmatic and overly-broad generalisation, and because it is not even close to being substantiated by the utter trivia being served up here. I fully expect that, at one of these 'bilateral relations' AfD that somebody will eventually present a birthday card sent by one government to the head of state of the other as demonstrating the notability of the relationship, and waxing lyrically how this card represents the blah-de-blah-blah of this 'profound' relationship. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, then, that the vast majority of arguments here disagree with you... ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 14:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm almost as impressed by me-too-ism as I am by dogmatic assertions. Opinions are like arseholes -- everybody's got one. That does not make them well-informed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wit is certainly on display today. Outback the koala (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep i see good sources here... Arskwad (talk) 23:34, 2 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the article, one nation gave the other a considerable amount of money. I doubt they just pick a nation at random to throw money at like that, they obviously having a notable relation. Dream Focus 15:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says no such thing. It merely mentions that they had a small amount of trade, and that at one stage (back in the 1970s), Denmark extended the Philippines a small line of credit to purchase Danish goods. The amounts involved are/were tiny in comparison to either nation's GDPs. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article does not specify an amount to the loans at all. Outback the koala (talk) 18:32, 7 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 01:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tart Optical

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

This company has no claim to notability that I could find, and the only reference is to a blog. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Defunct company; article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate is. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 12 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 01:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alana DiMaria

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

Non-notable actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Shortness of career,[47] fails WP:ENT and lack of coverage[48] fails WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:12, 7 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Friday (1951)

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

Fails notability. This article is about an event that, while tragic, was local in nature and seems to have very little, if any, continuing coverage. It was prodded, however the prod tag was removed by an editor with the edit summary "looks notable to me after a brief Google search". My own brief Google search, done before I prodded the article, shows that essentially all of the Google hits for '"Black Friday" 1951' are mirrors or copies of this very article. The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even if the event passed the general notability guidelines it would be deleted per WP:EVENT, which requires an event to have a wide scope of impact, enduring public discussion, or be a catalyst or consequence of another notable event. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than deletion, could I perhaps persuade editors to consider a merge to Brighton, Monroe County, New York as well as a Transwiki to RocWiki? Powers ^T 14:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like it belongs anywhere in Brighton, Monroe County, New York. It is too local even within the county. This is an event that should be on newspapers, not on an encyclopedia. Lpvb (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:04, 6 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adah Edache Obekpa, MD

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

Not notable- no hits at Gnews or GBooks. Hits at google are trivial mentions of practice ___location, etc. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This page was moved during the AfD discussion to Adah Obekpa. If the result is delete, then both pages will need to be deleted. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in secondary sources that I can find. Fails our notability criteria. Ray^Talk 15:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a few sources to the article; he seems like a colorful and somewhat notable figure (although his "candidacy" for the presidency of Nigeria is clearly a laughable long shot). --MelanieN (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Colorful is right :) I still don't think he passes our notability criteria, but the article is a hilarious read. Ray^Talk 17:02, 5 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) 01:39, 6 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) 00:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Perez (tennis)

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

fails WP:Notability for tennis players as he has never played a main draw match at ATP World Tour level or in Davis Cup Mayumashu (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 1 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) 01:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not provide sources capable of satisfying the general notability guidelines and my good faith searches have not uncovered any. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:35, 6 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mel_Sampat

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

Fails notability guideline — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breakpt (talk • contribs) 2010/11/22 09:28:06

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – More than enough coverage by third party – independent – verifiable and creditable sources as shown here [49] and cited in the article here on Wikipedia. In addition, more coverage of Mr. Sampat can be located at Google News as shown here [50] under his new company name "Cupidtino". Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:34, 22 November 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) 00:12, 29 November 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) 01:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources of Shoessss. Also, can the closing admin please rename the page to get rid of the underscore? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:38, 6 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Praver

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

Non notable model. Some covers, some works, just that. Damiens.rf 12:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From multiple appearances in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue to the cover of Vogue to being a spokesmodel for designers like Ralph Lauren and Guess?, I'd say Praver's career is notable enough to warrant this article. Appearing in the SISI in particular should satisfy criteria #1 of WP:ENT. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a model doing model work. There's no non-trivial coverage about her. SISI does not entails notability, as shown by the very lack of third part coverage about most SISI models. --Damiens.rf 13:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "Just x doing x" were a valid argument, every bio on Wikipedia could be deleted with it. The question is whether "doing x" is notable, and the News link for this AfD shows coverage in the Honolulu Advertiser, Los Angeles Times, San Jose Mercury News, and SI.com. I can also point to a Malibu Magazine article. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 17:41, 25 November 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) 00:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mbinebri. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mbinebri is being disingenuous when saying that this argument would delete "every bio on Wikipedia". You really need to be outstanding in your work (actually, life) to deserve a bio on wikipedia. All the "news articles" are just trivial "model profiles" and the trivial model-interviews. --Damiens.rf 11:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiki articles are not awards given for being outstanding at life. I'm getting the impression you're among the editors who believe models as a whole are not notable, dismissing all modeling work as only a model modeling and all coverage as trivial, regardless of whether it is or not. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 21:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sick of your generalizations. I believe this model is non-notable, and not all of them. And my deletion rationale "just a model doing model work" is an argument for the deletion of this article, and not of "every bio on Wikipedia". Start using some real arguments instead of misreading mine. --Damiens.rf 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:47, 29 November 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) 01:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mbinebri. Edward321 (talk) 02:41, 7 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jun Fujiki

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

BLP, not enough notability. As long as he is properly credited in Object Locative Environment Coordinate System, I see no reason to have this on Wikipedia. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:19, 22 November 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) 02:50, 23 November 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) 00:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whilst he probably passes WP:CREATIVE (considering the attention that Echochrome received), there's not a lot of verifiable information. Short biography at IGN. Brief mentions at Edge, indiegames.com, RPS, Joystiq. Some stuff at Ars Electronica. Search continues. Marasmusine (talk) 18:08, 1 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) 01:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale given by Marasmusine. --Teancum (talk) 15:18, 13 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Jeppesen

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

nothing to point at notability, just a lot of namedropping-notability is not inherited Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 22 November 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) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep - if the article can be reliably referenced, it should be kept - but that's a big if, having to sort through all the chaff that Wikimirrors produce in the search engine... - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:26, 29 November 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) 01:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - I've updated slightly and added links, will work on more when time permits.TVC 15 (talk) 10:11, 7 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) 00:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trond Egil Nørstad

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

With only one interview in a local paper that I could find in terms of reliable, secondary sources, it's my sense that this musician and artist doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 22 November 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) 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:30, 29 November 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) 01:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article about him in Finnmark Dagblad is an incidental piece centered on some wall paintings he made at a local hotel in this small town. That cannot suffice to satisfy our requirement of significant coverage in multiple sources. __meco (talk) 08:31, 6 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) 00:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cottrell

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

Biography of unremarkable trance medium (fails WP:GNG). Currently sourced to the medium's own book, the medium's website, an article in a fringe publication (an image of which is hosted on the medium's website), and a YouTube account presumably controlled by the medium. Did I mention this is a BLP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I've found articles in the London Free Press and The Patriot Ledger, which I can forward to anyone wanting to expand/verify the article (unfortunately they're not in a URL-ready format). Ironholds (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extraordinary claims of healing, intuition, etc. exclusively sourced to the subject himself. Does not appear to have the significant impact on society that would satisfy WP:BIO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO makes no mention of a significant impact on society - WP:BIO is about reliable, third-party sources, which I have found. Ironholds (talk) 16:22, 29 November 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) 01:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough secondary source coverage to justify a biographical article. Gigs (talk) 17:00, 6 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DZOZ-TV

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

DWBM-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DWVN-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DWDZ-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DZTV-AM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DZEM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DZHH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DZRB-AM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DZCA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN orgs (radio or television stations) that do not indicate significant importance over other radio stations of the same kind. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXET. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 05:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't checked whether these stations are notable or not, but I must point out that "significant importance over other radio stations of the same kind" is not a requirement for notability. This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records, so our inclusion criteria are not relative in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 1 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) 00:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as government-licensed broadcast radio and television stations have been found generally notable and "importance over other radio stations of the same kind" is not a criteria for deletion. Wikipedia is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media, which provides that "licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios". --Bsherr (talk) 22:47, 8 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DWSA

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

DWXI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DZBF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DWGI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DWBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DWAD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DXET-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DXER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DYKP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DYNU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DYMB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

NN orgs (radio or television stations) that do not indicate significant importance over other radio stations of the same kind. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXET. :| TelCoNaSp Ve :| 05:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Broadcast stations have traditionally been been presumed notable on Wikipedia if they have at least the main type of broadcast license (i.e. not low-power or temporary) for their country and originate their own local programming rather than simply being a rebroadcaster. Backing up that presumption is easy for U.S./Canadian stations; but I've found that, often, Philippine stations don't even have enough data to establish that they have had original histories/programming separate from another station, let alone WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (broadcasting). Maybe the status of the stations are given more coverage in the Philippine print media; but online, you often find sparse and contradictory information about whether stations even exist. I had a heck of a time sorting out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXDM, for example. Since Philippine stations tend to group in networks pretty often, I'd say that, like with my opinion on DXDM (which turned out to be a no-consensus close), Philippine stations should be deleted/redirected unless there is at least WP:RS evidence that they originate(d) their own programming or had a separate history. There seems to be some (unsourced) claim of separate programming for DZBF and separate history on DWKI#History, but they seem to be WP:OR. --Closeapple (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't checked whether these stations are notable or not, but I must point out that "significant importance over other radio stations of the same kind" is not a requirement for notability. This is an encyclopedia, not the Guinness Book of Records, so our inclusion criteria are not relative in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:54, 30 November 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) 00:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Stations have presumed notability, I would prefer a merge to deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as government-licensed broadcast radio and television stations have been found generally notable and "importance over other radio stations of the same kind" is not a criteria for deletion. Wikipedia is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media, which provides that "licensed radio and TV stations are generally kept as notable if they broadcast over the air and originate at least a portion of their programming schedule in their own studios". --Bsherr (talk) 22:49, 8 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 delete. G11 Courcelles 05:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MizzFIT

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too spamy. References do not show significant coverage from reliable sources. Racepacket (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Promotional + user was reported to WP:UAA - [CharlieEchoTango] 04:34, 6 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 Reclose. Deleted with only nominator comment after a fortnight, now disputed, so restoring as if it were a contested PROD. No prejudice against a further nomination.. Courcelles 03:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Baldrachi

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

I've just declined a speedy because there seems to be a credible claim of significance, based on the refs. But I think some more eyes are needed to properly determine if he's notable or not. —SMALL JIM 11:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll go first then, as nominator. After doing further research on this, I don't think anyone can claim that he satisfies any of the conditions of WP:BAND except perhaps for the first (multiple, non-trivial, mentions in reliable, independent sources). And I don't think he satisfies that either - of the refs cited in the article (and I've not been able to find any significant others), only The Big Takeover review would seem to satisfy the above conditions (it appears to be online on the Amazon page - it's not very long). The fact that his album is listed on allmusic, but there's no review or bio is also not in his favour, I think. —SMALL JIM 17:59, 4 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) 00:54, 6 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Casboult

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

rookie listed Australian Rules football player with no senior games. does not satisfy WP:NSPORTS. has some coverage for a car accident but that was just a routine news event and Wikipedia is not the news. lacks other significant coverage required for notability. (the booze cruise was also a news event and the coverage Casboult got from it was not non trivial.) duffbeerforme (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep General notability guidelines for Australian rules football continue to present a grey area with regard to players who are on a senior/rookie list (and are therefore eligible to be selected at any time), but who are yet to make a debut. Previous discussions have occurred on similar articles, with consensus to keep; refer to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jaxson_Barham. Aspirex (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That he is on a list and might play a game is crystal ball thinking and that is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. And previous AFDs with a consensus to delete. There is also some major fundamental differeneces between this AFD and the one you have linked. All the players on that other list were selected in the main draft, some with very high picks (2,4,5). Casboult was selected in the Rookie draft. All those players were on the main list and were eligble for selection at any time. Casboult is on the Rookie list so could not be selected without a change of status. None of those players had spend a season on a list and not been selected. Casboult spent the season on the Rookie list without being promoted or played. Some more relevent AFDs to compare this one with would be for a player who has been listed for a season but not played, eg Bryce Retzlaff - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryce Retzlaff or for a Rookie listed player, eg Liam Bedford - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Bedford. Both ended delete. Also a more relevent precedence is the unconteseted Prod deletions of Rookie listed players with no senior games, eg Daniel Bass, Daniel Webb (Australian rules footballer), Jordan Johns. Note also that two articles of the players in the AFD you linked have since been deleted, showing the flaw in the argument that they might become notable, ie that they might not. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Whilst he's on the list, I'd keep. If he gets delisted without making his AFL debut, then redirect to the team historical player list. I personally don't create articles for rookie list players unless they either play (and the AFL have tweaked the rules to make the change of status very easy to do these days) or have had significant coverage... and I'd say that the car accident/booze cruise issues were bordering on significant coverage.The-Pope (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

explanatory comment - the lists we are talking about are very tightly controlled. Each Nov/Dec the 16/17/18 teams (it's expanding over the next few years) select players to fill their 38 man senior list and their 8 man rookie list (22 players play each week). There are no other ways to bring players into the system. No mid-year topup, no local zone system, just the draft. Some people think being drafted alone is notable. I have thought that way in the past... probably less so now. To play, you have to be moved from the rookie list to the senior list and this requires either a mid-season retirement or a senior list player moving to the longterm injury list (>8 weeks) to open up a spot. The AFL however also allows a "free" upgrade midyear of one rookie and some other loopholes about number of players on the veterans list, so mid-year rookie elevations are very commonplace in recent years.The-Pope (talk) 16:49, 4 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) 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability criterion for professional athletes is already set very low. Lowering it further for the sake of one sport - not sure why AFL needs to be is not in the wider interests of the project. Other sports appear to be comfortable with the "one game" rule, I am not sure why the AFL needs to be treated differently. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and to be honest it is looking exceedingly unlikely that he will ever play a professional game. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 03:29, 6 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 01:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J. T. Eberhard

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

J.T. Eberhard does not meet the requirements of WP:Notability; the provided references are not primarily about him Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Riverfront Times article (http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/11/skepticon_3_dont_believe_the_h.php) is mostly about their interview with him. Saberwolf116 (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:54, 30 November 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) 00:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources sufficient to support notability. Article needs a lot of work. Racepacket (talk) 04:24, 6 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jagged Edge (lifestyle)

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

The topic of this article may be notable (see Bent edge ) the term is not. The article is standing on two user submitted sites (including urban dictionary). I looked through google books and there is no mention of this term. Guerillero | My Talk 13:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find anything reliable to WP:verify notability. It's a WP:NEOLOGISM and likely WP:MADEUP. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User: Guerillero has discovered other sources adding notability to the concept that there is or was an alternate lifestyle to Straight Edge. Wether it is called jagged edge or bent edge it exists, it is not made up, and urban dictionary adds to the notability as well as the definition. I am not wedded to the title Jagged Edge, however that particular article, created 11 October 2010, predates the bent edge article, created 27 November 2010. In stead of deleting Jagged Edge wouldn't it make more sense to expand it with the content of the Bent Edge article. I find it odd that the creator of Bent edge is the same user proposing to delete Jagged Edge. When I first discovered the alternative to Straight Edge it was referred to as Jagged Edge. That being said, I believe there should be redirects from Jagged Edge, Bent Edge, Curved Edge, whatever so that users of Wikipedia will find what they are looking for. I believe what is called for is a compromise and merger not a deletion. I prefer this description from the jagged article "It is intended to be a satirical mockery of the term straight edge." In my mind that is what happened. I therefore humbly submit that Bent Edge be merged into Jagged Edge. I ♥ ♪ ♫ 04:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Urban dictionary is not a rs anyone can add anything to it. Bent edge is notable. Jaged edge is not. There are no RS that talk about that term that i could find. I can't find anything reliable that calls it a "It is intended to be a satirical mockery of the term straight edge." All i can see it that it was a reaction to the growing movement. If the articles were to be merged (jagged edge is turned into a redirect since it has no rs in it)it should say as the names used in real sources. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 2 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) 00:48, 6 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 00:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreamscapes Project

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

Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Only one independent source that serves as a means of promotion for a live concert: [51] Spatulli (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:51, 30 November 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) 00:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the Washington Post article and award are enough to assert notability. The bands own press page suggests there are other sources out there. Kmusser (talk) 17:47, 11 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Jimmy Chow

AfDs for this article:

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

No non-trivial secondary sources; one is an interview with the creators on Ain't It Cool News, one (AppScout) doesn't mention the work at all, and the rest is primary. No notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Agree with reasons above. This is an advertisement for a TV show. Independent secondary sources needed to show notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple independent secondary soures. The only question is whether they are reliable and or provide significant enough coverage. GDallimore (Talk) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I hunted for more references and added a few. Generally this is a tv show appealing mainly to younger audiences, so I have a feeling that we should relax the standards for references somewhat. There are online reviews by users posted about the show, mostly positive -- again, if we draw a tight line here, I think we might be missing something since kids like it and want more information about. So changing my vote to "Weak delete" from "Delete" in a spirit of good faith.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Additional comment: this is a kids' TV show; we're not going to get reviews of it in mainstream press; and I'm not going to weigh in on this debate but I prefer to create not erase. Changed overall view to neutral.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Comment/Correction of error in nomination The AppScout article DOES mention the show: "The Heavy Animation channel will launch with the new sci-fi anime "Kung Fu Jimmy Chow" ". Together with the interview on AICN, that's two secondary sources. Only the AICN interview gives it significant coverage, but the fact it launched a new channel as mentioned by AppScout is pretty significant, I think. But given that the show generated no additional buzz after that or received any commentary that I can see, I'm pretty neutral about whether to delete it or not. GDallimore (Talk) 18:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and MacTribe may now be a dead link but it did also support the assertion of notability that the show was used to launch a Joost channel. If this article survives, I'll see if I can track down an archived copy. GDallimore (Talk) 11:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just about all the reliable source material says the same thing: "Heavy's programming staples include Superficial Friends, Kung Fu Jimmy Chow, The Massive Mating Game, Heavy News, Behind the Music that Sucks, Heavy's Angels, Contagious, Blisster and Tourettes Cowboy." That is not enought material from which to develop a Wikipedia article on the topic. Rewarding the topic with a Wikipedia article becase it was mentioned in AppScout article isn't the Wiki way. The Ain't it Cool News website text would go to the Wikipedia notability of the co-creators of the show, not the show itself, assuming other criteria were met (and, in any event, does not provide enough material about the topic from which to write a Wikipedia article). We would be better off without this non-Wikipedia notable, copyvio attractive nuisance problem. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:46, 30 November 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) 00:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Walbert

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

Article about a member of a (maybe marginally) notable band, and of several non-notable bands. His notability does not extend beyond Where Fear and Weapons Meet (which itself probably does not meet the notability requirements), and he doesn't warrant a separate article. I am undecided about nominating the band; I will watch the discussion on this article before making a decision one way or the other. Horologium (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep automatically notable as member of two bands Delete for lack of standalone notability no matter how many bands he's been in. (Do you get the feeling that I think criterion #6 of WP:BAND is stupid?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his band Where Fear and Weapons Meet, no individual notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree that WP:MUSIC criterion 6 creates too much of an open door to notability by association, but it does make some sense, as it allows for the fact that no single redirect target is appropriate. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 30 November 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) 00:44, 6 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank A. Meyer

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

Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. —J04n(talk page) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ——J04n(talk page) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As J04n says. Theres nothing reliable out there to write a bio from. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Among the sources found by

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

are these books, each with several pages of coverage of the subject, along with many other books and news articles with significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 2 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) 00:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources sufficient for notability. Racepacket (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear kind closing administrator: assuming the sources are added in and translated from German, I would keep the article. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources supposed to be translated from German without violating copyright law? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 7 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 00:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart Chakra: A story of one man's persuit of happiness.

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

Book is not notable, written by non-notable authors, and the article appears to be mainly promotional. The book was published by Lulu (company), which should be indication enough of its lack of notability; furthermore, there are no reliable sources that I could find that say anything about it. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Comment: As more and more authors seem to be using it, being published by Lulu shouldn't be used as a gauge of notability or not. Publishing-on-demand may be the wave of the future. But regardless, the book in question is, in fact, not notable. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the book has reviews in several newspapers. Though regional, that seems to be enough to push the article past notability. I think this is a case of West centric sources laking but Indian ones being available, Sadads (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll grant you this one--what other reviews from notable papers are there? Drmies (talk) 03:30, 30 November 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) 00:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I could not find sources in English to support notability; are there sources in other languages? --MelanieN (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If kept, the title should be changed to spell "pursuit" correctly. (Interesting, the same misspelling is found at the novel's web page, implying a close connection between the novel's promoters and this wikipedia article.) Or, since the subtitle does not appear on the book's cover and may not be part of the title, it could be changed to Heart Chakra (novel). --MelanieN (talk) 22:27, 12 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 00:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards Of Waverly Place 2

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

Article is unsourced and entirely speculation - violation of WP:CRYSTAL. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I was able to find a few sources confirming that such a project exists, at least in the minds of people, but it does not appear to be in production yet, and there is very little that can be verifiably be said about it at this time. We all know that there is much that can change and go wrong between pre-production and release of a film. Per WP:CRYSTAL, let's wait to create the article until there's enough information to make more than a speculative sentence or two. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The usual WP:TOOSOON, wait until Disney releases PR for the film and an actual title, since no way this one is used due to simple confusion with the TV series. Nate • (chatter) 05:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Even if the production did start on November 8... and we have no confirmation... we definitely do not have enough coverage for it to even be close to being an exception to WP:NFF. When we actually do have confirmation and do have some coverage, then a new and better article can be recreated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:32, 6 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.