Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 3

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 2 September 4 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that none of the sources establish the required real-world notability. Courcelles 21:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silverbolt

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Horrible non-free violation as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:57, 3 September 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 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jolt (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 3 September 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 00:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scalpel (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 3 September 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Devastator (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball doesn't mean that I can't make a reasonable prediction about a minor Transformers character that shows no tendency, argued by you or others, to suddenly be more notable than at present. It means that Wikipedia articles— note that I am not an article, and neither is this disussion— should not predict the future. Maybe if in the future there are some reliable, independent sources that do create an amount of significant secondary coverage this article could be created then, but right now, there aren't, and that makes the existence of this article contrary to the general notability guideline. In the meantime, there's no need to be sarcastic; we can build consensus without it. — Chromancer talk/cont 19:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Devastator started out as a one time villian in an episode of a 1985 Saturday morning TV series, then he made a coupe reappearances, then disappeared for a coupel decades, THEN APPEARED IN A BLOCKBUSTER FILM AS THE MAJOR BADDIE. Did you see that coming? Mathewignash (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Lets analyse the USA Today so beloved by Mathewignash [1]

These seven robots — Scavenger, Scrapper, Hightower, Longhaul, Rampage, Overload and Mixmaster — transform into construction machinery, but also link up with one another to form one gigantic robot stomper named Devastator.

"He's made of vehicles designed to build, and he turns into is someone who loves to destroy," Orci says. "He is an agent of absolute chaos."

Bay says Devastator is the crème de la smash and got a uncharacteristic reaction out of the film's executive producer already.


Mathewignash is suggesting we base an entire article on this small paragraph within a reputable article it still fails WP:NOTE for the reasons below

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. This article only briely describes the character hardly signifcant coverage to justify arces of poorly written fancruft. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is another USA Today artcicle where they write "Devastator: 16% of the vote. Tied for second place is the evil Devastator, a giant made of bulldozers, dump trucks and other vehicles, which also transform into a team of individual robots. "What makes Devastator stand out from the crowd is that the six Constructicons combine to form him, making him a truly awesome killing machine — even by Decepticon standards," Budiansky says."Mathewignash (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Going through the many Google new hits[2], I find Wired magazine has an article [3] which list it as "one of the best Transformer toys ever", in reason number 5 of its Top 10 Reasons to Skip Work and Go See Transformers 2. Throughout the Google news results they director mentions Devastator, as though mentioning the movie, as a major reason to go see it, it a notable special effect. Dream Focus 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The coverage isn't fantastic by any means, but the Wired article and the USA Today article are a decent starting point. If SFGate is a reliable source then this would be very useful as well. The character even seems to have passed into popular culture to some extent [4]. Taking this all together, it looks like we may have just enough to meet WP:GNG here - which is saying something, as I haven't seen on other Transformers article that does yet. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Constructicons or something if cannot keep. If even this and Megatron (Beast Era) can't be kept, then we'll have to get rid of all except 3-8 Transformers character articles. NotARealWord (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep How can we miss a chance to use "Modernist Avant-Garde Aesthetics and Contemporary Military Technology" as a source? More seriosly some poking around makes it clear that viable sources exist.©Geni 17:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable character within the Transformers franchise, which appeared in the toyline, cartoon, comic books, and film. BOZ (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the article based along the different series, merge into their respective series character lists, and convert to a disambiguation page. Significant character in both G1 and the second live-action film. —Farix (t | c) 22:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm starting to think keep isn't to bad, considering that, unlike other TF articles which are about different characters of the same name, this is just the many Devastators directly based on the original, so they're kinda the same character. NotARealWord (talk) 02:42, 10 September 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. —fetch·comms 01:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sideways (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. The creation of a List of Transformers character and the possible merger should be discussed on the appropriate talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rampage (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment- Notable in the franchise does not equal notability in real life. PLus, the article is about multiple unrelated characters. The only "Rampage" that was a significant character on its own was the Beast Wars one. NotARealWord (talk) 16:22, 8 September 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) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reedman

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

Non-notable fictional character sourced only to primary sources and thus fails WP:GNG. A merge to a minor characters list is usually appropriate here but none appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I strongly oppose making a redirect for a minor character. NotARealWord (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seriously how many bad transformers articles are there gonna be it has no sources and doesn't assert notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:09, 7 September 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) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Group

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

This looks like an advertisement with no substantial sourcing. It has been tagged for over 9 months without any addition of sources. Looks like the article is not covered by point 4 here : Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING#ADVERTISING and delete per WP:ORG Nsaa (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the sources are fairly weak. However, the first and last sources provided by SBHB offer significant coverage of this organization. The sources are reliable, being from the BBC and Guardian, and independent from the subject. Satisfies WP:N, therefore keep. -Atmoz (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with all of you. The group has significant coverage as pointed out by Short Brigade Harvester Boris and nicely analyzed by Atmoz. As far as I see the article should be completely rewritten and scaled down using reliable sources mentioned above (and others) per one of our core policies WP:V (WP:RS says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered;"). P.t. the content should be thrown out. I.e. delete the article as it stands now, or maybe moved to an userspace where it can be updated with sources, and then moved back to the mainspace when this work has been completed. Is that a good solution? As it stands it should be deleted or we are acting as an press release agency. Nsaa (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a better solution would be to stubify the article, but keep it in mainspace so that anyone can update it. -Atmoz (talk) 16:40, 5 September 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. Courcelles 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Welborn

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

Contested prod. Only reference on the page is an blog article she wrote. Non-notable blogger DJSasso (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Surely needs better sources, but she appears to be a notable blogger, with numerous Ghits. Whether there's enough there to meet encyclopedic notability is another matter. JNW (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google hits don't mean a thing, and counting them is neither research nor a useful thing to do for AFD. What AFD, and indeed Wikipedia as whole, requires in support of this article are multiple, independent, reliable, published works documenting this person's life and works in depth. The article cites none, and when a request was made for some on the article's talk page back in 2006, it was answered with nothing more than yet more autobiography. Uncle G (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suspect nobody made much effort to answer these issues before now. Some of those Google hits were for interviews-- I've added five-- which support notability. These aren't sources that I'm familiar with, but I believe most of them qualify as reliable, and some offer enough biographical content to more fully flesh out the article. JNW (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - based on new sourcing, and my quick review of sources returned by google news, scholar, and books, there are plenty of reliable source mentions, some significant. One of two USA Today sources calls her "...author of numerous books and a columnist for Catholic Newspapers, wrote one of the best-known Catholic blogs, Open Book..." (which seems to be a direct assertion of notability). She seems to be a fairly prolific author on the national scene, and her stories and comments are widely cited in news reports and discussions of blogging and the things she's blogged about (which would satisfy WP:AUTH). - Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: This was a highly reckless nomination. A simple search unveils countless non-trivial reliable sources. Passes WP:GNG. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:53, 6 September 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 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of international public administration societies

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

Linkfarm; Public administration society doesn't have article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:52, 3 September 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 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boone Jenner

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

Expired prod that should have been deleted but an editor removed the prod because I forgot an edit summary. Non-notable junior player who has yet to play professionally and fails WP:NSPORTS can be recreated when/if he achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:GNP is an essay that was based on the old WP:ATHLETE which a couple months ago was replaced by WP:NSPORTS, so the athlete section of that essay is out of date. WP:CRYSTAL is why we don't create it now because lots of junior level players who are said to play in the NHL soon never actually reach that level. Sometimes for talent level, sometimes for accidents or injuries. Undeleting the article when they are notable is not difficult. Also a single news article is not sufficient to meet the notability guidelines, you need multiple ones that feature significant coverage of them. Various sites that just list him or his stats are not considered enough to meet notability. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 6 September 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 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Saad

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

Disputed prod. Non-notable junior hockey player who has yet to play professionally. Fails to meet WP:NSPORTS. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. DJSasso (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, one level below. The American system doesn't have a major-junior rank. The USHL is Tier-I Jr A, so their equivalent to the CHL, while the NAHL is Tier-II, or their equivalent of the CJHL in Canada. Since it is not a perfect analogue, I'm not inclined to !vote delete on this, especially since I have a good feeling that it would be re-created before the 2011 Draft if he keeps his ranking in the top ten. Resolute 14:43, 6 September 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. —fetch·comms 01:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of stage names

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

Almost every actor, singer, etc. has used a stage name at some point. Absolutely no criterion for inclusion, very much indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Absolutely no criterion for inclusion is untrue.
The criteria (not issued by me) are clearly stated at the beginning of the article.
  • Almost every actor, singer, etc. has used a stage name at some point.
We have no way to know if this is/is not true as it is an unsourced personal assertion. I personally doubt it but I might be wrong.
  • Otters want attention hasn't made any suggestions for improving or making the list, into which a great deal of thought and effort by Wikipedians have gone, more exclusive or less exhaustive. There is nothing unencyclopaedic about the list, and it is informative. In the interest of full disclosure I admit to having made numerous contributions. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I read WP:EFFORT. I knew that my comment "into which a great deal of thought and effort by Wikipedians have gone" wasn't a winning argument, nor was it meant to be. It was just a fact to point out. If the article can't be improved perhaps that's because -- the "hugeness" of the list notwithstanding (it is not indiscriminate as I have established) -- the list is fine as it is. Actually I do have a suggestion: musicians/music-related names could be separated from actors' names and made into a separate list making two much smaller lists, if that is any better. I have no problem with that, as I am not the list's creator anyway. Respectfully submitted. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the inclusion criteria seem at first reading too vague, they are not as bad as they appear, though challenging at first (and if this list is not patrolled, there will likely be lots of names added which dont meet criteria). they are to my reading a set of complex but rational and clearly delineated exclusion criteria to eliminate people with different name stories than the one focused on here. Stage name is a highly notable subject. And, setting aside my personal interest for a second, it does seem to be a popular article, so its not exactly useless if people are using it, about 300-500 hits per day. Doing a thumbnail estimate, i get 4500 names on this list. WP lists 13000 american film actors, so there MAY be 50% more actors (thus 20000) on WP if you include foreign and TV actors. Its a large subset, but not a majority. I would see the argument for deletion if most actors did use stage names, but they dont seem to. I would say this is not indiscriminate: stage names are chosen by actors, and the acting world encourages image manipulation, including renaming. they are in a sense taking a stand on the issue of whether they keep their birth name or try for something "better". This is not eye color, and it directly relates to their notability as actors, who bank on their name. I wonder, though, if we could trim out people in the pornography business, as its not really notable that they use a stage name. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea by Mercurywoodrose (re removing porn actors, not a one of which was ever added by me by the way -- they have their own groupies!!) We could also, as I mentioned earlier, separate names by actors and musicians, creating two smaller lists, although there are undoubtedly some individuals which would be impossible to pigeon-hole as they are both actors and musicians. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stage names are important, but I don't think a list of stage names is important. It seems to me that if one wants to find out if a particular actor uses or has used a stage name, they would just go to the page on that person; I don't know what purpose a list of stage names serves. Roscelese (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, Roscelese: not every page or article is necessarily as well-maintained as this list. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be a reason to improve those pages, rather than to have a list that is unlikely to serve any purpose. (Or I could be wrong; would your first try be "List of stage names" if you wanted to find out an actor's stage name?) Roscelese (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably check the actor's page first. However, since there are thousands of names I see no reason why a list which is "well organized and useful, easy to browse or search" (as noted below by MelanieN) should not be kept. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was all for delete when I saw the article title - I thought, what a hopeless subject, it'll just be a bloatfarm! But I changed my mind when I saw the article. It is well organized and useful, easy to browse or search, and every name is a bluelink, in other words notable. It is exactly what the name states - a "list". Wikipedia does have room for lists, and this (to my surprise) is a good one. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I wouldn't suggest trying to separate musicians from actors. As Rms points out, there is a lot of overlap. However, pulling out the porn stars to a separate article might make sense, since virtually NONE of them perform under their real names. --MelanieN (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notable topic: Stage names. Meets requirements of WP:SAL some splitting or winnowing as suggested above is probably warranted. I am surprised that no one noticed that this is really a list of actor's real names as all the article links are actually to stage names not real names.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:40, 10 September 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.

White working class

edit

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article is POV and not encyclopaedic. BigDom More tea, vicar? 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Original research, and very POV. Article is basically an attack on the supposed "WLMC". Stonemason89 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Let's take a look at the initial article, the piece as it sat when it was was originally proposed for deletion, shall we? Sometimes that's the best way to determine the intent of an article:
"'White working class (frequently abbreviated "WWC") is the portion of the working class composed of white people.
"It is contrasted with the white liberal middle class (frequently abreviated WLMC) as a voting block and an exemplar of intra-racial class conflict[1]
"The WLMC know that the WWC hate “The Other” – the blacks, the Asians, the Muslims. But it does not occur to them that they themselves are the greatest Other-haters of all, in their revulsion of the WWC who are too close to themselves for comfort, and whom they use to project upon their own sins, their own real and reverse racism."
This is absolutely white nationalist POV. It has subsequently "been made more encyclopedic" by the creator — now it's a POV trojan horse, in my estimation. Which is to say: a seemingly serious and scholarly article (with a link to a pdf of a paper from the Brookings Insitution, no less) which is DESIGNED to advance a particular POV objective on the basis of the wording of the article title. If it doesn't explicitly push the POV as hard as it did, it probably will again in the future, if allowed to sneak through the deletion process.
The fundamental "thesis" being pushed in this article — that there is "intra-racial class conflict" within the white communities of various multi-racial countries between the white middle class and the white working class on the basis of the racial views of the latter — is a contrived fringe theory with no widespread scholarly acceptance. Carrite (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Edited: Carrite (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is also worth noting that the creator of the article, Jabowery, is a self-confessed Stormfront activist who originally came here as a meatpuppet to push POV: [11]. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure essay, pure POV. There could possibly be a reasonable, sociologically based article on this subject. But this isn't it - and probably any such article would quickly become a POV storm and vandalism target. The sources provided are all POV themselves, things like op-ed articles and Fox News "analysis", carefully chosen to contrast the "white working class" with the "liberal" middle class. I don't see any way this article could be saved by editing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think that, while the article defines a popular term and cites news that trace the use of the term and address of the group to which it refers through recent political developments, it is not of significant value to the public. The urban dictionary will suffice to define the term to any who wish for it. I do not perceive this to be worthy of encyclopedic recognition on Wikipedia ([[WP:Notability). The article also violates WP:NPOV though author(s) tried to reach a neutral point of view by citing several distinct points of view; they all agree, so nothing is gained and it remains non-neutral. Only if enough editors are willing to contribute verifiable conclusions from scholarly research (the article only says that relevant studies exist and omits their conclusions) should this article be kept. Paulmnguyen (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the article currently stands, it is a from a POV and written in a non-encyclopedic tone. While this may indeed by a notable subject, the article would require a fundamental rewrite, and can therefore be deleted and recreated if it is NPOV and not an essay. —fetch·comms 01:30, 11 September 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) 00:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duffek

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

No references, no claim of notability, poorly written, and amateurish. Looks like someone simply wanted to write an article about his own family. The editor has also repeatedly removed the improvement templates, which indicates he is not interested in making the article better. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion aside from nominator JForget 22:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Bertram

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

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2009)" has been in place since Sept 2009 RedBlue82 talk 22:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only other viable option would be to merge it into the Mansfield Park article but it's too long for that. Note that an article lacking sources is not reason for deletion, if there are reliable sources that exist: "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." First Light (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not a great article - it is totally in-universe and without sourcing. But the same seems to be true of a dozen other articles about the other major characters from the same novel. If that's the norm, there is no reason to single this one out for deletion. And don't quote WP:OTHERSTUFF to me. In this case it seems that this has become the accepted, standard way to handle the characters from this novel, as well as from Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, etc. Random deletion of one such article would serve no purpose and in fact would be counterproductive. Only if there a consensus to eliminate all separate character descriptions would that be appropriate, and it seems clear that the consensus is rather to do it the way it has been done. --MelanieN (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unruh temperature

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

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)" Tag has been in place since May 2009 RedBlue82 talk 22:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could expand it quite a bit. A nice leisurely derivation of the equation is the obvious thing. Not making any promises I'll get to it, but somebody could. False vacuum (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have removed the only excuse for this charade, by means of adding two references to the article. I wanted to wait till after the AfD was dismissed, but I couldn't stand it. Please do not attempt to use this method to force me to work on other articles; I'm not very reliable. False vacuum (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Unruh effect. Not a good AfD per above. --Kkmurray (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If merging is going to be seriously considered, I hope there's a separate proposal and discussion, after this AfD is closed. "Merge" should not be the outcome of a frivolous deletion proposal, and there's a detailed discussion to be had that's probably not going to happen here. False vacuum (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just found out—to my utter astonishment—that Unruh temperature receives an average of 271 page views a day. False vacuum (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those data seem to be incorrect [16] . There may be a spike do this review. In any case, it is irrelevant to the discussion of notability / whether it should have a separate article. Danski14(talk) 17:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; since I don't know where the information in the page I linked to comes from, and since it would be reasonable to expect a spike, I agree that seems plausible. For those who don't have time to follow Danski14's link above, it gives pageview statistics per month, and reports that the article being discussed has been viewed around 200 times in each of the last several months except July, for which it reports zero. I have no idea how reliable it is, but that particular number is unlikely to be correct if the others are. Anyway, I agree the statistics are not directly relevant to whether the U.t. should have its own article, but I would contend that they are relevant to the question of notability—though it seems a bit odd that notability would even be mentioned at this point. I don't see anyone suggesting the subject isn't notable, not even the original nominator. False vacuum (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if improved, but do not delete. It is a pretty thin and weak article. Needs more solid text and discussion. Give the supporters 4 weeks to improve, else merge it. It does not deserve to be standalone, unless gets improved. But no point in deleting it. History2007 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Unruh effect#The equation, which would more aptly be named Unruh effect#Unruh temperature. (Personally I'd present the equation in the form kT = ..., with a dimension of energy, as is done at Bill Unruh#The Unruh effect.) In any case, should obviously not be simply deleted.  --Lambiam 21:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Leaving it as is just might motivate me to study and write up that derivation. Do people think an article that does an accessible derivation is a bad idea? I notice that Hawking temperature redirects to Hawking radiation; maybe I should throw in with the mergeists, but Wikipedia is developing a bit of a status quo bias. False vacuum (talk) 01:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. How long do these things usually last? There seems to be a unanimous consensus for not deleting the article, in addition to the fact that the rationale for the deletion proposal no longer exists. We can discuss expanding vs. merging it separately. (Even if I decided to merge it, I couldn't just unilaterally do it now, right?) Is somebody supposed to ask an admin to close the discussion? Or shall I nominate it for deletion? (Joke.) False vacuum (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion debates usually last a week, except for cases where deletion is non-debatable and cases where there is no consensus, or more input is needed. Merging, instead of deleting is always an option that can be discussed in such debates. Danski14(talk) 17:40, 8 September 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 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reprise (Moose EP)

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

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007)" in place since June of 2007 RedBlue82 talk 22:24, 3 September 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 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communal anarchy

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

Neo-logism, no content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. :-) Borock (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a pretty solid case to be made that Wikipedia is anarchist in essence. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure And a a case that it's not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actual practice v. formal platitudes. Carrite (talk) 22:55, 4 September 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 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientific publications by people under 20 years of age

edit
List of scientific publications by people under 20 years of age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary list of mainly original research. No indication why this would be notable. Originally, this was for people 20 years plus 3 months at the time of their first publication. Now it is 20. Are there any reliable sources on this subject? Prod was denied, so now we're here. Crusio (talk) 21:42, 3 September 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 00:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iona Leigh

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

Got two hit she realsed and album but as far as i can tell no chart records Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:55, 3 September 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 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony E. Meyer

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

Fails WP:GNG cant find much about him anywhere Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:30, 3 September 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 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Stuckey

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

Found a few sources that proves he exists, but not much to make a biography out of Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:12, 3 September 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 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asteras Nikaias

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

Article is about a non-notable amateur football club playing in the regional sixth or seventh tier of the Greek football pyramid. The club has never played at a higher (professional) level and there is very little coverage of the club in English or Greek sources (I found a pair of Greek blog entries, but nothing significant). Jogurney (talk) 18:48, 3 September 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 under WP:CSD#A9. Airplaneman ✈ 21:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amor Mío (Eddie Dee album)

edit
Amor Mío (Eddie Dee album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONGS. Derild4921☼ 18:34, 3 September 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. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. Anybody who objects is free to revert this close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rooks

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

Unsourced BLP for which I can find no significant independent coverage to verify notability. The closest thing to a reliable source I found was this, which is not exactly a glowing endorsement for the man or his company. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although he did indeed achieve an award [17], I'm not sure this rises to a high enough level to make the award recipients automatically notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think he makes it as notable. The award does appear to be significant - it is given to only one person a year, and it is from a major professional society. I edited the article, added a reference and some books he has co-authored. I also verified that he is licensed and his license is clear. (I checked because there are various attacks on him and his facility in blogs and non-reliable sources on the web, and Ponyo above found a reference in an Iowa newspaper to a court case against him; but as I said, the California veterinary board [18] doesn't list any actions or restrictions against his license.) --MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given Melanie's great work in finding sources for the article and detective work on the licensing issues, I withdraw my original concerns regarding the article; however given that there is a delete vote included then the AfD will need to run its full course. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 13:19, 9 September 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) 00:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Network Suggestion Plan

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

Appears to be an attempt to hide a BLP. Unreferenced and highly promotional, focuses on one individual for a relatively non-notable program to streamline one corporation's employee suggestion plan. He is mentioned on a single page of a book about the GM-UAW "quality partnership" [19], and the ostensible topic of the article only has 523 hits ("Quality Network Suggestion Plan" -Wikipedia [20]), and is mentioned on only three pages of the same book. [21] Horologium (talk) 18:09, 3 September 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 00:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Pharmaceuticals

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

Contested prod. Article is about a pharmaceuticals company with no reliable sources provided and none found. I only found press releases and social media sites such as LinkedIn. I don't see how this is a notable company. TNXMan 17:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Astronaut is also nominating the following related pages because it is a subsidary of the company in the nominated article and the article has the same problems - no reliable sources:

Taj Agro India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Higgins

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

Unsourced BLP of an artist who does not meet general notability criteria evidenced through significant independent coverage, nor does she meet the more specific WP:CREATIVE. The article was created by User:Artistorganizedart, which is the website of the only link included in the article, therefore it would appear that, in addition to the sourcing and notability issues, the article is a promotional piece. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:37, 3 September 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) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Show Podcast

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

Article was prodded in May 2010, contested, and re-prodded by the same IP in violation of WP:CONTESTED. I am procedurally listing here in accordance with AGF.

Prod rationale was "Article is not notable for an encyclopedia, an obscure podcast done out of someone's basement, the article sources are not notable, a YouTube channel and a couple of blog entries are not reliable sources."

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:28, 3 September 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) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sprout e-course

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

No indicia of encyclopedic notability for this "e-course" started in 2008. bd2412 T 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sampsonia Way

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

Non-notable online magazine fails WP:WEB. A google search or google news search returns a lot of hits, but the vast majority of the hits are for something else with the same name (i.e. a popular street in Pittsburgh, a popular art installation on that street, an organization which provides housing for persecuted foreign writers, etc.) Very few hits on the magazine itself. All of the sources that are currently in this article are either not reliable, trivial coverage, regurgitated press releases, or primary sources. No sources exist which establish notability per WP:GNG. Article created by single purpose account. SnottyWong express 17:14, 3 September 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. Not a strong consensus in either direction at this point in time. Could be re-nominated, for another discussion about it, at some later point in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Adams

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

I created this in February, with the mistaken belief that meeting WP:ATHLETE guaranteed meeting WP:GNG. With the benefit of twice as much experience as I had then, I now know that is not the case. Having pondered this for several weeks, I have decided to nominate it for deletion, and indeed to argue that it should be deleted. The subject fails WP:BLP, (specifically WP:BLP1E) and the general notability guideline. By extension, he cannot be kept under WP:NSPORTS, which is a junior to those respective policies and guidelines. --WFC-- 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of those who do not have access to the sources, Reference 1 is purely statistical, and apart from one mention of his name and an "X" to indicate the match Adams played in, does not mention him at all. Reference 2 consists of 55 words on Adams, plus his basic info such as name, date of birth, place of birth and clubs. --WFC-- 17:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for consistency. There are quite a few articles of players who have played just a few minutes of professional football, so surely this player is just as notable? J Mo 101 (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To answer your question, I'd say yes, he is just as notable as most players who have played one game. But the fact of the matter is that he doesn't meet the GNG or BLP1E, and nor do most of the others that you elude to. --WFC-- 18:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So how many appearances does a player have to make to be considered notable - Two? Five? Ten? Where do you draw the line? It's a borderline case, but my thoughts are that satisfying WP:ATH in this case is sufficient given the player made a full appearance rather than a brief cameo as a substitute. J Mo 101 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that it will probably never be possible to tie down a precise figure, hence why we have a rough guideline (WP:NSPORTS) which can and should be overrided if it is at odds with more established guidelines or policy. My view is that it can be argued that a player with two appearances has two distinct claims to notability. BLP1E explicitly states that "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." The sources only cover him in the context of a single event, and given that he is 79, it seems extremely likely that he will remain low profile. It goes on to say that "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." The match was not a particularly remarkable or significant event, and outside of indiscriminate statistical books and websites, I doubt it's covered anywhere. --WFC-- 20:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whilst I understand the point being made by the proposer I believe the article should remain as the footballer has played in a notable league. I have added another reference, and though it does not provide detail of his life, surely player articles should be focused on the details of a player's career rather than wider biographical information? As a further point, if a league is regarded as being notable does it not follow that footballers who have played in that league are also notable? Eldumpo (talk) 09:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While grateful for the extra pair of eyes, the extra ref adds little beyond tertiary confirmation of what Trefor Jones (a secondary source) has given us. In answer to your first question, I'd argue that unless something turns up about Whipton (and for the record even I have played at a higher level than that), his career has been covered exhaustively. In answer to your second question, no. --WFC-- 10:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having a notability bar helps to balance the bias of older players who were around before the internet age. Isn't Adams likely to have newspaper reports etc, and have these been checked for? Out of interest, would you say this footballer would also be a candidate for AfD? Eldumpo (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I completely reject that generally expecting players to have made two appearances in any way increases systemic bias- one-game careers are more common now, in the age of the League Cup and of substitutes. I haven't checked the newspaper archives (although page 6 of The Official Centenary History of Watford FC would seem to suggest that searching the early 1950s or earlier could prove futile), but I don't see how that would make much of a difference, as he would still only have played one notable game. Given that he didn't score, I'm curious as to what you think we'd find that could alter my deletion rationale. And no, I wouldn't say Ernie Wright is a candidate for AfD. He played over 40 matches for four Football League clubs, and scored goals in the process. That's a case of an article that could do with expansion. This is a case of an article that in all honesty has been expanded about as far as it could ever possibly be, and shouldn't have been created in the first place on the basis of policy that I didn't fully understand at that stage. --WFC-- 11:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • But by which Wikipedia guidelines/policies do you come to the conclusion that Wright's 40+ FL appearances are worthy of an article when Adams' one game is not. Why does scoring league goals confer additional notability in your view - isn't that a bias against goalkeepers/defenders? Eldumpo (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are increasingly demonstrating a lack of judgement by taking every letter literally, rather than showing an ability to analyse the bigger picture. A player that didn't make a match-changing contribution in a solitary third division south game is not going to garner national attention, and if he was covered at all by the local paper, it would only be in the context of that individual event. On the other hand, it can reasonably be presumed that a player who made 40+ appearances with multiple clubs and who made (at least) five game-affecting contributions has garnered sufficient, sustained coverage to merit an encyclopaedic entry. It's a reasonable assumption that if a player plays one game and fades into obscurity, he probably did not have much of an impact in that one game. If that assumption is proved wrong in individual instances of someone meeting the GNG, our policies already provide scope for that, subject to consensus. --WFC-- 12:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to by 'taking every letter literally', I am just trying to answer points you have made, although surely Wikipedia guidelines and policies are the starting point for any AfD discussion. I thought the general consensus was that one appearance conferred notability (and that may still be the case, we could do with some more views here). Whilst AfD's can be regarded as individual cases, the results of them can (and are) clearly taken on board on future AfD's. Should this AfD be successful I am struggling to see what would prevent a number of other 1-game player articles being deleted at AfD, and then why not 3-games, 10-games etc? Surely we're trying to build the encyclopedia, and as long as they're sourced we shouldn't effectively be placing arbitrary limits on what constitutes a notable number of games. Another point is that various stats sources (Michael Joyce, Neil Brown, Rothmans etc) consider playing a single Football League game to be notable, and don't differentiate by number of appearances. Eldumpo (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't "consider them to be notable", they indiscriminantly list in a statistical table anyone who has ever played a game at that level. Huge difference there. In regards to your main point, nothing at all would stop other 1-game-career articles being deleted at AfD (indeed, the first one that I'm aware of was actually deleted in July). The reason that it will not be able to be extended to two or more games is that I am conceding that the consensus view is that an "event" (a match) is borderline notable, but enforcing the policy which states that people notable for only one event should not normally have an article. It would be impossible to argue the same for someone who is notable for two distinct events. --WFC-- 21:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails by a long way WP:GNG in that there is no significant coverage on this player. Codf1977 (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not shown by an appearance, it is shown through significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:ATH or NSPORTS are guidelines as to when that coverage is likely to be present but they do not replace the GNG. In cases where it is doubtful then we should revert to the GNG rather than debate the minutae of the sports guidelines. This person has had a couple of mentions but the coverage is not significant or in depth, so I say delete. Quantpole (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the bar is actually reasonably low for footballers in some respects, encyclopaedias record notable things. GNG is not the only measure of notability - achieving a feat or level of achievement also becomes noteworthy regardless of so called coverage.--ClubOranjeT 09:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What policy or guideline are you referring to there? Quantpole (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ATHLETE--ClubOranjeT 12:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from right at the top of that guideline:

This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the criteria. It is not enough to make vague claims about the person's importance—the sourcing in the article itself must document notability.

Would you care to explain how your !vote is in line with that? Quantpole (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Association_football states criteria to be Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed in a fully-professional league Article contains reliable sources to show that to be the case.--ClubOranjeT 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That's a general rule as to when it is thought people will meet the GNG. It does not give 'automatic notability' to anyone - that is only done through the GNG. Do you have any comment over what the top of the page at ATH says or are you just going to ignore it? Quantpole (talk) 22:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC) Djsasso, if you're reading, this is precisely why NSPORTS is a waste of space[reply]
Would you rather the original WP:ATHLETE, because I doubt we would get any better than we got....we only barely got this. And athlete allowed in far more people. I would note however, that the soccer standards do seem to be far lower than most other sports, hockey and baseball for example require you to play at the highest level league.... perhaps this is an area to improve. I don't follow soccer to know what the equivalent would be. -DJSasso (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand in the states professional athletes would typically have played at college which in itself generates a huge amount of coverage, and speculation regarding players and so on. That just isn't the case for football (soccer) in the UK, so I agree with you on that point. My main problem with all these guidelines though is that for players on the borderline, such as this person, the discussion ends up being about whether they meet the arbitrary guideline rather than about the coverage they have received. Quantpole (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is unfortunate, which is why the goal should be to get that arbitrary guideline slightly higher than the point where pretty much 100% of the people will easily have sources. That way people that are borderline cases shouldn't have an issue finding sources easily within a very short search...anyways this is off topic of this article so I will stop now :) -DJSasso (talk) 23:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm going to make sure that I tone down the language I've used in the recent past. But's hard to see the above as anything other than an WP:ILIKEIT vote; you have explicitly stated that a footballer is immune to the burden of demonstrating general notability that all other biographies are subject to. --WFC-- 12:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not explicitly stated that at all. I have only suggested that achievement can be a qualifying criteria - for all biographies - regardless of what sources are available. Becoming President of an independent country is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia without "in depth" coverage. A reliable source showing the notability is all that is required. Verifiability is the core principle of Wikipedia. If this player made his solitary appearance this year there would be a thousand garbage weblog articles about the lad and many users would be clamouring to say lots of coverage about him, must be notable. This player has achieved exactly the same, but did it in 1952. I don't subscribe to the theory that a few web hits makes a subject notable. Player passes ATHLETE, low as the threshold is, go find the sources. If you want the page deleted so badly, blank it and claim G7 as only significant contributor.--ClubOranjeT 12:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are explicitly stating that a player doesn't have to pass the GNG (and indeed does not have to meet our usual requirement of generally being notable for at least two events) so long as he passes ATHLETE. Interestingly, you are also comparing someone who played one game in a third parrallel national sports league with the leader of a country, which is highly questionable even if we pick a small country like Iceland. Yes, there probably would be a bunch of unreliable webblogs on him if he played today, along with generic sports coverage that doesn't go into any depth. So what? And I can't G7, because regardless of whether I find it redundant, Eldumpo has made a significant contribution. Even if he hadn't, to delete when I know that there is a discussion to be had would be a bad faith move. --WFC-- 13:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)underline text added subsequently --WFC-- 13:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But fails the WP:GNG with lack of any form of coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your point being...? He passes WP:ATHLETE, that is enough for an article. GiantSnowman 13:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not - if you read the very first line of WP:ATHLETE it says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sportsperson, sports league, or an amateur/professional sports league organization will meet the general notability guideline", in this case there is no evidence what so ever that Laurie Adams does pass the WP:GNG despite the help that WP:ATHLETE gives us, in this example it does not work. Codf1977 (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would note that the nominator indicates that the athlete fails BLP1E. Which is not true, athletes are not notable just for the single game they played at the highest level they reached but for their entire career up to that point. BLP1E is more for flashes in the pan, like a victim in a crime etc. It amuses me somewhat that he is arguing against what is perceived as an incorrect use of one policy with the incorrect use of another. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above comment proves that DJSasso has not even read the article, and has come on here purely to antagonise me as he is desperate to protect his pet project. --WFC-- 21:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read the article. Comments like this are not helpful. Athletes generally aren't considered to be a BLP1E issue if they only played one game at the top level, because they have also played many games before that at other levels. Its a series of events. BLP1E is about single news events such as someone who was a victim in a crime. Or someone who won a contest to kick a field goal from 50 yards out to win a million dollars and did it successfully. But a professional athlete is not one of those cases, because an athlete will have a trail of notable events before he even plays a single game in a pro league. I am not desperate to protect my pet project because the odds of nsports ever getting stronger than it already is is pretty much nil anyways. What I am doing however, is pointing out an invalid argument which is what people are supposed to do at Afd. -DJSasso (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although acutely aware that the following sentence will land me in hot water, it's relevant, so I'm going to do it. To claim that athletes are not subject to BLP1E is a complete lie. There would be merit to that argument if he had spent much of his career on the cusp of the Football League. But if you have indeed read this article, you will be aware that there is literally no back story to this guy's football career. He served in the army (as every single able bodied man of his age did), played a single game at the third/fourth tier of English football, his registration was retained by the club but they decided never to use him and that there was no value in attempting to sell him, and he then drifted off into complete obscurity. --WFC-- 21:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right but in order to play in a pro game he would have had to play amateur at some point and been notable enough at it for a pro team to allow him to play. Thus he has more than one event that made him notable, his time as a good amateur, and his game as a pro. I haven't !voted in this afd because I don't generally get involved in afd on sports I don't follow closely. He may very well be delete worthy because there are no sources, I am just pointing out that BLP1E means that someone should be deleted even if there are sources because its only from one event. And that generally isn't the case for an athlete, an athlete is notable for their career, not a single game they played. A career is multiple events. -DJSasso (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • That is akin to saying that anyone who has done anything in their field is immune to BLP1E. This event was instigated by a man who committed smaller crimes before the big one. Why is he subject to BLP1E? Probably because we don't see common assault as a stepping stone to notability for a criminal. It's a slightly distasteful example, but the principal does hold. The same might go for a comedian in a medium-sized town's night club, who wins a competition to support a Lee Evans gig at the O2. Masem explained it better here than I ever could ever hope to.
            • On topic: Whipton really are off the scale as far as notability is concerned. I'd equate them to a lower league rugby union team in California. Let's say that Watford were to suffer the sort of implosion that now obscure clubs have suffered in the past, and I go on to play one game for them in League Two because they have ten players, no money and I'm willing to do it for free. Given that all players with appearances at level 1-4 of the English football league system are notable, and all players with appearances solely at level 5 or below are non-notable, would I be notable for my handful of games as a teenager at level 10? No, I would be notable for the Watford game, and the Watford game only. Therefore, BLP1E is relevant and applicable. --WFC-- 18:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG, specifically the section #Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. It is correct to say that WP:NSPORTS provides "bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline" (my highlighting), and this subject does pass the Association football criteria of NSPORTS, and did pass WP:ATH at time of creation, for presumed notability. Given that, it's down to GNG. We have to consider "not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be". I have no personal knowledge of whether this footballer's career was covered in any detail in the newspapers of the time: perhaps it wasn't. But I do know, because he says so above, that the nominator hasn't looked. That isn't an assumption of bad faith on his part: much as some of us would like to, it isn't generally possible to spend one's life buried in newspaper archives. GNG states that "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources". The nominator suggests it isn't likely that significant coverage can be found. He may well be right, but from experience of just how much newspaper coverage there was of sport and sportspeople in the pre-television era, he may well be wrong. For disclosure, I also am a member of WP:WikiProject Football, though I hope that doesn't preclude me from thinking for myself. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would give your argument more credence if there were loads of well sourced articles on footballers (and cricketers too whilst we are at it), who have played such a limited amount. The problem is that these articles aren't created by doing thorough searches for sources about particular people. They are created by looking through statistics sites or journals, and then stay in that state forever afterwards. Eventualism doesn't seem to be working for these sorts of articles. Periodically these articles pop up at AfD but are kept by appealing to this arbitrary rule which has never been proven (i.e. someone playing a single game meets the GNG). Quantpole (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So much to do, so little time... Wikipedia may not have a deadline, but its editors have. If I'm going to expand an article on one of "my" club's footballers, then unless I'm incredibly motivated with time and money to spare, I'm going to choose one that can be done reasonably well from online sources and from books already in my possession, rather than one that requires a several-hundred-mile round trip to the library where the appropriate newspaper archives live, hoping the microfilm viewers aren't all occupied by family historians and the issues I need aren't in use by someone else. If eventualism is a problem, it isn't one specific to athletes; where every bit of running water with a name is notable, it isn't difficult to find stubs like this, this and this which have existed unsourced and unaltered for years.
On your last point, one might argue that if articles are regularly kept by appealing to an arbitrary rule, de facto consensus is that said arbitrary rule does meet the GNG. Not that I am arguing that. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's somewhat mitigated by the fact that in the vast majority of cases, it is editors with a specific interest in football that do so. One might also argue that many editors at WikiProject Football see the beautiful game to be above the GNG, as evidenced by up to three of the keep arguments in this AfD (although for balance it's worth stating that two refuted and one admitted this when questioned). --WFC-- 17:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Our notability guidelines are guidelines that give rise to presumptions, not guarantees, of notability. Playing one match of football might technically get him past NSPORT, but any "presumption" caused by that is outweighed by the failure to pass GNG. We need to understand these guidelines are not black letter law. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Articles should not be brought to AfD until a thorough WP:BEFORE check has been undertaken. Now, due to the length of time that has passed since Adams played in the League, there are no available sources on the internet and only passing mentions in books. But without looking through local newspaper archives or football magazines from the time, we can't say for certain whether or not he was notable, and that's why I have declined to !vote one way or the other in this discussion. For all we know, Adams may have been the subject of newspaper articles purporting him to be the best up-and-coming footballer at the club. He may have made an impression on his debut with either a very good (or very bad!) performance. Until proof is given one way or the other I cannot, in good faith, support the deletion of this article. In the case of the other player you referred to earlier, Gavin Massey, it was shown that other coverage didn't exist - hence the article was deleted. In all honesty, it might well be the same here but until someone shows us different, I think there's a reasonable chance that there are sources out there somewhere. For what it's worth, I don't buy into the BLP1E argument either; that guideline is really to prevent misinformation being written about living people. I think that you really mean WP:BIO1E, which is subtly different as it is more about general notability rather than BLP policy. BigDom More tea, vicar? 13:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Potato potato. Sadly that doesn't work quite so well on wiki. While WP:BEFORE is not obligatory, I nonetheless strongly maintain that I've followed it, having checked four of the most recognised published sources on the club (on which Adams is entirely dependant for any claim to notability) as well as the internet. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that a Third Division South player received no substantial coverage in national papers. And if coverage in the likes of The Independent and RTE isn't enough to save an article for deletion, I'm not quite sure why coverage in the Watford Observer or Walsall-based equivalent would. --WFC-- 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't get me wrong, this isn't a keep !vote by any means. I even said above that the sources probably don't exist and I am leaning towards delete, although it is pretty academic at this stage as it will probably get closed as "no consensus" (which, for some reason, is the same as keep). There's not much gained in linking to a previous AfD discussion; Wikipedia is hardly known for consistency is it... Cheers, BigDom More tea, vicar? 19:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess there's an argument that NSPORTS brings consistency to wikipedia articles. Obviously that's outweighed by the fact that it gives footballers by far the lowest notability threshold on the site (unless you're unfortunate enough to pass the GNG but ply your trade in a country where all football biographies are explicitly banned). Anyway, a keep or delete close would be an endorsement of a certain set of arguments, while a no-consensus close would be a steer that an even wider discussion on this matter (possibly WP:CENT) may be the way forward. I'm not trying to steer the closing admin too much, but it's important that they distinguish between the three. --WFC-- 19:26, 11 September 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) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010-11 Premier League Full Scorers List

edit
2010-11 Premier League Full Scorers List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not an expert on WP rules, but I believe this comes under Wikipedia:NOT#STATS —Half Price 16:41, 3 September 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) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content convergence

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

This is an unsourced (essay?) (advertisement?) article with lots of WP:OR, including a sentence like "A rapid change in consumers’ appetites for viewing content, including video and images, hosted in different locations via multiple networks on their large flat screen television sets, has also driven the growth of content convergence." There's nothing but opinion on this page, and the article looks so bad that I'm not exactly sure what is trying to be conveyed. — Timneu22 · talk 16:37, 3 September 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 Church of Euthanasia. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Korda

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

Unsourced, non-notable BLP. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:00, 3 September 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) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Buck

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

Contested prod. Entrepreneur, the only references are Youtube and equally unreliable types. Google News returns a lot of press releases. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:01, 3 September 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 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Turner

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:27, 3 September 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) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four glasses puzzle

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

Not convinced this game is notable - it does not have a venerable history (eg Tower of Hanoi) nor does its solution illustrate some mathematical principal or feature a surprising or non-intuitive outcome which has caused it to become the subject of media or scholarly attention. As such article seems to offer the prospect only of a 'how-to', one of the things Wikipedia is not. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited - the puzzle has to be notable by Wikipedia standards, not the standards of its creator. Difficulty in solution also =/= notability: some puzzles are notable because they are so difficult to solve that people write about them, or because their solution is interesting enough to warrant comment. "Venerable history" is another example of something that makes a puzzle notable - if it has been around for a long time, it is more likely to have garnered sources writing about it. I could have added widespread play (eg Kim's Game which is widely played in schools), appearance in a tv game show, or several other factors which may make a puzzle notable. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia standards of notability are notoriously subjective, as is the notion of venerability - the final test really is whether it holds sufficient interest and the difficulty of its solution. Androstachys (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the final test is whether it passes the very non subjective wikipedia standard for notability. 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..Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice." doesn't help.....Androstachys (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does if you read the whole thing. However, if you prefer not to, you can expect your articles to be repeatedly tagged for deletion. Up to you. Mathematics does not have a different standard of notability, verifiability etc than the rest of the encyclopaedia. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it passes our notability threshold. Gardner's original puzzle and some generalisations of it are discussed in Chapter 4 of Julian Havil's Nonplussed! and in a Journal of Combinatorial Theory paper by Richard Ehrenborg and Chris Skinner. I have added both as references to the article, and made various other improvements. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I couldn't find sources, but Gandalf did, nice job! As a Hobit, I've always liked the guy who did the fireworks :-) Hobit (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kudpung, who PRODded this article, mentioned that he wanted to add a comment. We should probably wait and see if he does, otherwise well done Gandalf61 - I couldn't find sources either (the only mathematician I have books by is Ian Stewart, who doesn't mention it), but I believe the article now passes notability.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My response to this:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Attempts to find reliable sources for the assertion of this being a closed station on a railroad line were not successful. No prejudice to recreation if reliable and verifiable sourcing is found later. Mandsford 01:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gapung Station

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

Non-notable closed station. Blitzer Van Susterwolf (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 12:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:V is the issue here. Although stations are generally considered de facto notable, I can't find any sources at all using Google. No evidence that it existed. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Okay then, keep. It appears we have shown existence, although the sources aren't the best. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There do appear to be sources out there, it just seems that none of them are in English (understandable, since this is a Korean station). Searching for the Korean name (it's in the list at Gyeongbu Line) helps, though I had to search for the Korean line name too since the station name uses the same characters as "family tradition", which confuses things. This page seems to indicate the station existed, with pictures (though I'm having trouble finding a good translation, especially because of the aforementioned family tradition issue). The Korean Wikipedia also seems to have an article on it; it's not referenced either, but it also indicates this probably isn't a hoax. This article seems to mention it too. It would be helpful if we could find someone who speaks Korean, since I don't, but the preliminary evidence seems to suggest that it exists. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the first article you point to is a webforum. The second briefly mentions Gapung Street and Gapung Crossing, but no Gapung Station. In Korean, train stations are always referred to with the "역" ("station") suffix. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL shows absolutely nothing except that webforum, copies of the Korean Wikipedia and one mis-hit [22] for a Goryeo-era horse waystation of the same name (different Hanja). cab (call) 05:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the help with the translation. I'd still say this is notable; while the one halfway decent source you found so far is admittedly not the best, it still seems enough to show the station existed, which would make it notable per the precedent for train stations. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:TWP convention that all railway stations are notable. I've asked for assistance in providing sources at WT:KO. Mjroots (talk) 04:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I cannot locate any reliable sources. Perhaps they are on the microfilm of a rural newspaper rotting in the National Library of Korea, or perhaps not. I find applying "automatic notability" here is very questionable. Even the train stations on this line that actually continue to operate today barely have any sources about them. Based on the current information, the most we can say is that "it's not completely unreasonable to think that the Gyeongbu Line may have had a station called Gapung between Okcheon and Iwon". Naver Encyclopedia devotes a grand total of 207 characters to the village (mentions nothing at all about the station) [23]. There's photos on a bulletin board of a stretch of track which some anonymous netizen says used to be a station, and if you go to, say, Naver Maps (not Google Maps, which is useless for rural South Korean locations) and look for "이원역" (Iwon Station) and follow the tracks north, you'll come to a village called Gapung, where there's an overpass (marked "가풍교") which I think is the one in the background of the second webforum photo; and then if you follow the tracks even farther north, you indeed come to Okcheon Station cab (call) 05:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability isn't temporary. Rail stations don't become non-notable just because they don't exist anymore. We have convention for keeping various types of topics like rail stations for a reason, so we don't have exhausting fleshed-out debates of every single of the thousands of stations on earth. Volunteer editors should spend their time improving articles.--Oakshade (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:22, 3 September 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) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Ben Al-Walid-Horj

edit
Khaled Ben Al-Walid-Horj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication why this school is especially notable. No sources. — Timneu22 · talk 16:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, when that day arrives LOL pomposity.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my view, the problem here isn't notability: we generally accept that any legitimate high school is notable. The problem is a lack of verifiability. There don't seem to be any sources, whether primary or secondary (not even an official school website) to write anything about the school other than its name, which appears on a list of schools under the aegis of the Makassed Philanthropic Islamic Association of Beirut[25]. I would have suggested a redirect to an article about this organization or about Makassed University, but there is no such article although the university is listed at List of universities in Lebanon.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:09, 3 September 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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allameh mohades nouri university

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

two badly written unsourced articles that contradict each other Lhmn (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:08, 3 September 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) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allameh Mohaddes Noori University

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

two badly written unsourced articles that contradict each other Lhmn (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and improve rather than delete for being badly written. It seems to indeed be an Iranian university per "Universities in Iran: List of Universities in Iran". I am inclined to keep the article based on mere verification that it is an actual functioning university, so long as it is accredited by whatever council accredits universities and colleges in that country, and is not an upstart diploma mill. Input from someone able to search for sources in Farsi would be most helpful. The version titled Allameh mohades nouri university seems to be a better-translated version of some non-English source, so the merged version should correspond to the text there. The information appears to be consistent between the two article, except for years which may relate to the calendar used there, although AH 1375 would seem to be 1955 in the Gregorian calendar, while the other article says it was founded in 1996. Someone able to read Farsi should verify that the article is not a copyright violation, and if so stub it pending improvement. Edison (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A prod had been previously placed on the article by the nominator, but removed by another editor. The nom. then placed a speedy as nonsense, which I removed; he then took it here, as appropriate for a disputed deletion. Low quality machine translated articles are not nonsense, if there is enough information given for them to be fixed and the subject appears notable. Actually existing universities are always notable. One of the difficulties in translation especially from another alphabet is variation in name, and of course different variations get merged under what appears to be the standard form or the form used by the person or organization. We have difficulties in covering non-anglophone countries due to the unavoidable bias from the limited language knowledge of most editors here. The way to solve it is to fix up whatever articles we do get. DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They may not be nonsense, but they are copyright violations, unless the content is approved, just as much as if they pasted from a website in English. The right to translate works into other languages is reserved under U.S. law to the original copyright holder. The article has been purged of copyvio. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 14:08, 3 September 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) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primal Prime

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

Topic does not meet general notability guidelines. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge - Major character in a big Transformers story. If merged then back to the Beast Machines toy line page. Mathewignash (talk) 19:19, 3 September 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) 00:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Singh

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

Advertisement for a non-notable biography. No independent sources provided and none found. TNXMan 13:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this a 2nd nomination for AfD? The first one seemed to indicate (to this non-admin) to be an easy delete. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two different people, same name. The first article was about a model. TNXMan 13:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it. AfD just got a little more difficult for me. Thanks for the enlightenment. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:00, 3 September 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. G4, (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navyug Sena) —SpacemanSpiff 13:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Declined PROD. Reason for deletionis no evidence this meets notability guidelines for WP:ORG Polargeo (talk) 13:02, 3 September 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. —fetch·comms 01:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decades (album)

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

This article is a hoax from the blogosphere, no reliable sources or even quotes from parties involved. Some elements of truth, which at this stage are only rumours, embellished with outright untruths and POV. Worst part of hoax is album name (and therefore article title) is totally made up. Speedy - Hoax declined andi064 T . C 11:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even if Shonuff The Shogun of Harlem created this article in good faith "from sources supplied", if those sources were hoaxes or for any other reason unreliable then the article is not acceptable. I am not sure what "sources supplied" means, but I have looked at the article in the form it had after Shonuff The Shogun of Harlem had created it, and before anyone else had edited it. There were two "references", both of which were links to web pages which do not even mention "Decades". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately the source does not confirm "much of the information in the article", not even that there exists an album with the title "Decades". The article makes no mention at all of the title "Decades", which appears only in a user's blog post to the page.
  • Being genuine isn't enough if it's not notable. If the album and single are released in 3 weeks then we will be able to see whether they are notable enough for an article, and if so an article can be written. In the meanwhile we cannot have an article on the grounds that "it is going to be notable someday". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 9 September 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) 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba – Peru relations

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

Unreferenced permastub bilateral relations article which contains no information other than embassy locations. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I don't like it, but there appears to be some prospect of improvement. Some searching gave me two sources: [29] and [30]. Significant coverage in at least two reliable sources spanning 45 years means this is probably notable, although it's going to need a lot of work. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The prod should have been left to stand, there is no notability asserted by this relation. Having embassies or signing a few trade agreements are routine, not notable. Tarc (talk) 14:09, 3 September 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) 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maleko

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

Self-promoting autobiography of non-notable local radio personality. No neutral version to revert to, and no third-party sources to construct a new article out of. -- Rrburke (talk) 11:30, 3 September 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) 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Twelve

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

Fails WP:BAND. No albums, no sources, etc. Would have A7'd but for the award. Mkativerata (talk) 09:43, 3 September 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) 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiworld

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

Article on a book related to Wikipedia which mostly talks about Wikipedia, not the book itself. Provides no indication of this book's notability or even importance. Delete. Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Kimchi.sg (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article has just started and the book itself does contain more than Wikipedia as Kimchi.sg seems to suggest. I strongly doubt that Kimchi.sg has read the book. Anyway, I need more time to write article proper, since I am just getting started. And I have to say, I do wonder where does this enthusiasm to speedy deletions comes from; perhaps it just demonstrates will to power, who knows. To me it is also a farewell to English language WP, unfortunately or not. Well, maybe that was too romantic. But you got my point. Kaksoispiste (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on enthusiasm to speedy deletions: for most of us, we feel like we're gardeners who think it's easier to pull weeds before they grow. That being said, if you can write an article on this topic (even AFTER speedy deletion) with a neutral point of view and cite authoritative third party sources to establish notability, it could easily survive. A lot of speedy deletions are applied to speedy creations. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Wikipedia article like the one in question can be more than an encyclopedia article; it can be a data bank, a notebook, mode of social bookmarking and sometimes even - hopefully - serve as a course assignment or part of schoolwork. What if it will be deleted just like that? What is the point then? Can someone explain? Kaksoispiste (talk) 09:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that the article "can be more than an encyclopedia article" is not a reason for keeping the article in Wikipedia. In fact it is a reason for deletion, as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is not a repository for data banks, notebooks, modes of social bookmarking, etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus, that's funny, actually. Mr. James B. Watson, the beauty of WP is precisely the fact that you, or anyone else for that matter, cannot determine the uses of and plethora of meanings giving to WP. Fortunately. What is matter with these deletionists anyway? Juha Suoranta (talk) 12:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD discussions are irrelevant - they do not relate to this book. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save it is a classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.212.4 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 3 September 2010 This editor also added "Save" to each of the above comments by Kaksoispiste. I removed these, as they are either refactoring of one editor's comments by another editor, or else multiple !votes by one editor, in either case not legitimate.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Thompson (soccer)

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

Contested PROD by anonymous editor. Unreferenced BLP. When attempting to find references, I came across this, suggesting that he never played in the MLS. There is no other assertion of meeting the general notability guideline. --WFC-- 08:40, 3 September 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 Sledge Hammer!. just enough consensus - but also it is virtually the same thing then what is mentionned in the Sledge Hammer thus no real additionnal info in the now redirected article JForget 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Trunk

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

WP:INUNIVERSE fansite article about a television character who has no sourced indication of notability outside the short-lived series he existed in. Was tagged for prod, but deprodded with no explanation or improvement provided. No need for a whole article about this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant how? Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Significant in that Sledge Hammer! is one of the greatest television shows in history. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to believe that on your own time. In an encyclopedia, however, we require reliable sources for such a claim. Bearcat (talk) 04:10, 7 September 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) 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kendra Yarbrough-Camarena

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

Campaign-style profile of an unelected political candidate with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Was previously tagged for prod; an anonymous IP number came and removed the tag while adding a single reference which happens to briefly mention her name in a list of "ten races to watch", but which fails to meet the standard of being substantial coverage that's about her. Certainly she can come back if she wins — but until then, simply being a candidate is not a valid encyclopedic claim of notability. For the time being, delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that a lot of politicians - notable or not, incumbent or challenger - don't mention their party nowadays. Their signs say "Smith for Congress" rather than "Smith, Republican for Congress" or "Smith, Democrat for Congress." Oddly, this article doesn't even mention the subject's biggest claim to fame: the fact that her father Ken Yarbrough used to hold the same seat in the state legislature that she is running for. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 5 September 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) 00:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Connolly (author)

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

I stumbled across this random article and can't see any worldwide contributions which make him notable. Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO and possibly WP:AUTHOR either. Minimac (talk) 07:12, 3 September 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 withdrawn. having these topics seems silly under "there is no rush" policies. But I never meant to make such a stand - at least no here. --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 10:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

UFC 123

edit
UFC 123 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:FUTURE - unconfirmed sporting event with media speculation sources Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 07:07, 3 September 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 Shaji Kailas#2000-Present. to Shaji Kailas#2000-Present, closing early as a nom withdrawn as everyone including nom propose this. —SpacemanSpiff 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raghupati Raghava Rajaram

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

The film was dropped eventually and probably will never be released. Sreejith K (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:MichaelQSchmidt --Sreejith K (talk) 08:49, 5 September 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. —fetch·comms 01:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who’s Who in Nebraska

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

This book does not meet WP:NB to the extent it applies or WP:GNG to the extent it applies. There is one listed review of the book, but not in a general audience publication. And one piece of coverage is not enough anyway. There just don't seem to be the multiple reliable sources covering the book that are necessary. It also appears to only be held in microform or print or any other format in 48 libraries world-wide according to WorldCat. ALXVA (talk) 06:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NB does not apply, see my comment below. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It actually only has a ref to the book itself, an irrelevant ref to the U.S. census, and a ref to the review I mentioned in the nom. I could find no more, and the article has sat without more for months. How does that meet WP:NB or WP:GNG? ALXVA (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not covered in the notability for books. It actually specifically says that they are not covered in it. SilverserenC 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral to Weak Keep I have done extensive work with regard to the first AfD, and despite being somewhat ambivalant as to whether or not this should be deleted, I should mention a few things that have pulled me in both directions. The long, drawn out battle in the first AfD lead to a lengthy WP:VPP discussion here. The root of this discussion was to figure out notability criteria for reference books, which, contrary to some opinions, is not covered by WP:NB (See WP:NB#Coverage notes and WP:NB#Academic Books). A proposal was formed which said that a Reference book was notable if:
  1. They are cited by a significant number of other reliable sources and scholars for its informational content, and
  2. There is at least one review of the work or other non-trivial source independent of the book itself (so the article can have sufficient content).
Once this proposal was finalized, two to three people liked it (Including the Author of the Article), two people wanted ref books under WP:NB (Including the Nominator), and one did not want to require any independent reliable sources at all. By these standards, this book would squeak by, because there is one independent review, and it is significantly cited as a reliable source elsewhere. Aside from this, whether or not significant citations helps this book reach the GNG standards is dubious, but due to the quality of the article and putting notability aside, I see no reason for deletion. Before reaching any conclusions, Please take into account all of these older discussions. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So it meets a nonexistent policy? If WP:NB does not apply, and I agree it does not other than maybe by analogy or something, then WP:GNG is the only way I can think of, and this book fails WP:GNG? So what notability guideline (not non-consensus proposed guideline) does it meet? This article literally has one (1) related WP:RS and no indication more are to be found. ALXVA (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not arguing that those sources meet WP:GNG are you? They are very minimal mentions at best. The Avery self-published book (putting aside the question of whether it is a reliable source), mentions the book in no more than a sentence and seems to attribute authorship to "Guy V. Doran", a person not mentioned in the credits for the Who's Who book. Perhaps this is a different book. Either way, the mention is too minimal for GNG. The Nebraska Ancestree source is nothing more than a one sentence bibliographic entry. The Nebraska Medical Association meeting minutes is an interesting source, predating the publication of this book. It does note that the book's authors asked for an endorsement and that it was refused. This sort of two-sentence mention in a primary source, though, seems far too minimal to qualify as one of the multiple sources needed per WP:GNG. I also removed one of the external links Silver seren added because it was dealing with a different book (and trivially at that). So, the three new sources -- one possibly not referring to this book in an arguably non-RS source, a bibliographic listing in a genealogy finding aid, and minutes of a meeting of a medical society recording the society's unwillingness to get behind a proposed book -- strike me a far too minimal to meet WP:GNG. That leaves the one review in a Nebraska State Historical Society quarterly magazine in anticipation of the book’s release as the only non-trivial mention. Since there seems to be agreement that WP:NB does not apply to this book, WP:GNG must apply; this book still does not meet WP:GNG. ALXVA (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon going through the text of the subject book, it looks like Guy Doran did write the Cheyenne County section. (Each county's section seems to have had individual authors, while the whole book had the editors mentioned in the forward, etc.) Sidney, Nebraska is a town in the county, so that part of the newly added text in the article is wrong and not supported by any source. In light of the fact that the source (the Avery book) did not say anything about the Doran entries unique to those entries (that he wrote about the early residents of the county as part of the Who's Who project), I removed the sentence and the source (here is the source for anyone interested). I also reworked the next sentence to make clear there was only one version of the book. All of this further call into question whether the sources support notability per WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. I do not think so. ALXVA (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability may be borderline, but I am prepared to interpret the notability standards very broadly in the case of reference books of this sort, because of the value of articles such as this to Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 10 September 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. This was always going to be a controversial one, and I read the arguments several times to try to make sure I got it all in my head! However, despite the lengthy discussion, the consensus seems to be that this is a POV fork. Some of the content may be suitable for adding to other article(s), but this article should be deleted according to the consensus reached here. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adult sexual interest in children

edit
Adult sexual interest in children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV fork of Pedophilia created to promote sex-with-children-normalization point of view. We get these from time to time. This one is unusually subtle and erudite, and by a veteran editor, but otherwise the same-old same-old: unable to force her noxious POV into the Pedophilia article, she cherry-picks quotes and refs to advance her worldview.

"...survey of human adult–child sexual behavior worldwide indicated it has occurred throughout history with varying degrees of acceptability and was much more prevalent in the past...."; "Intuitively it is obvious that the sexual abuse of children inflicts deep psychological harm. But there are also reasons to distrust this intuition. First of all, it could reflect an irrational taboo about the sexuality of children. The idea that children should be sexually innocent is not universal; in fact, it is relatively modern..."

That sort of thing. As I say, we get this from time to time. This editor is, as I say, unusually clever and subtle and is careful to include lots of cover ot appear "fair and balanced", so I suppose an unusual amount of drama will now ensue. But let's keep our eyes on the main point: POV fork = not allowed. Let's do the right thing here, people. Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Article was created to cover sexual interest in children that does not meet the definition of paraphilia or pedophilia. Lots of sources, all of which clearly state that adult sexual interest in children is an umbrella term, and that "pedophilia" is a subset of that interest. Adult Sexual Interest in Children is the title of a well-known book on the topic (sourced in the article), and the term appears in 300 scholarly journal articles, 800 books, and a number of reliable secondary news sources. Jokestress (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Note: above commenter is creator of the article). Yes I hear you. 300. 800. Those are big numbers! By the way, you are aware that your posts over at Talk:Pedophilia can be read by anyone, right? Herostratus (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I was originally going to ignore this editor's insults and the outrageous accusations made in the nomination above, but since he hypocritically "cherry-picks quotes and refs" from the article to advance this nomination, I thought I'd summarize our interactions.
  • He's likened me to a [Holocaust denier] on-wiki.
  • He awarded another editor a barnstar in which he called me That Dreadful Woman.
  • He sent me a concern troll email off-wiki titled "Andrea, PLEASE read this for your own safety" containing additional threats.
  • He then claims above I "promote sex-with-children-normalization," which is untrue.
I understand that this is an emotional topic, possibly the most emotional one we cover, but to accuse and threaten highly experienced editors making good faith efforts to expand on controversial topics is really beyond the pale. I have never edited either of the related articles previously. However, I have fairly broad knowledge on this topic because of the work and writing I do professionally. I hope the closing admin will take into consideration the article itself and the sourcing provided in the article and on this page. I have seen no one refute the well-sourced fact that clinicians consider pedophilia a subset of adult sexual interest in children. My attempts to discuss this have met with extreme resistance from editors who assume the worst about me personally simply because I point this out. I enjoy working on the most challenging and difficult topics we cover (race and intelligence, WP:OFFICE actions, BLPs), but I have never experienced such personal abuse from other editors. Most comments below are expressing opinions about my motivations for creating this article rather than about the content itself. It's clear this needs to be covered on the project, since a number of commenters below misuse the term "pedophilia," applying an erroneous and inaccurate lay definition which clinicians consider problematic. As it stands, Wikipedia does not do a good job of explaining how clinicians conceptualize this phenomenon, and attempts to discuss it get clouded by emotion, especially from a handful of editors like the nominator. Jokestress (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork of Pedophilia and Child sexual abuse. Undue weight for fringe idea. An article with similar content was deleted a couple years ago, Adult-child sex. It was sent to DRV and the deletion was endorsed. Two editors resurrected it in their user space and those pages were also deleted via MfD; one of those went to DRV and deletion was endorsed. A year later, an editor re-submitted the article to DRV and the deletion was endorsed again. Those deletions gained consensus and were endorsed because there is no mainstream non-fringe discussion of adult sexual interest in children that is not related to either Pedophilia or Child sexual abuse, not in academia, clinical psychology, or society in general. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It is well-established and not a fringe idea that "pedophilia" is a distinct subset within a larger sexual interest. Per the 2010 Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology (p. 1177): "someone who has expressed a sexual interest in children or who has engaged in sexual behavior involving a child is not necessarily a pedophile." The pedophilia article should note that it describes a subset of this larger phenomenon. Further, not all adults with sexual interest in children have involvement in child sexual abuse (Corsini 1177). In other words, an adult can have a sexual interest in children that is not related to pedophilia or child sexual abuse, hence the separate topic. None of this is fringe; it's all well-sourced, and it helps explain to a lay reader that "pedophile" has a specific academic and clinical meaning that does not encompass all sexual interest in children. We should strive for accuracy and good sourcing that reflects the current literature. Jokestress (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepNeutral. Article contains sufficient context to distinguish it from the article on pedophilia (not dissimilar to MSM vs. homosexuality) and appears to be well-sourced. Evidently, there's some history here that I'm not fully aware of, but I think the current article reasonably adheres to WP:NPOV. I would be interested to read those DRVs referenced by Jack-A-Roe. Uncle Dick (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links you requested. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For AfD only
  • Comment. It appears the old articles were rightfully deleted because they discussed the sexual acts covered at child sexual abuse and elsewhere. I created a diagram to explain why the article under consideration merits a standalone. Adult sexual interest in children can be independent of both pedophilia and child sexual abuse, per my earlier comment and the sourcing in the article. Jokestress (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deleted article was not solely about sexual acts, it was wide ranging, but as with the new article, it was a POV fork of both child sexual abuse and pedophilia. In the new article that's up for deletion, most of the content and references refer to pedophilia and child sexual abuse. That's because all discussion of adult sexual interest in children takes place within the context of pedophilia and child sexual abuse, including the discussion in the new article.
Even the titles of the references reads as a list of child sexual abuse and pedophilia-related terms: abuse, molestors, sexual victimology, child pornography, offenders and so on. The prevalence section mainly discusses what portions of abusers of children fit the diagnosis of pedophilia, and that some child abusers are not pedophiles, again, directly part of those other topics. In the one source that mentions percentages of adults who self-reported sexual interest in children, the statement in the source is mentioned only in passing, without elaboration or even explanation, within a full section discussing child sexual abuse. The article sections on legal issues and research also discuss mainly child sexual abuse. One source is used twice to discuss categorizing adult sexual interest in children. But a review of that source shows their entire discussion to be within the context of child sexual abuse and child pornography (which is the topic of that book), with repeated uses of terms such as child molestors, offenders and other similar terms. There's nothing in that source supporting the idea of non-offending, non-pedophilic adults who are sexually interested in children.
There are no in-depth sources of such interests separate from the context of the two topics of pedophilia and child sexual abuse. All of the content in this article can be covered within the context of those two mainstream topics, that's why this article is a POV fork. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork of pedophilia, completely unnecessary article whose only purpose seems to be to promote the justification of pedophilia. The claim that not all adult sexual interest in children is pedophilia is a fringe view with no place in a mainstream encyclopedia like wikipedia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I discuss that this is not a fringe idea below, but I just want to say here for the record that this is an outrageous accusation. Jokestress (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As our article Child states: "The legal definition of "child" generally refers to a minor, otherwise known as a person younger than the age of majority." Take the case of an 18-year old boy and a 17-year old girl who are in love with each other, and who happen to live in one of the many jurisdictions where the age of majority is 18. So the boy is an adult and the girl is still a minor. Must sexual interest of that boy in the girl he loves necessarily be categorized as a case of pedophilia? The emphatic pronouncement that allowing for any other labelling is "a fringe view with no place in a mainstream encyclopedia", is, frankly, utterly ridiculous.  --Lambiam 20:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not the same thing at all. This article is talking about prepubescent children. And no one ever truly considers a 17-year-old girl a child in comparison to her 18-year-old boyfriend. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Of course not! The majority of editor who want to delete the article obviously cannot understand what the definition of pedophilia is: "The paraphilic focus of Pedophilia involves sexual activity with a prepubescent child (generally age 13 years or younger). The individual with Pedophilia must be age 16 years or older and at least 5 years older than the child." http://www.psychiatryonline.com/content.aspx?aID=10307&searchStr=pedophilia --Destinero (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While this is a potential content fork with pedophilia, as it sits it is not. Nor is it a POV piece, which is a great danger given the topic... This is a nicely researched and well-written article. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - That said, this is an orphan article, linked to nothing, sitting in space. It is not likely that this is a term that is going to be searched, either. So I would advocate a merge to pedophilia, both so that this material may be found, but also to reduce the likelihood that this will develop into a content fork in the future. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - This from the Talk page of pedophilia by the creator indicates that this article seems to be intended as a content fork: "I just created a new article titled Adult sexual interest in children to start dealing with the problems with how this material is presented. Please feel free to help expand it." Jokestress (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC) Therefore, I'm now changing my opinion from "Merge" to Merge or Delete on this... Carrite (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The problems to which I am referring are twofold:
  1. the inaccurate contention that adult sexual interest in children is synonymous with pedophilia. See sources.
  2. the historical context and shift in the concept over the centuries, especially in the last 125 years after Krafft-Ebing.
It seems that most people are voting and commenting on matters other than the article content. I am not advocating/defending/promoting pedophilia. I am trying to provide a well-sourced, neutral presentation of an emotionally-fraught topic. Sources provided indicate that perhaps 1 in 5 men and 1 in 8 women have experienced what experts describe as adult sexual interest in children, and only a minority of those would be classified as pedophiles. I understand that many editors are very sensitive to how this topic is covered and how those outside the project view our coverage. That makes it difficult to have a discussion of the sources and experts, rather than a discussion of people's personal feelings. It's frustrating to see how inaccurately we cover this topic, and how difficult it is to discuss improving the article to reflect the current literature. Jokestress (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Based on the previous DRVs (thanks Jack-A-Roe) and additional information presented here, I'm going to go from Keep to Neutral. I think there is room for an article on this topic, but it needs to be created based on community consensus, not as an attempt to skirt consensus on another article per WP:POVFORK. Given the level of emotion surrounding this topic and the (disturbing) history of pedophile activism on WP, that may not be possible. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clear POV fork. Jokestress claims above that "someone who has...engaged in sexual behavior involving a child is not necessarily a pedophile". Not sure I understand that. A pedophile is defined as "an adult who is sexually attracted to children". So, the only way a person who engaged in sexual behavior with a child could not be a pedophile is if they engaged in that sexual behavior as a result of something other than a sexual attraction to the child. What other reason could someone have for having sex with a child besides some form of sexual attraction? I sense some kind of POV agenda being pushed with this article. Jokestress didn't get her way at Pedophilia, and creating this pointy article is the next step in trying to get her POV represented on WP. SnottyWong confess 19:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children. Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html Thus, Snottywing, you should apologize for misunderstanding and the lack of knowledge on this topic and for accusations of Jokestress. You cannot just come here and claim that the statement of the eminent and widely-regarded authority as the Gregory M. Herek is POV agenda just because you don't understand the issue you are commenting enough. --Destinero (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not "claim" anything. I quoted an encyclopedia. This diagram explains. Pedophilia has a very specific meaning: "a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children." Adult sexual interest in children comprises any interest that does not meet that definition, including fleeting thoughts, occasional fantasies, etc. Per the Finkelhor source in the article and many others, a minority of child sexual abuse is committed by people who meet the definition of pedophilia. This article was created to cover all relevant sexual interest that is not pedophilia. Jokestress (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, what?! Did you create that diagram, because either it is wildly inaccurate or I fully misunderstand what pedophilia is. According to that diagram, there are some adults who sexually abuse children and have a sexual interest in children, but they are not pedophiles. Please explain to me how that is possible. Let's say I'm 30 years old, and I see a 5-year old kid and I get turned on, and I molest the kid. Under what circumstances would I not be a pedophile? Additionally, the diagram appears to show that there are some pedophiles out there who have no sexual interest in children, and who have never sexually abused a child. That diagram is quite amazing. SnottyWong spill the beans 01:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your misunderstanding is exactly why we need a separate article. Pedophilia is a clinical term for someone with "a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children." The situation you describe would not lead that person to be diagnosed with pedophilia. In fact, the majority of people who sexually abuse children are not considered pedophiles, and the majority of adults with sexual interest in children are not considered pedophiles. See article for sources. The term "pedophile" has a vague meaning to the general public that is different from the clinical meaning. The reason this article is needed is because current consensus is that the pedophilia article should be about the clinical meaning and not the lay definition, which is more accurately described by experts as "adult sexual interest in children." The chart is correct-- some pedophiles are not adults with sexual interest in children (for instance, teenagers), and some pedophiles do not act on their interests in ways that sexually abuse children (for instance, abstaining, or using legal means to act on their interests). Jokestress (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still not buying it. If there was a clinical distinction between adults who sexually abuse children, and adults who sexually abuse children but also have sex with other adults, then I think there would be a separate clinical name for it. "Well, this guy is a pedophile, but this guy over here only suffers from 'Adult sexual interest in children'". If there was truly an important difference between the two, then "Adult sexual interest in children" (distinct from pedophilia) would have its own clinical term. We can slice it up any imaginable way: Adults with a primary sexual interest in children, Adults with a sexual interest in children but who also have sex with other adults, Adult sexual interest in both children and animals. I'm sure there is a clinical distinction between all of these extremely narrow definitions, but that doesn't mean we need a separate article on each one. SnottyWong express 16:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children. Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html by Gregory M. Herek. Still not understand it? --Destinero (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is a name for those clinical distinctions (a few, in fact). Per the pedophilia article: "Exclusive pedophiles are sometimes referred to as "true pedophiles." They are attracted to children, and children only. They show little erotic interest in adults their own age and in some cases, can only become aroused while fantasizing or being in the presence of prepubescent children. Non-exclusive pedophiles may at times be referred to as non-pedophilic offenders, but the two terms are not always synonymous. Non-exclusive pedophiles are attracted to both children and adults, and can be sexually aroused by both, though a sexual preference for one over the other in this case may also exist." The term "Adult sexual interest in children" is used to cover the whole range of interest that does not meet the "true pedophile" criteria, and we can cover all the variants you mention in this one article. Jokestress (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge - per nom. POV fork of pedophilia and Jokestress' arguments are not convincing of otherwise - Alison ❤ 19:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very similar if not the same as prior "Adult-Child Sex" article that was not only deleted multiple times, but its proponents permanently banned. Terms like this and Adult-Child Sex are common "value-neutral" renaming used by pedophiles themselves as propaganda and facilitation of Cognitive distortion/Minimisation. "Value-neutral" simply being a veiled label for "hiding the true nature," like calling wife-beating a "domestic incident." Like I'd rather not give such persons more fuel. Legitimus (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Value neutral is a policy here. The term may be used by some pedophile advocacy groups (source?), but it is primarily used by experts in the relevant fields as a value-neutral term and as an umbrella term for a range of interests that includes pedophilia as a subset. We are not giving anyone any "fuel." We are citing existing reliable sources that explain the phenomenon and distinctions. Jokestress (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For those interested in a value-neutral overview of this article's subject, I recommend reading this psychology book chapter: Adult sexual interest in children. This is the model of neutrality we should strive for on these topics. It helps explain why this article's subject matter is distinct from pedophilia, child sexual abuse, and child pornography, and it provides context for those subjects. Jokestress (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually the value we use in our striving for neutrality is found at WP:NPOV. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your example here actually argues for the contrary (ie. article deletion or merge). It is a CHAPTER in a book titled "child pornography." To support your thesis that "adult sexual interest in children" ought to be the umbrella term, you'd need to point to works where the placement of the terminology was reversed and also be prepared to argue that that wouldn't just be the exception to the general rule.Bdell555 (talk) 07:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In the article, I cite a book by that title: Adult sexual interest in children. Mark Cook, Kevin Howells (1981). Academic Press, ISBN 9780121872502. I provided this one here because it is available at no cost and is well-written. Jokestress (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge. The article is clearly an attempt to sidestep the controversies that surround Pedophilia - a bit like using a helicopter to score a goal. Amphitryoniades (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article in Der Spiegel notes how the subject matter here has historically been associated with certain political POVs, and past experience suggests it is reasonable to presume a WP:POVFORK when an article has been created by someone unhappy with the pedophilia article. That said, that presumption is rebuttable and well-referenced material added by veteran editors should not be deleted summarily. The presumption is not rebutted here. If adult sexual interest in children that does not reach the level of being a "preference" is notable then why isn't there an article for, say, sexual interest in one's own gender that does not reach the level of being a preference? If one were to retort by pointing to the bisexuality article, I'd note that
1) if the topic here were analogous to bisexuality it would speak of persons who were sexually interested in both adults and children. The article focus, however, appears to be on sexual interest in children that does not rise to the level of a -philia. As such it is not a question of either versus both but a question of degree. Indeed, the article appears to concede that "sexual interest in children" exists on a continuum such that the Venn diagram we've been directed to with its neatly defined boundaries is something of a case of having one's cake and wanting to eat it too: apparently we shouldn't classify people as pedos or non-pedos except when deciding this article's notability in which case gradients won't do as there is supposedly this third category that is somehow distinct from just a milder or less intense sexual attraction towards children.
2) Bisexualism has its own distinct term, and authorities like the APA have noted it as distinct. Articles with concatenated titles like "adult sexual interest in children" are often either WP:original research and/or non-notable. For most psychosocial phenomena, if something has a notable independent existence it has a name, e.g. hebephilia or ephebophilia. May I suggest that if an adult's sexual interest in children is not notable enough to be classed as a -philia or as something else for which there is already an article, it is not notable enough for a new Wiki article.Bdell555 (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Thanks for the respectful comment. While I agree with you that there is a continuum (per Diana Russell and Natalie Purcell's chapter 4 in the Dowd book cited), bisexuality is a bad example. Pedophilia is a clinical diagnosis. As such, it has diagnostic criteria which are currently demarcated by "the primary or exclusive sexual interest in children." This has to occur over time as well (at least "6 months"). The graph I created reflects the diagnosis, which does not have gradations except within the diagnosis (from primary to exclusive). Those who have a secondary or transient or even one-time interest do not meet the criteria and fall outside the diagnosis of pedophilia, according to the APA etc. I could make a chart with blended colors to represent attenuated response to children (I agree with Russell and Purcell), but the point is that the APA etc. make a clear line of demarcation. As the cited experts state, not all adult sexual interest in children is pedophilia.
  • "... it is important to remember that the sexual acts with minors involve a heterogeneous group of adult men, some of them non-pedophiles..." Langevin R, et al. (1985). Erotic prefdence and aggression in pedophilia: a comparison of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual types. In Langevin R (ed.) Erotic preference, gender identity, and aggression in men: new research studies, p. 158. Psychology Press ISBN 9780898594454 (emphasis mine). "Non-pedophilia" is not accurate, though, and "adult sexual interest in children" is the most common way this phenomenon is rendered.
  • "Some have a persistent sexual preference for children beginning in adolescence, while others have a preference for adults but act with children due to situational factors (e.g., marital problems, loss of wife, abuse of alcohol, or stress). Most theories focus on the former type since the latter type are really not pedophiles. However, most clinical and criminal studies find the latter type to be the majority of those who offend." Howells K. Adult sexual interest in children: Considerations relevant to theories of aetiology. Adult sexual interest in children. Mark Cook, Kevin Howells (1981). Academic Press, ISBN 9780121872502. (emphasis mine)
  • "Ever having thoughts of sex with a prepubescent child, or even having contact with a prepubescent child, would not be sufficient to meet the diagnostic definition of pedophilia, because a central feature is the persistence of the sexual interest in children." Seto MC. Pedophilia: Psychopathology and theory. In Laws DR, O'Donohue WT Sexual deviance: theory, assessment, and treatment Guilford Press, ISBN 9781593856052 (emphasis mine)
This is not a fringe ideology, but a commonly accepted clinical definition of what kind of sexual interest in children is considered "pedophilia" and what kind is not. Jokestress (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, if not "sufficient to meet the diagnostic definition of pedophilia" then what alternative diagnostic definition is met? None, it would seem. From nothing follows nothing, not a Wikipedia article. I don't see why the pedophilia article cannot act as the "umbrella", such that both diagnostic and, if you will, non-diagnostic variants can be discussed there, or in the alternative, there be a section over in that article devoting to discussing the matter of definition.Bdell555 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As a less loaded example, we have separate articles on the umbrella phenomenon of Weight loss and the act of Dieting, both of which can reach a diagnostic level (Anorexia). Adult sexual interest in children can reach a diagnostic level (Pedophilia). Many more examples and precedents abound where we have separate articles for the non-diagnostic level of a phenomenon. Since neither Adult sexual interest in children nor Pedophilia are crimes, it makes sense to have separate articles on Child pornography and Child sexual abuse, which are crimes. These topics are all related and interconnected, but they cover different things. Not all adult sexual interest in children is classified as pedophilia, in the way not all weight loss or dieting is classified as anorexia. That's why those phenomena merit separate articles. And as a preemptive rebuttal, I am not saying that adult sexual interest in children = weight loss or dieting. I am giving an example of similar split-out articles on the project. Jokestress (talk) 00:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dieting is distinct from the umbrella phenomenon of weight loss because dieting is intentional weight loss. This leaves the remainder category of unintentional weight loss. I might add that whatever the theoretical problems of "adult sexual interest in children" as a remainder category and potential article, the appearance in the actual article of material like "normal/abnormal, moral/immoral, acceptable/deviant" raises further empirical problems. This article has "Adult sexual contact with children" as its title yet I perceive no interest from the authors in distinguishing contact that is not "child molestation" from conduct that is. This book, which is cited 200 times according to scholar.google.com, says "In professional and popular terms, there is almost universal agreement that sexual contact between a child and... any adult or older person... [is] considered sexual abuse." (p. 80). Now one could argue that "contact" does not equal "interest", but such an argument makes the potential remainder category both less verifiable as a visible phenomenon and more negligible. Furthermore, The Journal of Psychology appears to be a leading journal, and this article which appeared in that publication and is cited 285 times, says "Despite a lack of theoretical and empirical support, proponents of child and adult sexual relationships have argued that sexual interests and behaviors of adults with children should be considered acceptable, normal, and healthy expressions..." Note that the presenting of "sexual interests... of adults with children", not just contact, as distinguishable from "abnormal" variants thereof is a presentation without "theoretical and empirical support", according to this source.Bdell555 (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Per my weight loss example, we cover the remainder categories under Starvation and Malnutrition, and again not all instances of those phenomena meet the diagnostic criteria of Anorexia. Lots of other precedents in Wikipedia. Not all Cross-dressing meets the diagnostic criteria for Transvestic fetishism, so we have separate articles, and so on. I'm not sure what other point you are trying to make in relationship to this article's retention. The pedophilia article already correctly states, "Another erroneous but unfortunately common usage of "pedophilia" is to refer to the actus reus itself (that is, interchangeably with "sexual abuse")." We also have an article on age of consent reform that discusses the viewpoints of proponents. Adult sexual interest in children can sometimes meet the diagnosis of pedophilia (usually not), and acting on adult sexual interest can frequently result in child sexual abuse. This article is about three remainder categories: the times that it is not pedophilia, not child sexual abuse, or not either. Adult sexual interest in children is significantly more prevalent than pedophilia, and it does not always result in child sexual abuse (for instance, those who don't act on their interests). That's why this merits a separate topic. Jokestress (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this beginning to look like a WP:DICDEF? Per my comments on my delete vote, I don't think that the article on pedophilia needs to conform to the exact definition of what constitutes pedophilia in the psychiatric field. However, even if it did, the only purpose this article could serve would be to define a range of very narrow range whereby someone might be interested in a child sexually without acting on it (which would better fall under Child sexual abuse) or being a pedophile (which, let's get serious, all the DSM requires is period of fantasy that persists for more than six months). Mention of these persons in scholarly texts is almost entirely going to fall into the category of passing reference: "Of course, not everyone who's ever thought of children sexually is a pedophile." But that's as much as can be said, because a passing thought does not a notable topic make; some people have passing fantasies of killing their bosses, but we don't create articles on, for example, Potential killers. — Chromancer talk/cont 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This matter is about definitions, and how much the pedophilia article should focus on the lay definition or the clinical definition. As it stands, the lay definition gets little or no weight (WP:UNDUE) because some editors believe only the strict clinical definition should be covered. If that's the case, we should cover the other uses somewhere as is common practice. Re potential killers, we do have separate articles for legal, medical and lay definitions that describe thoughts of murder and homicide; see the nonclinical/legal terms of potentiality like malice aforethought (also offender profiling and mens rea), as well as the generic intrusive thoughts and the clinical diagnosis homicidal ideation. All have specific meanings and merit separate coverage with links to each other. Jokestress (talk) 03:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean that the lay definition of 'anyone who thinks about children sexually' is getting undue weight. Regardless, the article you're creating here is explicitly about something that is not a clinical term; you're creating an article about a number of people, passingly referenced, who are mentioned as not qualifying for a clinical diagnosis. Re potential killers, you misunderstand my point. This is as if I was to create an article Law-abiding citizen interest in theft and include citations about people who are not criminals because they have not committed a crime nor do they have an obsession with it, i.e. kleptomania. Anyone could potentially be included under the umbrella of such a vaguely defined concept, which is why there is not a clinical term for it. What is more, the very creation of an article focused on said people implies that they are a clinically defined class, a harmless underclass of adults interested in children sexually but that will never act on it, which is a bold distortion of the very literature we're citing here. — Chromancer talk/cont 03:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that we are not communicating well. There is a wide range of scholarship on sexual interest in children that is not clinical (historical accounts, philosophy, media studies, etc.). By limiting the Pedophilia article to a strict clinical definition and not allowing discussion of other academic disciplines, we need someplace to talk about all the other published work.
Regarding your example:
We are missing an article. The people who study the larger phenomenon use the term "adult sexual interest in children," to distinguish children's sexual curiosity about each other, etc. That seems to be the best name for the missing article. Adult sexual interest in children is not clinically defined because the majority of it occurs in "normal" people (see citations in article). Neither I nor the researchers are claiming this phenomenon is harmless; those with the interest have the potential for great harm to themselves and others. What I am saying is that the way we cover this topic is different than the way we cover any other topic, and I believe it's simply because of the subject matter. There is a fear that the general article somehow promotes or normalizes sexual interest in children. I consider that as spurious as saying that an article on homicide promotes or normalizes murder. We need an article to cover the phenomenon that doesn't frame it in the narrow language and conceptualization of the diagnosis. Jokestress (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the examples that you've included are diagnostic.
I'm not concerned as some others are about the so-called 'normalization' of child abuse; what I am concerned about is the integrity of the encyclopedia as a whole. An article 'adult sexual interest in children' forks content properly treated under the Child sexual abuse article. You may disagree with me on the basis that many people with an interest in children sexually do not actually abuse them, in which case, I refer you categorically to the examples you have used, which illustrate my point- we need two articles, which two we already have.
I think that unless there is any part of what I'm saying here that is unclear, I believe we understand each other. Let me reiterate then: some people, and I won't name anyone in particular, are taking this article as meant in a sinister manner. I am assuming good faith, however, I still disagree; but I am willing to see the core issues addressed! Currently, the child sexual abuse article is a mess from the Wikipedia standpoint. It's excellently sourced but focuses almost entirely on the effects of child abuse, not the situations under which it arises or the perpetrators of the acts. There is room for much of the material in this article within that, but the way in which this article is phrased suggests to many Wikipedians that a WP:POINT is being made with the article: namely, that since the community couldn't build consensus around changes to the Child sexual abuse or Pedophilia articles, a new article's required to fill the narrow clinical gap of non-pedophile non-abusers who have had sexual thoughts about children. I don't subscribe to that, but changes to those articles are something I could see making. — Chromancer talk/cont 18:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete Since nobody here can dispute that "Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager. Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them. Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children. Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html by Gregory M. Herek , thus the votes for deleting as a POV fork are invalid and unjustified. --Destinero (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC) I support an umbrella article explaining the various groups as Kim van der Lindeat venus suggested. --Destinero (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I do believe that Jokestress and Herostratus, and others contributing here, are working in good faith on this difficult topic. There is clearly considerable scholarship available, and Wikipedia should do the best job possible of summarizing it. Rather than hashing out issues in AfDs, I'd urge editors to use the collaborative framework of the WP:PAW to find the best way of covering this material.   Will Beback  talk  19:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support this reasonable proposal. --Destinero (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too support this. Please all cool down a bit. Flinging ugly and unfounded accusations of bad faith at serious good-faith editors is very much not in the interest of our project. It is a clear and well-sourced fact that professional sources in the area do make a distinction between pedophilia (a psychiatric disorder) and at least some cases of sexual interest of adults in children, where the definitions of "adult" and "child" may be based biologically, or legally, or on still other criteria with large discrepancies in meaning, and may depend on the jurisdiction in force, nutrition of the population, and other things, that have nothing to do with classifications of psychiatric disorders. As long as we refuse to acknowledge this and do not allow an encyclopedic treatment based on reliable sources, the issue will keep resurfacing and generating heat.  --Lambiam 21:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, on the grounds that 1) WP:PAW is inactive and probably needs to stay inactive unless several editors are willing to participate in it regularly, otherwise it's liable to trollery or hijacking, and 2) Jokestress is clearly much smarter than me (doesn't make her right, though) and I'm not qualified to do scholarly battle with her, and 3) even though she's acting in good faith, she's still a screamin' ideologue (see below) and there's no talking to people like that, and 4) I'm supposed to be retired from the subject (under duress) and 5) anyway, Jokestress has requested ordered me not to address her except on article talk pages (which is understandable since I was more than a little harsh when I tried to dissuade her from going down the path that she so apparently intends, but still). So I guess that won't work. Herostratus (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so let's reactivate it or find a new forum. Folks here, all respected editors, need a neutral space to work towards consensus on issues that span multiple articles. I offer moral support and will gladly contribute positive suggestions to that effort. I hope everyone !voting here will add WP:PAW to their watchlists. Many hands make light work.   Will Beback  talk  10:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not to go ad hominum, but I think this is germane. The question of motivation has troubled me in this case. This whole situation seemed really odd to me, because Jokestress is not at all the kind of editor we usually see trolling this subject: she's obviously a long-time, prolific, and very accomplished Wikipedia editor, judging by her user page. I also just now see that (per her user page) she is Andrea James, and she has her own Wikipedia article. Both the article and her website describe her as an "activist". What kind of activist? I don't know exactly how to put it, but in the general area of sexuality. Oh, OK. That is interesting. Let's see, she is on the board of [TransYouth Family Allies] which I'm not saying anything against TransYouth Family Allies which is probably a great organization (I don't know), but appears to be partly a youth-rights-activist organization. The last entry on her website "In 2008 she joined the Board of Directors for Outfest. Outfest... foster[s] artistic expression of gender, sexuality and LGBTQ culture and its transformative social impact on the world." Oh, OK. Not equal rights or marriage rights (which decent people generally support) but transformative social impact on the world. Hmmmm. Now let me say that by all appearances Andrea James looks to be a fine person, and a lot more dynamic, intelligent, educated, and erudite than a poor schmuck like me'll ever be. That doesn't give her a pass in life, though. Is Andrea James motivated by a burning desire the Change The Dominant Paradigm vis-a-vis sexuality in this world? Yes, she is. Is this article part of that? Yes, it is. Does motivation enter into one's assessment of an article? It sure does, in my opinion. We do have WP:COI and so forth. We're not required to pretend that there isn't an elephant in the room when there is an elephant in the room.

I can easily understand how a burning belief in youth rights and sexual liberation and all that can lead one over the line into error. We do get quite a bit of that e.g. the contention that children have the right to choose to have a fulfilling sex life with a caring and nurturing adult. I'm not saying that Ms James is claiming that here, not exactly. Does she believe it? I don't know, but I do know that she's way too smart to say it like that if she did. Has Andrea James become "pedophile activist"? No, not exactly. But she sure is acting like a useful idiot.

Look, I know that Andrea James has a bunch of quotes and citations at her fingertips and knows how to talk the talk. I'm not impressed. She's not an acadamecian, she's a sexual activist at the fringe at the society. She's got an agenda and she intends to promote it and this article is part of that.

It's sad. You hate to see the editor who wrote Ruby & The Romantics and many other fine articles go down the path where she's putting in (with obvious approval) quotes like "Intuitively it is obvious that the sexual abuse of children inflicts deep psychological harm. But there are also reasons to distrust this intuition. First of all, it could reflect an irrational taboo about the sexuality of children. The idea that children should be sexually innocent is not universal; in fact, it is relatively modern...". But it doesn't look like anyone can dissuade her. I sure can't. Herostratus (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions is irrelevant here and it is untactful to accuse the editors from all of this. You are simply unnable to counter the reliable sources here and Wikipedia policies demand articles to be based on them. You should get the knowledge of the topic first, since it is clearly not enough, and then suggest the articles for deletion. Because what are you doing is outrageous. You are not able to accept the presented facts about the difference between pedophile and adult and want to treat those aspects in irrelevant articles. Maybe this is good case for arbitrary comitee since it seem's nothing else can settle this right. --Destinero (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Holy smoke Herostratus - let people concentrate on the given issue, which is too important to lose in a cloud of generalities. Amphitryoniades (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Err...Destinero, so you think we should go to arbitration just because this article is headed for deletion? And strictly in accordance with wikipedia policies - well you need to go to arbcom privately if you choose to do so. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Herostratus, the quotation you are so upset about was written by Richard Posner, a Reagan-appointed federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. It appeared in the legal issues section and has since been removed by another editor, I guess under WP:UNDUE (or maybe WP:IDONTLIKEIT). I think a federal judge is qualified to opine on this topic in a section on legal issues, but if it's getting in the way of the larger issue at hand, we can leave it out. He is not writing "to promote sex-with-children-normalization" and is not some fringe nutjob. He is someone who thinks a lot about these issues within a legal framework. As for my own motivation, it's no different than when I wrote Ruby & the Romantics or any of the other hundreds of articles I have donated. I wanted a concise, well-sourced, neutral summary of the topic. I am aware of this literature on this topic because of my work with sex and gender minorities, and it bothers me that this cluster of articles is so incomplete and inaccurate. You appear to be incapable of discussing this issue in a calm manner and continue to jump to all sorts of conclusions about me and my motivations. Please focus on the article content and the arguments for/against deletion and stop commenting and theorizing about me personally. Jokestress (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTHESIS. The principle argument here for retention of the page is that there is a difference between the psychological disorder of pedophilia and all other sexual interest in children. This is true; some sexual abuse of children is situational, only, and doesn't carry an implication that the person involved is a classic pedophile. However, we are not bound by the definitions exclusive to psychiatry. The real-world understanding and common definition of pedophilia is as any sexual interest in children, and this is how the subject is being treated in Wikipedia; as such, an article such as this, built on these principles, simply serves to present only one portion of Wikipedia's collective information on pedophilia in such a way that it represents POV. These citations and ideas would be harmless within the body of the Pedophilia article that exists now, given there is a massive weight of citations to the contrary, but separately they are academically unconscionable.
    It is disingenuous, also, to believe that these data are not being cherry-picked to represent a WP:SYNTHESIS of ideas. The sources we have are coming from a wildly varying group of publications, and I have more than a suspicion that the statements made were not intended to support the essential point of the article. The facts are not fringe, but their use in this article is; it's trying to make a point. I am more than willing to import some of the ideas presented here (that people who demonstrate interests commonly called pedophilic are not necessarily classic-case academic pedophiles) to the main article, but this article as a separate entity must go. — Chromancer talk/cont 00:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It sounds as if you are arguing for a merge of this material into pedophilia, which I would support along with a lede rewrite. I believe all sources and most editors agree on the following (quoting you):
  • There is a difference between the psychological disorder of pedophilia and all other sexual interest in children.
  • The real-world understanding and common definition of pedophilia is as any sexual interest in children.
  • These citations and ideas would be harmless within the body of the Pedophilia article that exists now.
Unfortunately, the primary long-term editors of that article (User:Jack-A-Roe, User:Flyer22, User:James_Cantor, and User:Herostratus) want it to be about the disorder only, and they have formed a loose coalition to shut down any edits or suggestions that reflect what they call Misuse of terminology. Their WP:OWN style voting block is used to squash reasonable lede rewrites that reflect how the term is used, as well as any discussions of the concept outside of a psychology/mental illness model. Because of this, it seemed we should cover the wide range of materials they seek to suppress somewhere in the project. I was surprised to see two three of them voting to delete here, which makes me believe they don't want this covered anywhere on the project. This article's title is the term most frequently used in the literature to describe non-pedophilic sexual interest in children. I believe if this were on almost any other topic, we would not even be having this conversation. Editors questioning the current "disorder" focus of the article get accused of promoting/advocating/normalizing pedophilia. I create a space to give this topic due coverage and get accused of promoting/advocating/normalizing pedophilia, and the AfD is spun to make me look like some sort of monster hell-bent on creating a coatrack for pedophilia advocacy. It's very unproductive. Perhaps the editor who suggested arbitration has the right idea. Jokestress (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I think arbitration is jumping the gun. If anything, both sides need to stop insisting there's a cabal here and open this discussion up to the general population of Wikipedia. I believe I'm one of the few editors here that hasn't had a long-term involvement in articles of this nature, and I think the investiture of most of the participants is blinding them to, forgive me, common sense. Don't mistake me, I may be trying to assume good faith, but I am not arguing for a merge; the sources can be good, but the way they are presented looks cherry-picked: I agree with James Cantor's proposal that a person can be pedophilic without being a pedophile, since that is basically what much of your sources say, though not in the way that you've used them. In Wikipedia, we cannot create a new umbrella category for a segment of people; I see no justification for presenting these ideas as if there is an accepted category of the literature exclusively for non-pedophilic adults who are sexually interested in children. It's an oxymoron. — Chromancer talk/cont 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I am a professional sex researcher studying and publishing on pedophilia and related topics, and I have recently been appointed Editor-in-Chief of Sexual Abuse, a scientific journal specializing on this specific topic. I recognize that there exist wikieditors who dislike professionals commenting on topics in their field, so I take seriously my disclosure of it.

  1. In my opinion, for what it’s worth, the arguments presented in support of this page largely confuse pedophilia the idea with pedophilia the word. Greek roots and former uses do not pertain to what is actually known about pedophilia itself (however named). In science, terms are supposed to become more exact as time and knowledge accumulate. To evaluate contemporary use and understanding in terms of the obsolete ones is to end progress.
  2. Similarly, arguments in support of the page have confused the construct of pedophilia (that is, the idea of pedophilia) with the diagnosis of pedophilia. Diagnostic criteria for pedophilia should not be mistaken for an actual definition of pedophilia. Diagnostic criteria are merely an approximation we use to help us draw the line between pedophilia and not-. That someone fails to meet diagnostic criteria for pedophilia DOES NOT MEAN that they are not pedophilic; it means only that we do not have enough evidence from the (known) symptoms to be sure, and (for better or for worse) we do not give such a life-altering diagnosis without being sure (or reasonably sure).
  3. The diagram uploaded by (and created by?) Jokestress is in error. Its logic permits a person both to be pedophilic but not to have a sexual interest in children, which is, of course, counter to their definitions. It would be possible to have a sexual interest in children but not to meet any given set of diagnostic criteria of course (the DSM-IV-TR criteria still being in widest use in North America for a little while longer), but that is again to mistake the definition of pedophilia with a given set of diagnostic criteria for operationalizing pedophilia.
  4. The references on the mainpage (and in the rest of the literature) do not actually provide support for “adult sexual interest in children” as a topic of study. That is, although some authors have occasionally used the phrase adult-sexual-interest-in-children, they have not treated “adult sexual interest in children” as a topic. In the references cited on the mainpage, no precise or scientific definitions are given for “adult sexual interest in children,” no history of the topic is reviewed, etc. Rather, the cited authors merely used the sequence of words, adult-sexual-interest-in-children, as an alternative phrasing for what they are writing about: In some contexts, the authors used it to mean sexual abuse, and in some contexts, pedophilia. None of the authors examined “adult sexual interest in children” as a subject contrasted with sexual abuse or pedophilia.
  5. In my opinion, not everyone who abuses children is pedophilic; this is frequent in cases of incest, for which the motivations may have included issues other than eroticism. Also, it has been demonstrated by my colleagues that non-pedophiles do often show low levels of genital arousal (but more than zero) to stimuli depicting children. However, I do not believe that these phenomena have ever been the subject of serious or significant scientific study. Of course, there might come to be such study in the future, but I am not aware of anyone working on such questions currently. So, I would delete, but not salt.
By way of disclosure: My colleagues and I have long been the targets of Jokestress’ attacks, both on and off WP. To what extent my (or Jokestress’) opinions reflect a POV is, of course, up to readers to decide for themselves.
— James Cantor (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, can you as a expert from the field comment the following Gregory M. Herek statement? "A second problem is that the terminology used in this area is often confusing and can even be misleading. We can begin to address that problem by defining some basic terms. Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty. Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager. Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them. Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children. Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html --Destinero (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to. (I note that you and Jack-a-Roe have been back-and-forth a bit on this on the mainpage.) I urge caution, however, to distinguish carefully between Herek’s statement itself and its use. The individual assertions within Herek’s comment are basically quite sound: Sexual abuse/molestation and pedophilia/hebephilia are overlapping, but non-identical. I have written previously about pedophilic men who do not commit sexual offenses. So, on this basis, I seem to agree with you.
Regarding the use of Herek on the mainpage, however, I do not believe that Herek’s statement supports the idea that “adult sexual interest in children” has ever (yet) been the topic of serious scientific study. That is, just because a sexual offense is committed by a non-pedophile, we cannot conclude that the offender had a “sexual interest in children”. To repeat the point I made earlier, such cases are common among incest offenders: Although they committed sexual offense(s) against children, there is little evidence that they engaged in the offense because of sexual interest in children rather than (for example) acting out some other psychological/family dynamic other than sexual interest. So, on this, I seem to agree with Jack-a-Roe’s conclusion (I agree with the removal of Herek’s statement), but I do not know if I came to this conclusion for the same reason that Jack has.
I hope that’s a help.— James Cantor (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thus, I am for stating in a Pedophilia article that "not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse." and for deleting the Adult sexual interest in children for now, since this is not sound researched topic. Can we agree on that? --Destinero (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think each is correct, and I would agree to and support each. (I note that "not all abuse is perpetrated by pedo/hebephiles" is already on the page.) — James Cantor (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the statement that not all pedophiles abuse children should been added too for clarity: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=history I consider this issue settled I am for the deletion of the Adult sexual interest in children article. --Destinero (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Destinero: I have updated your "keep" to "delete". If that does not in fact reflect your intention, I am happy to revert it (or have it reverted).— James Cantor (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict earlier) To James Cantor's points:
  1. Yes, this is another dispute between the phenomenon and a term used to describe it. The phenomenon of adult sexual interest in children predates the term "pedophilia," a term which reflects a conceptualization in one area of academia (sexology/mental health). If the Pedophilia article is to be about the mental health conceptualization, we need someplace to talk about the other conceptualizations.
  2. Yes, there is a range of literature that looks at "pedophilia" as a social construction; that is, the construction of it as a mental illness (Foucault, etc.). We should discuss that somewhere in the project, and not as "misuse" of terminology. Notable philosophers and legal experts consider the word "pedophilia" and related terms to be a misuse of terminology based on a worldview. The term used for the title of this article is the most common umbrella term in use. It's the title of a book that includes chapters written by many of James Cantor's colleagues. "Non-pedophiles," which James Cantor uses, includes people with no sexual interest in children, so it is an inappropriate descriptor, except in the context of child sexual abuse.
  3. James Cantor does not understand how to read the [Venn diagram]. Nowhere on the chart does it say someone has pedophilia but not a sexual interest in children. The top red part is for non-adult pedophilia.
  4. Adult sexual interest in children is not a scientific descriptor. It is a term used by scientists and others to describe the phenomenon in its more general sense. It's an elegant solution to discussing the phenomenon, which is why it's been adopted by so many in James Cantor's field. It also allows for a discussion of the topic in all contexts, not just from a mental illness model. I'm surprised James Cantor doesn't recognize its value and join experts in using it.
  5. James Cantor's answers above demonstrate the problem: he says "not everyone who abuses children is pedophilic" and uses "non-pedophiles" and "nonoffender pedophiles." However, he offers no alternative umbrella term to cover the phenomenon to include "normal" people who have a sexual response to children (as described by his mentor Kurt Freund, cited in the article). I have provided the umbrella term most widely used in his field. In fact, the Freund article appears in a book titled Adult Sexual Interest in Children. If James Cantor has a well-sourced alternative that he prefers, we should discuss its merits. I'm not aware of one. This article's title is what people in his field use. The fact that he wants this article deleted strikes me as WP:COI, perhaps some sort of professional rivalry or something he is not disclosing about why he dislikes this term and refuses to use it himself.
And as disclosure, I had published my opinions about this editor off-wiki long before he came here under two pseudonymous accounts and started a campaign of self-promotion and attacks on his critics. That's a discussion for elsewhere.
Bottom line: the larger phenomenon should be discussed in depth somewhere on the project. It will clear up all the terminological confusion (it's apparently confusing even to those who study it). I have used the most widely-accepted term in the field as the title. The Pedophilia article has calcified into a very narrow representation of the work done in academia on this phenomenon. These important distinctions need to be discussed if not in a separate article, in the related topics. Jokestress (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Something that is the sole subject of a 275-page book collecting academic papers from many renowned sexuology researchers, born out of "the need for a collection of informed opinions on the subject of adult sexual interest in children" (quoting from the book's introduction) is obviously important enough for an encyclopedic article. Those who believe that all adult sexual interest in children must be considered pedophilia will need to come with overwhelming verifiable evidence from reliable sources in support of their belief, in view of the very strong evidence that both academic researchers in the area and respected judges think otherwise.  --Lambiam 10:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you want an article about the book and you think it is notable you could create it, but creating a themed article based on an obscure book is not appropriate. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you very much for your nice and constructive suggestion. Actually – apparently I expressed myself inadequately, for which I offer my humble apologies – my intention was not to suggest that the book be made the subject of an article, but only to point out that this academic publication (actually, as one among several) supports both the notability of the subject and the distinction with pedophilia. I would very much indebted to you if you would deign to edify us concerning the grounds by which we ought to consider this widely cited publication "obscure"; this would certainly help me, and other equally unenlightened spirits, to avoid such gaffes as referring to obscure books in support for a recommendation.  --Lambiam 18:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After parsing the 'definition' section (see this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adult_sexual_interest_in_children&oldid=383249805 version], it is obvious to me that the efforts to create a third category are based on careful quoting to make it appear that reputable sources support this idea. However, after careful checking, that does not seem to be the case and hence the whole basis of th9ios article disappears. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have deleted all references that have been quoted out of context, and none of the references supported the idea of a third category. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the article in the old version, before your massive intervention, I did not at all get the impression that it attempted to define a "third category", and I don't see what gave you that idea. Not all animals are vertebrates, and not all animals are carnivores, but stating that as facts does not amount to suggesting a third category as in (1) Vertebrata; (2) Carnivora; (3) Tertia. The claims that not all adult sexual interest in children fits the definition of pedophilia, and that not all such interest amounts to sexual abuse, were supported by appropriate citations, now removed, such as "someone who has expressed a sexual interest in children or who has engaged in sexual behavior involving a child is not necessarily a pedophile." You may disagree with that, but it is not an instance of "careful quoting" or "quoting out of context"; on the contrary, it is as straightforward a quotation as you may hope to find.  --Lambiam 19:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what you try to tell me is that there is a category people who are sexually attracted to children, but do not fit the definition of a pedophile, which is a person sexually attracted to a child? Please explain. If you want to say that there are subgroups of pedophiles, for example between molesting and non-molesting pedophiles, I get that,m but that are still pedophiles because both groups are sexually attracted to children. As for the removed references, check them in context, and you would see how misquoted they are. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. That is exactly correct. Pedophilia is a subset of the larger sexual interest, which can occur in "normal" people. Arousal studies have indicated that non-pedophiles often show measurable arousal to children. Pedophilia is a clinical diagnosis that means persistent primary or exclusive sexual interest in children. The general phenomenon does not always meet the diagnostic criteria. That's why researchers use an umbrella term. It's also the reason some editors here think this merits an article on the larger phenomenon. There is a misunderstanding that this phenomenon is indistinguishable from or synonymous with pedophilia. The vast majority of adult sexual interest in children does not meet the clinical definition, so we need somewhere to talk about the larger phenomenon. Jokestress (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, than that was really not clear from this article. In that case, I suggest that the article is userfied so that the article can be developed such that it is actually obvious what is meant, and no longer reads like a apologetic POV fork of pedophilia aimed at justifying sex with children. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You removed the citations that made that clear, under some false WP:IDONTLIKEIT personal belief that this article is some cryptic attempt to advocate for age of consent reform. That's another matter entirely, and it is only tangential to a discussion of this general phenomenon. My interest is to expand this from the medico-legal framework to make room for the other well-sourced theoretical and philosophical frameworks. Jokestress (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the references had nothing to do with a category beyond pedophilia or child molesters. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this is not about a clinical or legal category. It is about a general phenomenon that partially overlaps with clinical and/or legal categories, but primarily covers phenomena outside of both. Example: clothing laws = legal, transvestic fetishism = medical, crossdressing = phenomenon. We have articles on each. Child sexual abuse = legal, pedophilia = medical, Adult sexual interest in children = phenomenon. Jokestress (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the references used were not appropriate for that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that considering the references that were used, there is no third category. If there was such a third category, it would have significant critical and academic coverage and its own terminology. Jokestress, if this is not WP:OR, there should be more references and citable works available that will support your position. If the only ones available are taken out of context, then we have a problem. — Chromancer talk/cont 01:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article did not suggest, or even attempt to suggest, that pigs can fly. Therefore it should not be entirely surprising when the references used do not support a claim that pigs can fly. It is irrational and obnoxious then, to state that the references are taken out of context and remove them as not covering the phenomenon of flying pigs, requiring for academic coverage and citable works about pigs that can fly.  --Lambiam 10:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First let me say: WP:CIVIL. I'm not taking it personally, tempers among certain participants are high, but it is enough to disagree with my analysis. In any case, I disagree with your assertion that the article as it was did not advance the position of a third category; if there is no third category, then there is no necessity for this article and we are solidly covered by the two major extant articles, Child sexual abuse and Pedophilia. — Chromancer talk/cont 18:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware you have not removed any references from the article, so these qualifications are obviously not intended to describe your edits. I apparently don't understand the notion of "third category". Above I gave the example that not all animals are vertebrates, and not all animals are carnivores. If this is stated in, say, an article Animal, does that article then "advance the position of a third category", and do we need reliable sources (not deemed "obscure") offering in-depth coverage of this "third category" in order to be able to have an article Animal next to Vertebrate and Carnivore?  --Lambiam 21:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, two examples:
Physician Anil Aggrawal states, "not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles, and not all pedophiles actually commit child sexual abuse."[2]
This quote is taken out of a paragraph in which the author explain that not all pedophiles are child molesters, and that not all child molesters are pedophiles. If you take a reference like this about the distinction between pedophiles and child molesters to argue the presence of a third or more inclusive group, you are misquoting the book and you are setting this article up in a fundamental wrong way.
Another example:
Sexologist John Money said, "majority of reported acts of sexual abuse of children are not committed by pedophiles, but by men in relationships with adult women and men."[3]
The quote is followed by the following sentence: They are men like Charles Jaynes, who wrote in his journal about a fast crush on a "beautiful boy" with "a lovely tan and crystal-blue eyes" and in whose car police found literature from the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) but who had an adult girlfriend and was rumored to be lovers with Sicari, who also had a girlfriend. In other words, there may be nothing fundamental about a person that makes him a "pedophile." .
So, two examples, does either even suggest a third or broader category? No. This was an exercise in selective quoting to make a point based on your own POV. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you would support the Pedophilia article being expanded from its current strict clinical definition as a mental disorder? If not, where do you propose we include the expert opinions above? Jokestress (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because those two sources are covered in the articles about pedophilia and child molestation. I would be in favour of a umbrella article that does one thing, and that it explain all versions of underage sexual conduct. Pedophilia, hebephilia, incest, child molestation, and in such an article, we can explain that there is a grey area of people not fitting the definition but still having sexual attraction to children. Such an article has to be written VERY carefully as it easily will read as a white-wash for pedophilia, and as such, sourcing would need to be perfect, and not the sloppy mis-quoted crap in the current article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you propose this new article be called, and how will its title be different than this one, since you claim this present article title is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH? "Underage sexual conduct" is inaccurate, as this phenomenon is really about the interest or attraction, both "pedophile" and "non-pedophile" types, and not the acts themselves. Jokestress (talk) 03:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea as I have not thought about it. Maybe even the title of this article (although I think we can come up with a better one), but the scope and content would be radically different. This article tries to carve out a narrow category not covered by other articles (Just take the "distinction FROM pedophilia" section). What I am saying is that it should be an all inclusive article that explains the various categories, including the people who fgall in between the definitions. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In referring to me, Jokestress wrote she "had published my opinions about this editor off-wiki long before he came here." Actually, Jokestress has been harassing, for the better part of a decade now, sex researchers and any other professionals who note the existing science disagrees with one or more of Jokestress' comparatively radical claims about transsexualism (the topic of Jokestress' off-wiki activism, which in itself I strongly support). Jokestress' maintains off-wiki attack sites attempting to discredit whole lists of sexologists who disagree with her (including me), maligning even other transsexual activists who disagree with her (see also), and repeatedly postulates whole conspiricy networks to argue she alone is right and the consensuses of whole fields are wrong (much like she's said here).
Jokestress has written to researchers’ employers (including mine) demanding that the scientists be fired. She's posted on the Internet photos of researchers’ underage children with captions including A cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it?, and so on. As part of her efforts to discredit the scientists, Jokestress also attacks the topics that any of the above scientists study, such as her attack site on penile plethysmography. In fact, it came to the point where Jokestress’ harassment itself became the subject of inquiry by a professional ethicist who studies academic fraud, the reporting of which led to a Guggenheim award. (But for which Jokestress ‘declined to be interviewed’).
Although Jokestress referred to not having previously edited the pedophilia page at all, she neglected to mention what did lead her to it: Jokestress first attempted to re-add long-deleted EL's that violated WP:ELNO on the penile plethysmography page, but found herself unable to justify the re-addition except for repeating that their removal originally came from me. Unable to get her way at penile plethysmograph, Jokestress instead posted another off-wiki attack on me for editing WP all (available here; I am the person she refers to as "guy in charge of Sexual Abuse"), and shifted her wiki-hounding of me/my colleagues to the pedophilia page. The other editors at pedophilia quickly found Jokestress' edits wanting, resulting in the POV fork currently under AfD. Sexology pages on WP are littered with similar incidents.
If my colleagues and I had a history of studying sex addiction instead of pedophilia, then that would be where Jokestress would be trolling.
Although I have no opinion regarding Jokestress' editing of other WP topics, it is my personal belief that Jokestress should be banned from sexuality-related pages. Although Jokestress has, of course, said the same of me, I have long kept a pledge on my userpage to stay off pages that have had the greatest conflicts on them, but I have been unable to convince Jokestress to do do the same for the benefit of WP. I regret that her wiki-hounding of me has led her to bring those conflicts to still other pages.
— James Cantor (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that you leave your off-wiki dispute basically off-wiki. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize (and laud) your motivation, but I believe you misapply WP:COI, which can (and in this case does) require the on-wiki consideration of off-wiki siutations. On the WP:COI guideline page, this appears in boldface: Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. Knowing what those outside (off-wiki) interests are, such as sustained campaining on this very topic, is entirely necessary to considering whether the on-wiki editing is in violation of our COI guidelines.— James Cantor (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. Another way of saying it to you is: Discuss the content, not the editor. If your arguments are sound, they will carry it by themselves. I generally see it as a weakness, like "Boehoe, that editor is sooo mean to me somewhere else, so I am going to bitch about it here because I can and I do not like it that I am criticized somewhere." You have not edited the article, you are not in dispute with her about this article, so, why drag it in? Ergo, this has nothing to do with COI. I think that subject specialists should be valued more at wikipedia, not less, and I have no problem with your comments on the content, but I do have an issue with you dragging your personal fight into this discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're presuming, Kim, that the creator of this article, Jokestress, has not already brought an off-wiki "personal fight into this [on-wiki] discussion." Wikipedia policy rightfully calls for the editing community to focus as much as possible on Wikipedia content as opposed to editors. But drawing a bright line between on-wiki and off-wiki can be an obstacle to improving content when one of the key issues is, as here, whether the on-wiki content accurately reflects the off-wiki professional/academic/expert consensus. I'd also note that the academic community does not blind itself to who participants are. At a historians conference last year one presenter described another historian as an "apologist for the Soviet Union." When an audience member objected, saying the charge amounted to McCarthyism, another panelist, who happened to the most credentialed authority in the field (and editor of the leading journal), responded "Have you read [the accused's] work in Russian?" In other words, if a layman like myself were to contend that the leading advocate for a certain article or edit were engaged in POV pushing, whether civil or not, that would likely just inflame the debate without enlightening, whereas if someone who knows the field would to suggest that, it may be illuminating enough that it should not be automatically condemned as a variant of WP:PERSONAL. Note that WP:GOODFAITH is a rebuttable presumption that editors who don't know each other are to apply. When an editor knows another from a long history off-wiki, it is a meaningless exercise to demand the ignoring of all the prior knowledge since the "rebutting", in at least that editor's mind, will be inevitable. Given the amount of air time that theories and contentions that could never be published in the best journals get on Wikipedia, I am not inclined to discourage an editor who has been repeatedly published in those journals from getting right to the point, in a professional manner, about just who is who.
Chromancer has advanced a WP:SYNTH charge, which has two key elements, namely "advancing a position" and "no reliable source has combined the material in this way." Dr Cantor appears to believe the second element is established, noting as he has that "authors ... have not treated 'adult sexual interest in children' as a topic.... the cited authors merely used the sequence of words, adult-sexual-interest-in-children... None of the authors examined 'adult sexual interest in children' as a subject contrasted with sexual abuse or pedophilia." He is also providing illuminating information about the "advancing a position" element. My own view is that, strictly speaking, an article should not be deleted just because it is a synthesis since the article could be improved, but I nonetheless move to Strong Delete here as Chromancer and Cantor have convinced me that the support for the article's notability, as opposed to the article itself, is almost entirely WP:SYNTH.
I would also note that ArbCom pays attention to off-wiki material. e.g.:
A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances.Pass 6-0 20 October 2006
and
Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking.Pass 5-0-1 20 October 2006
If merely linking to an attack site is grounds for blocking, what would ArbCom have to say about not just linking to an attack site but creating one? From the New York Times,
Ms. James downloaded images from Dr. Bailey’s Web site of his children, taken when they were in middle and elementary school, and posted them on her own site, with sexually explicit captions that she provided.... the history of this conflict, which caught fire online, is being written and revised continually in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia...
Bdell555 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can read here, nobody was linking or referring to the external stuff till Dr. Cantor linked to it. And frankly, that cut down his credibility substantially for me. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason Wikipedia has so much stuff that deviates from external convention and/or consensus, such as research that appears to normalize pedophilia, explicit sexual imagery that no mainstream media outlet would carry, etc etc is because of a Wikipedia bubble that divorces editors from the "real world." Someone pops that bubble and gets condemned for it? WP:NOR and WP:NPOV were designed to ensure Wikipedia follows external norms instead of trying to create (or, more typically, undermine) them, but on many issues, like this one, Wikipedia is out there trailblazing for some sort of "emancipating" agenda. I'll admit that this remark of mine is getting off the topic of this particular AfD but I see this issue here as a classic one: an off-wiki activist, especially for some cause that aspires to liberate readers from the supposed oppression of the establishment POV, extends that activism to Wikipedia, and then when a recognized authority points out that very fact, the whistle blower is judged not on the basis of, say, the number of his or her citations but on the level of conformity with Wikipedia's arcane norms of internal discussion, which frequently prescribe the wearing of a veil of ignorance about what's really going on.Bdell555 (talk) 03:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the article under discussion is, off-wiki, an activist for gender rights, in particular in relation to transsexualism. This article is not about transsexualism or gender rights, so in what sense is this a matter of "extending that activism to Wikipedia"? In my opinion the article is well positioned within mainstream research, and is not advancing any extraordinary position, let alone "trailblazing an agenda". It is definitely not "normalizing pedophilia". How are we supposed to know and take account of "external convention and/or consensus"? Are there reliable sources describing what it is, or do we need to conduct original research for finding that out? And what is there in the article to whistleblow about? One might as well blow a whistle over the article Butcher for attempting to normalize cruelty against animals.  --Lambiam 13:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some discussion continued at KimvdLinde's talkpage.— James Cantor (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. So just to confirm, some editors accept James Cantor's two operating definitions of pedophilia:

  • 1. Pedophilia is the persistent primary or exclusive sexual interest in children.
  • 2. Pedophilia is any level of sexual interest in children.
  • 3. The two terms are interchangeable, except 1 is a mental disorder diagnosis.

Thus, adjectivally:

  • 4. Someone who is pedophilic manifests persistent primary or exclusive sexual interest in children.
  • 5. Someone who is pedophilic manifests any level of sexual interest in children.
  • 6. The two terms are interchangeable, except 4 reflects a mental disorder diagnosis.

There's no "partial pedophilia" described to my knowledge. It appears that most clinicians use the terms "sexual interest in children" or "adult sexual interest in children" to describe 2 and 5. I see the term "true pedophilia" used almost exclusively by James Cantor's colleagues at CAMH to describe 1 and 4, but when team CAMH says "pedophilia," they mean what others call "sexual interest in children." When team CAMH says "true pedophilia," they seem to mean what others diagnose as "pedophilia." Thus James Cantor's assertion:

  • 7. True pedophilia = pedophilia (the mental disorder)
  • 8. Pedophilia = sexual interest in children (the general phenomenon)

The usage consensus in the field seems to differ from this definition, but some of you are going to go with pedophilia for both phenomena. The reason is because the term "adult sexual interest in children" and/or an article by that name normalizes or promotes pedophilia, or creates a place for a pro-pedophile coatrack. Just making sure that's what some editors want to go with here. Jokestress (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't a psychology encyclopedia so common usage absolutely needs to be included, ie what the average person thinks pedophilia is; certainly the current title is very poor because it seeks to normalize what is considered absolutely not normal. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that the points above reflect what I actually think.
I am also unclear on how Jokestress might know what the consensus of the field is.— James Cantor (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, what do you think?-- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That question is a bit broad, but my original post and the chapter I wrote for the Oxford textbook of psychopathology capture my central thoughts, I believe. Is there a specific aspect you'd like me to address?— James Cantor (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that this reads more like a straw man of the position of those !voting to delete than an actual summary. If I had to summarize:
  1. Pedophilia, the article, is capable of addressing both a common usage of pedophilia and a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia.
  2. Child sexual abuse, the article, is capable of addressing any acts or persons that may have abused children sexually without meeting a scientific diagnosis of pedophilia.
  3. There is no necessity for a third article, given the previous two assertions. What is more, the creation of a third article will imply, purposefully or not, a third category of adults who do not meet the common usage term or clinical diagnosis of pedophilia, and do not abuse children, and yet are sexually interested in children. Since common usage would say these are pedophiles or at least exhibit pedophilic tendences, any such third article, including this one, will intentionally or not harmfully fork content.
James Cantor, KimvdLinde, would you like to comment on whether or not this summary materially represents your views as well? — Chromancer talk/cont 18:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 2 and the the first sentence of 3, I all agree wth. I am hesitant to make a prediction about what the result of a fork would be, however. My own reasoning is simply that this just hasn't really been a topic of scientific attention.— James Cantor (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At 1. Yes, agreed, although I have to read the article in detail to see if it does. From what I did read (the lead), it is really clinical now, and does not address common usage at all. One thing I am missing is the shift in the clinical literature to a narrower age range (10 from 13). The common usage of the word definitely hasn't changed yet.
At 2. Yes.
At 3. Disagree. After reading some more, it looks like that there are people who do not fall under the current content of the two aforementioned wikipedia articles. However, my suggestion is not a article focussing in the elusive third category, but a umbrella article explaining the various groups. For example, I think in common usage, someone who is attracted to 12 year olds is called a pedophile, while in (at least part of) the clinical litrerature, he would be a hebephile. That needs to be explained somewhere, and I think a umb rella article would be the best way to do that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He may very well be a pedophile, seeing as plenty of boys hit puberty at age 12, still looking no different than when they were age 11, and plenty of others have not even hit puberty by age 12. With girls, they have almost always hit puberty by age 12...and that fact is usually clear (physically wise). Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the true definition of pedophilia, yes, I would say it is the preference...rather than some fleeting sexual interest. But it is also true that "pedophilia" is often used to describe both. That, however, is no different than it also often being used to describe sexual interest in underage teenagers. Flyer22 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per James Cantor, the consensus of the field can only be determined on Wikipedia by prevalence in the literature. We have hundreds of published instances of the term "sexual interest in children" (adult and non-adult) to describe the phenomenon, where most of the literature limits "pedophilia" to the diagnosis (especially among James Cantor's small circle of friends at his employer CAMH). Then we have James Cantor and other entrenched editors, who promote a strict clinical definition of "pedophilia." The article's lede as it stands strictly defines "pedophilia" as the mental/psychiatric disorder, citing the DSM, etc. The general definition among pretty much everyone is ANY sexual interest in children, even interest that does not meet the diagnostic criteria. The entrenched editors at the article insist that the article is about those who meet the disorder only, and that any other definition is "misuse of terminology." They vote down any talk page attempt to point out that most people consider ANY sexual interest in children to be a disorder, claiming that only those with a persistent "primary or exclusive preference" are disordered by their definition. See Flyer22 above for this convoluted logic: the "true" definition of pedophilia is the preference (in the lede she defends), but that pedophilia "describes both": the preference and the "fleeting sexual interest," which is not a recognized mental disorder in her book. Then the article she helped write claims using the term "pedophilia" to describe the fleeting sexual interest is a "misuse of terminology."
A number of people above ascribe insidious motivations to me, assuming I am "pro-pedophilia" or something because I have a problem with how the entrenched editors want to limit the Pedophilia article to the mental disorder diagnosis. The general definition of this term is not some arcane "scientific" descriptor, but the entrenched editors consider this "misuse" when the rest of us call "pedophilia" what is more accurately described by experts as "sexual interest in children." Then they get upset and vote to delete how academia discusses the phenomenon itself, claiming any deviation from their strict definition is a "POV fork" (see Flyer22 below). A bunch of uninvolved editors have a knee-jerk response on this AfD to my attempt to reflect how the literature distinguishes the phenomenon from the strict clinical definition favored by the entrenched editors, and I am suddenly cast as that dreadful woman who is "promoting pedophilia." I am merely pointing out the sloppy logic and hypocrisy in how we cover this topic, largely due to James Cantor, a single purpose account here to promote the work and ideas of himself and his friends (that not all sexual interest in children is the mental disorder pedophilia). Most experts use the term "sexual interest in children" to avoid the very problem we face here. This idea that there is "pedophilia," and then there is "PEDOPHILIA" (or "true pedophilia" as the entrenched editors describe it), is an odd distinction made by James Cantor's friends at CAMH, and it hasn't gotten much traction beyond them. Let's just say the antonyms "false pedophilia" and "pseudopedophilia" have not gotten much traction in the last 125 years, either (beyond James Cantor's friends). I've published my concerns off-wiki about how scientifically sloppy they are. When I see people like Flyer22 etc. on here voting to delete this article (see below), it appears to me that they are voting to retain their strict definition. It's classic WP:OWN. They believe that most people with sexual interest in children do not have the mental disorder pedophilia. Then, when a well-sourced article making that very point comes along, they vote to delete it. A few editors see the glaring problem, but most are voting on some gut reaction that this must be some sneaky attempt to "promote pedophilia," rather than an attempt to reflect the body of published work which the entrenched editors seek to suppress. I agree with Kim van der Linde above that an umbrella article is in order. I also believe the entrenched editors claim they are defending the article against "pedophilia advocates," as a way to demonize anyone like me who points out that the article reflects neither the lay definition nor the consensus view in the academic literature. Maybe this article is not it, but this was my best good-faith attempt to address a major NPOV problem at Pedophilia, Paraphilia, and any other sexuality article where James Cantor has a professional stake in editing it to match his employer's peculiar POV. The fact that we have nowhere to discuss the important work of Michel Foucault and other major 20th century figures who wrote about this topic is due to the parochial WP:COI position of James Cantor, and three or four editors under his sway. This is the craziest AfD in which I have ever participated, mainly because most editors are not even voting on the content of the article. They are voting on what they suspect are my motivations for writing it. I suspect most of them would be quite surprised to know my POV, which is utterly irrelevant on Wikipedia. Jokestress (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh goodness! Pedophilia is not ANY sexual interest in children. There is nothing convoluted about that "logic" at all. The "true" definition of pedophilia is the preference, which is backed up by many reliable sources. And it is in description of prepubescents. PREPUBESCENTS! Not just any "child" under 18. A man who sexually abuses a prepubescent child as a sexual substitute for an adult is not a pedophile, for example. If we go by defining any and everything involving an adult in a sexual situation with a prepubescent child as pedophilia, then pedophilia would lose its very meaning. All child molesters would be disgnosed as pedophiles as well. Are you trying to say that every single person who has sexually abused a prepubescent child is a pedophile? If so, you are so far off the mark. There are other reasons, besides a true sexual interest in prepubescent children, that a person may engage in sexual behavior with a prepubescent child. Pedophilia is about the preference, or else all who have taken some sexual interest in a prepubescent child would be diagnosed as pedophiles. The same goes for saying someone who is sexually interested in a teenager is an ephebophile. That would be ridiculous, seeing as many normal men find 16 to 18-year-olds sexually attractive (not that I consider sexual interest in prepubescent children normal in any way). Ephebophilia is about the preference, not merely finding a teenager (who is or is nearly of the adult form, I might add) sexually attractive, just as pedophilia and hebephilia are about the preference. In the Misuse of terminology section of the Pedophilia article, we are mainly talking about society's absurd need to call sexual interest in clearly pubescent or post-pubescent individuals "pedophilia," not "fleeting sexual interest" in prepubescents. If you are going to cite sections, then cite them right! You keep saying we are limiting the Pedophilia article to the mental disorder diagnosis. No, we are not "limiting," we are "reporting" clear facts. Most experts in this field do not say pedophilia is the "sexual interest in children," seeing as that is not precise and would include anyone under 18 in most countries. An odd distinction made by James Cantor's friends at CAMH, and it hasn't gotten much traction beyond them? Are you just being silly? Every expert with a clear mind defines pedophilia as a sexual preference for prepubescent children. Or at least as a "sexual interest in prepubescent children" (emphasis on "prepubescent") when not being as clear as they could. We believe that most people with sexual interest in children do not have the mental disorder pedophilia? Uh, whatever again. After years at that article, my feelings are quite clear: Situational offenders, who truly sexually desire adults, and have used prepubescent children for sex as a sexual substitute are not pedophiles. They are not pedophiles because they have no true sexual interest in prepubescent children. They are not stressed and worried about getting their next piece of prepubescent flesh, as opposed to actual pedophiles who are. The Diagnosis section of the Pedophilia article makes clear the distinction between true or exclusive pedophiles and non-pedophilic or non-exclusive offenders. If you want that addressed... Well, there it is. But it does not stop the fact that, in the medical field (and not among everyday people simply throwing the word about) pedophilia is usually defined as the sexual preference for prepubescent children. Other times as "the sexual interest in prepubescent children." Even the host of To Catch a Predator felt the need to stress this fact...for fear of people misunderstanding (those people out there improperly using the term). This is not about WP:OWN. It is about WP:Reliable Sources and accuracy. Say what you will about me, here or on your blog, I do not care. But at least here...I will respond when my name is being dragged through the mud. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bold part of your reply above conflates the actus reus ("sexual situation," "child molesters") with the sexual interest, one of the problems described in Misuse of terminology. Per this article, Kurt Freund's tests using penile plethysmography led him to report that although the "normal" heterosexual males showed a larger penile response to adult females than to children, "children have some arousal value even for normal males."[4] Michael Seto summarized various surveys conducted and published, concluding that they indicate the higher bound of pedophilia is 3%.[5] Among the surveys he cites, one (Briere/Runtz) reported that about 20% of college males have some sexual interest in children. Another (Crepault/Couture) reported 62% fantasized about having sex with a young girl. That indicates only a fraction of those who have this interest qualify for the mental disorder of pedophilia, according to you. The majority of this sexual interest occurs outside the medico-legal definitions, yet some editors don't want that covered on pedophilia or in a separate article that uses the most widely-used term for the phenomenon. Our coverage of the sexual interest incorrectly conflates and frames the interest with the actus reus. That is sloppy and incorrect, and it does not reflect the literature. All experts agree that sexual interest in children can and does occur outside of the clinical diagnosis and outside the crimes of acting on the interest. Yet our articles give readers the sense that sexual interest in children is a crime, or the diagnosis of pedophilia, even though it is never a crime and only sometimes the diagnosis. Jokestress (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not conflating anything, you are. I am explaining to you that the actus rectus does not always equate to a true sexual interest in prepubescent children. You are speaking of the interest, are you not? Well, sexually abusing a prepubescent child is partly sexual interest in that child...it just is not always a true sexual interest (such as in the case of a man using a child as a sexual substitute). And the "widely-used term for the phenomenon," as you call it, is wrong when referring to someone who does not have a true sexual interest in prepubescent children...or when referring to sexual fantasies about teenagers. You say our coverage of the sexual interest incorrectly conflates and frames the interest with the actus reus? Are you saying you want the sexual interest in prepubescent children documented outside of pedophilia? Yes, I think you are. Well... Let me make clear that normal people do not go around fantasizing about having sex with prepubescent children. If they do this often, they are pedophiles. An occasional thought of being sexually intimate with prepubescent children, which can be due to a number of reasons, is not pedophilia. No more than the occasional thought about having sex with an underage teenager is ephebophilia. That is not sloppy or incorrect, and does reflect what pedophilia and ephebophilia are. The Pedophilia article does state that sexual interest in prepubescent children can and does occur outside of the clinical diagnosis and outside the crimes of acting on the interest (the lead mentions this first). Our articles do not give readers the sense that sexual interest in children is a crime (seeing as it cannot be a crime unless acted on). And as for the articles you have once again cited, those have already been addressed. Flyer22 (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep bringing up irrelevant things. Please stop bringing up teenagers and crimes. This discussion is about sexual interest in prepubescent children. Since you acknowledge that the phenomenon in blue on this diagram exists, what do you think that should be called, since you don't like the term most widely used in the published sources? Please cite reliable sources that use your preferred terminology. Jokestress (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, you keep bringing up irrelevant things. I bring ephebophilia because it is the exact same thing in this case. You act as though pedophilia should not only be defined as a sexual preference, when it is exactly that! If it weren't, every child molester would be diagnosed as a pedophile. Just as it is absurd to take ephebophilia out of the context of sexual preference, the same pretty much applies to pedophilia. I am not the only one who brought up teenagers, you and others have as well. It is unavoidable, especiallly when you always mention "children" instead of "prepubescent children." The term most widely used in the published sources? What?? Pedophilia is most often specified as a sexual preference for prepubescent children when it comes to the medical field, not mainstream or literary sources who fail to specify the "preference " part. How difficult is it for you to understand that if pedophilia was only defined as the interest, then every child molester would be diagnosed as a pedophile as well...and without question? The fact that they all are not, and enough are determined "not pedophiles," proves my point. I need not provide any sources for this. You must provide highly reliable medical sources saying that pedophilia is usually defined simply as a "sexual interest in children." Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see the flaw in your understanding now. Not all sexual abuse of children is motivated by sexual interest in children. That seems to be the problem in your conceptualization. Sexual assault (whether against children or others) and sexual attraction are not synonymous. That's why the DSM moved rape out of the sexual deviance category a long time ago. You seem to think the blue circle overlaps completely with the yellow one in the diagram.
  • "Sgroi found that child sexual offenders apparently are not motivated primarily by sexual desire; as Burgess and Groth also discovered, offenders tend to abuse children sexually to serve nonsexual needs, primarily the need to feel feel powerful and in control." Childhood sexual abuse: a reference handbook, page 7 By Karen L. Kinnear 2007 ABC-CLIO, ISBN 9781851099054
The majority of published references to "pedophilia" are about the phenomenon of sexual interest in children, not the shifting and variable medicalization of the phenomenon that occurred during the 20th century. We are looking for verifiability, not truth. In psychology it means something specific, but as most editors above agree, we need to cover the way the term is used by most people. Jokestress (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that not all sexual abuse of children is motivated by true sexual interest in children (note that I said "true"). But, yes, I feel that some level of sexual interest is there. I feel the same way about rape, which I have also studied extensively. I always say that rape is about power and control (blah, blah, blah), but I also believe some level of sexual interest is usually there. This can be seen with date rape, where a lot of men openly admit they wanted "easy sex." And if rape were only about power and control, heterosexual men would not care which sex they raped. There are other ways to feel in control over a child. Why resort to sexually abusing the child if there is no level of sexual interest there whatsoever? Even in the case of people using prepubescent children as sexual substitutes for adults, it is motivated by sexual interest.
Most editors above agree that we need to cover the way the term is used by most people? If so, that would include using pedophilia to refer to sexual interest in pubescents and underage post-pubescents as well, since the term is often used that broadly. Yes, we go on verifiability, but we also go on accuracy. We do not say pedophilia is defined as a sexual interest in pubescents and post-pubescents simply because most people describe it as such. We report accurately here. What lay people think is irrelevant to how we define the main definition. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article as POV fork, for many of the same reasons given above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is crap, undue weight given to certain books. And does sexual interest in include men admitting they fantasize about wanting to have sex with teenage girls who are below the age of 18, or does it involve people attracted to prepubescent children? Those are two totally different things. Example of ridiculous nature of ill defined terms:
"Wow," says one man to another, "that is one fine looking woman."
"She doesn't turn 18 until tommorrow, so you can't legally think about her that way, else you are sexually interested in children?"
"What?"
"Anyone under the age of 18 is a child. I'll have to report you to the authorities now, child molester." Dream Focus 17:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question 1: Have you actually looked at the article? It defines its topic as sexual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors some adults have toward prepubescent children.
Question 2: WP:UNDUE is about fairly representing all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Could you identify which significant viewpoint(s) are underrepresented in the article?  --Lambiam 00:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! You are right. My mistake. I altered the name of the article to clarify. The article pedophilia covers sexual interest of this nature already at its start. Redirect there. Dream Focus 04:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure Dream Focus made the "mistake" because the article's title says "children" instead of "prepubescent children." Flyer22 (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I just said. I thus changed the name to Adult sexual interest in prepubescent children. Dream Focus 19:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Now I'm the one who's not paying attention. Flyer22 (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Userfy per Kim van der Linde. KvdL's impressive research on selected out of context quotations is convincing. If the article isn't a POV fork, we can assume good faith and give the author a chance to prove as much, but so far it certainly looks like a POV fork. --GRuban (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is mainly impressive because first a strawman position was set up of a "third category", and then the quotations turned out, of course, not to support that strawman position. They did, however, largely support the actual information in the article.  --Lambiam 02:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another attempt

Although there is no single authoritative and definitive definition of the term "pedophilia", most researchers agree that the term should be reserved for a psychological disorder characterized by a strong sexual preference for young (prepubescent) children. Often the preference is not only strong, but even exclusive. The number of people afflicted by this disorder is fairly small, something like 1 to 2% of the adult population. Considering the social stigma it is hard to obtain accurate estimates.

In non-academic and non-legal use, the term is often applied more loosely, covering all sexual desire in an adult directed towards a child, with a strong connotation that this is a perversion. This loose usage is discouraged by experts in the field, and in Wikipedia we should avoid it, other than noting its existence.

Researchers have consistently found that, at least among adult males, a surprisingly large fraction (as many as one in five) have entertained erotic thoughts or fantasies involving young children, or have at some time in their adult lives felt a sexual attraction towards a child. The vast majority of these never act on these feelings and have a fairly normal sex life. In other words, they are adults who have, or have had, some form of sexual interest in children, yet who do not fit the definition of the psychological disorder, since the aspect of strong preference is absent.

Clearly, then, adult sexual interest in children encompasses more than only pedophilia and sexual child abuse. This wider area has been the subject of academic research, and based on the terminology found in reliable sources on the topic, the preferred term for this wider area is "adult sexual interest in children".

Can this wider area be the topic of an encyclopedic article? If not, why not?  --Lambiam 20:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You present an okay case with this, I'll give you that. But I don't like the title referring only to "children." I mean, would we include the case of an 18-year-old guy with his 17-year-old girlfriend? Also, though 18 is the legal definition for someone finally being an adult in most countries, it is not that way in all countries. Nor is it the biological definition of an adult. Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For an article's name the policy says we should go with the most common term, which appears to be this one. The article should start with a clear delineation of the topic, as the present version already does, although it may need to be tuned depending on the actual extent of the article. It is not uncommon that the common descriptive phrase for a topic is, on the face of it, wider than the actual topic so described. (For example, I saw many stones on a pebble field in Scotland, but these are not the subject of Stones of Scotland). In any case, the issue of the best name can be kept separate from the deletion discussion.  --Lambiam 21:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, many we can replace children with minors, and we have an all encompassing umbrella article?? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have reliable sources that establish this all-encompassing umbrella as a notable topic? I see some issues, not the least of which is that the definition of "minor" is context-dependent and jurisdiction-dependent, and varies widely. Although there is much material about statutory rape, you'd be hard-pressed to find material discussing entirely non-criminal and psychosexually normal sexual attraction of an 18-year old "adult" for a 17-year old "minor" (biologically also an adult) as being about "adult sexual interest in minors". Or is your point that you want to include interest in pubescent children, as indeed some of the literature does, provided that the age difference is significant?  --Lambiam 21:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would see it as an umbrella article. The purpose of such an article is to guide readers towards the various appropriate topics, which currently is missing. A second point is to clarify the differences between complete acceptable forms of sexual attraction, like a 18 year old towards a 16 year old, but also the unaccaptbale versions, like a 48 year old to a 6 year old. What I envision is an article that covers:
  1. Clinical categories of sexual attraction: Pedophilia, hebophilia, etc.
  2. Child sexual abuse.
  3. Common usage of terms.
  4. Legal categories such as statutory rape.
  5. And everything else that does not fall in those categories, which you have nicely explained above.
Of course, as Wikipedia tries to give a worldwide view, and we can cover the differences between countries, regions etc. I am not married to any title, but I do think haviong a good umbrella article will cover the bases, and is far more desirable than a special article about that what falls through the cracks, if for no other reason that it is rather difficult to see how that one is going to be linked from other pages, while an umbrella article can be a hatnote on each of the special pages. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "to clarify the differences between completely acceptable forms of sexual attraction", that is a minefield. What is completely acceptable in Sweden may not be completely acceptable in Saudi Arabia, and the other way around. What is completely acceptable to Mr. Jones may be quite unacceptable to Mrs. Jones. Unless we find reliable sources dealing specifically with the topic of acceptable forms of sexual attraction, this is bound to become either "original research" or a farm of snippets of information ratcheted together with no way to assure adequate coverage and to verify balance. What you call "falling through the cracks" may be, statistically, the larger part of what qualifies as adult sexual interest in children.  --Lambiam 09:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the world is complex, what can we say. And because the world is complex, we have to report that, otherwise, it would be basically a case of WP:UNDUE. Yes, there are more than enough article about the problems with statutory rape provisions, and how they are getting changed to allow kids who are just 2 years in difference to have legal sex. And yes, the unnamed group that falls through the cracks is most likely a substantial group. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The world is complex, indeed, but do we have to report on all the world's complexity in this article? The article Traffic code does not report on the visual flight rules, the article Water contains no info on its being a major constituent of beer and does not even mention fizzy water, and the article Human leg fails to inform us that ballroom dancing is a completely acceptable use of one's legs, except in those countries were it isn't. I don't see how this is a problem with WP:UNDUE; these are just things that are not within the scopes of the respective articles, and they (and the users of Wikipedia) would not benefit from these scopes being stretched so much that they should also cover these aspects.  --Lambiam 14:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You raised the issue of differences between countries, not me. I think what is needed is an umbrella article called Adult sexual interest in minors, with as a direct qualifier, that it means children before the legal age of consent (which covers many of the differences between countries issues). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that one of the functions of the envisaged "umbrella" article would be "to clarify the differences between complete acceptable forms of sexual attraction, like a 18 year old towards a 16 year old". I merely pointed out that such an undertaking is fraught with problems, such as the context- and jurisdiction-dependence of crucial aspects, to which you rather detachedly reacted by stating that the world is complex. I think that you severely underestimate the difficulties. Please give a reliable source for a usable definition of "completely acceptable form of sexual attraction" that distinguishes it from "unacceptable versions".  --Lambiam 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would prefer the article be titled Adult sexual interest in minors; I thought about that as soon as I made my last comment here. Although..."minors" usually refers to underage pubescent and post-pubescent individuals not far from legal adulthood. It should still be fine, seeing as the term also covers prepubescents. Flyer22 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let see if others go with it.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should we have an article on Sexual interest of minors in adults? I think not. Why not? Not because it is a non-existent phenomenon – of course there are reliable sources in which statements can be found on events or issues that fall under the umbrella of sexual interest of minors in adults – but because, as a topic, it has not been the subject of reliable sources. It is not possible to establish its notability – which is, most likely, because, as a topic, it is not notable. Just google "Sexual interest of minors in adults": zero hits. To forge an article out of statements dredged up from sources about something else is an unacceptable form of synthesis. Same story for "Adult sexual interest in minors".  --Lambiam 20:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good summary of the problem. I would add that the phenomenon has been discussed outside a medico-legal framework as well, but the information we have is limited to how those two disciplines conceptualize and codify the concept. There have been published works on the medicalization and criminalization of pedophilia, which look at these developments from a historical, philosophical and ethical/religious perspective. None of that is covered on the site because we are limited to looking at the phenomena as diseases or crimes or both. It's obviously much more complicated than that.
What we usually do on something like this is have an article on the term as used in psychology and a general article on the phenomenon (i.e. Moron (psychology) vs. Mental retardation, or transvestic fetishism vs. crossdressing). The only reason we are not doing that here is because of the subject matter, which is so revolting to most people that they are simply voting on their gut feelings about the topic (and my purported motivations) rather than looking at how we cover similar topics on the project. Jokestress (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have also had cases of advocacy masquerading as dispassionate neutral point-of-view academic discourse, so people are understandably edgy, and although we can be too careful, there are some thin lines, and I'd rather see Wikipedia err on the side of caution than cross the line.  --Lambiam 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the AfD
  • keep with some revisions, to be explained below. This is notoriously not a field where it is easy to separate the science from the opinion. I think it reasonable that people who study human behavior do it because they are interested in human behavior & feelings -- sexual , economic, or whatever -- from a personal standpoint rather than from purely abstract or accidental considerations. They have an understandable tendency to find support for scientific positions which directly or indirectly support their own views about how humans ought to think & behave--using "ought" both in the sense of what they consider morally justified, and how they would like society to develop. I do not want to say that the result of such investigations never change the preconceived notions of the investigators, but I do say that it is not the usual case--people may indeed change their ideas because of changes in their personality, but it isn't usually because of their findings. I don't think my view is unduly cynical, & I refer for support to the prior discussion here. (Incidentally, I have great personal respect for both of the contending individuals. Where the science may be, I have no personal view, not being an expert & not having made a close study of the material. My views of sexual morality are my own business. My views of intellectual morality do concern Wikipedia, and they are explained below.)

    As far as I am concerned, all views about behavior and feelings of all sorts should be explained here, and I want to explicitly reject two propositions above:
      1. that there is a single correct scientific position
      2. that our moral feelings about the subject should affect the content--the extreme of which is the statement that this is not an appropriate topic for a mainstream encyclopedia.
    There are many fields where there is a mainstream vs. a fringe position about the scientific status of the field, but I do not think it is the case here. There is very much a mainstream vs. fringe in terms of opinions on the morality, but with respect to the science I think there are multiple positions, and all the opinions need to be explained. Explained, rather than advocated or deprecated. As I re-read this article. I think it makes the error of presenting the way of thinking it presents as if it were the unquestioned standard. But then, to a considerable but generally lesser extent to many of the other articles. It is impossible to know whether this is deliberately intended as advocacy, or whether it represents conviction that this is the one true position, or whether it is being put forth in order to balance the perceived contrary bias of the other articles--I suppose it is some mixture, because that's usually the case. I do read in the arguments against the article the use of an umbrella term for what is actually a range of behavior and feeling that may or may not be compatible. I think the s use of terminology here is a very clear example of the deliberate use of loaded terminology, terminology which assume moral outrage or moral approval, in order to prejudice a position. The article should explain this, not assume one view of it. It remains a justifiable topic. The principle is NPOV and NOT CENSORED--that all views are covered, & that if some views might lead someone to conclusions that are not socially approved, this is not the concern of an encyclopedia. I've said this on all topics here where the question arose; I do not regard this one as exceptional. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One remark: Confirmation bias works both ways and can also degenerate into advocacy masquerading as scientific research (see e.g. Rind et al. controversy); as editors we should be wary of that. So, while there may be no single correct scientific position, some are more incorrect than others. For the rest, it appears to me – correct me if you think I'm wrong – that the revisions you'd like to see can be handled through the normal wikiprocess of editing article content.  --Lambiam 10:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
  1. ^ http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-07-18-Transformers_N.htm
  2. ^ Aggrawal, Anil (2008). Forensic and medico-legal aspects of sexual crimes and unusual sexual practices, p. 47. CRC Press, ISBN 9781420043082
  3. ^ Levine, Judith. Harmful to Minors Thunder's Mouth Press, 2003 ISBN 9781560255161
  4. ^ Freund K. (1981). Assessment of pedophilia. In M. Cook, & K. Howells, (Eds.), Adult sexual interest in children. Academic Press, ISBN 9780121872502
  5. ^ Seto MC (2008). Pedophilia: Psychopathology and theory. In Laws DR, O'Donohue WT (eds.) Sexual deviance: theory, assessment, and treatment, p. 167. Guilford Press, ISBN 9781593856052
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Costantino

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

Marco Costantino in fact not made his professional debut (at least i checked that he did not made any league debut), i.e. non-notable footballer. Matthew_hk tc 04:50, 3 September 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) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Play for Blood

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

It doesn't look like this student one-act play played anywhere other than a student showcase in 2006. I can find no RSs. I would have proded, but a prod was removed without explanation in 2007. Novaseminary (talk) 03:53, 3 September 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.

Carter v. Commissioner

edit

The result was Keep (withdrawn by proposer; no !votes to delete) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJRC (talk • contribs) (non-admin closure)

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

Non-notable circuit court case, cited only a few times in other circuits, not a leading case, no secondary sources to speak of. GregJackP Boomer! 03:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —JD Caselaw (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We should generally keep circuit court cases that are significant enough to end up in casebooks. The better coverage we have of such cases, the more law students will turn to Wikipedia as a source of legal information. bd2412 T 13:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I remember studying this one, almost thirty years ago. This is a leading case on the definition of taxable income for the US federal income tax. Quite a few Scholar hits; more importantly, almost all of them on the first page are about this case, unusual given the commonness of the name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nom, with a couple of comments. 1. The article needs to be renamed to "Estate of Carter v. Commissioner of IRS" with additional redirects from other possible titles. My initial search did not pull up refs until I included more of the actual case name. 2. The article needs additional work, it needs to look more like a Wiki case article (infobox, follow MOSLAW, etc) and less like a law school brief. 3. Notability is not inherited, so the author of the opinion, while needed in the article, is not an argument for notability of the case itself. GregJackP Boomer! 15:05, 3 September 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) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Road construction in Houston, Texas

edit
Road construction in Houston, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS - in six months half of this article will likely need to be changed, making it a bad topic for an article. Rschen7754 03:29, 3 September 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) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago venture capital companies

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY This page has emerged as a list of largely non-notable firms and today serves primarily as a director with phone numbers. It is too narrow to ever encompass a large number of notable firms as there are likely only a handful in Chicago that would pass notability criteria. The group of notable firms would be better served on List of private equity firms and List of venture capital firms |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 03:08, 3 September 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) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of last occurrences

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

Completely random and arbitrary inclusion criteria that could never be complete and is hard to verify or even define. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - It's not a LIST of anything, it's a compendium of trivia. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 4 September 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) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schnader House

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

A very minor college dormitory. No evidence of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 02:55, 3 September 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) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plane Crazy (stage show)

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

Children's stage show that (apparently) came and went in 1991. No references and has been so tagged since 2006. Total orphan. No indication of notability whatsoever. Herostratus (talk) 01:54, 3 September 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) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Kelly (hurler)

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to sufficiently establish WP:notability. Does not appear to meet WP:ATHLETE#Curling in that I don't believe Dublin Senior B Hurling Championship is a World Curling Tour or World Curling Federation sanctioned event, plus would still need a reliable source independent of the subject per WP:BASIC. J04n(talk page) 01:44, 3 September 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) 00:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Lynn

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

No reliable sources to establish notability for an individual. Sandra Lynn/Sandra Modic/Sandy Modic certainly exists, but only once IMDB credit and no more verifiable sources to establish encyclopedic nature. tedder (talk) 01:43, 3 September 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 A10, please refer to Reggae. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Reggae

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

WP:OR / Essay. Pure opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 01:30, 3 September 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) 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detlef Karsten

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. This contemporary artist does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. J04n(talk page) 01:04, 3 September 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) 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Slack

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

Contested prod. Singer, plenty of mentions in blogs and other grapevine-type websites, but nothing that meets our reliability guidelines. And I couldn't find any either. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:25, 3 September 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 Šabac#Elementary_schools. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 05:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Janko Veselinović elementary school, Šabac

edit
Janko Veselinović elementary school, Šabac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SCH - nothing special claimed for this school (unless you count the 1000-strong faculty!). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 September 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) 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tesla boy

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

There's not a lot of sources, if at all, to indicate notability; most are just blog sites or deadlinks now, and those aren't reliable. Should be deleted now; until the band gains some notability, it doesn't need its own article. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 September 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) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Grueneich

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and confirmed by the California Senate, Commissioner Grueneich is clearly notable. Johnfos (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Simply being appointed and confirmed would not be enough to qualify her as notable. However, she has been high-profile as a commissioner. She gets a ton of mentions in the press [40] and is clearly filling an important public role on the CPUC. I added a couple of news articles to the page. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice that the previous nomination was closed as "snow keep," implying a strong consensus to keep, so I am puzzled why we have a second nomination now - offering no rationale except "non-notable". --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 September 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\ 20:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa LePore

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

This BLP looks like a WP:BLP1E to me. I am sure a detailed article could be written about the 'butterfly ballot', and the creator would deserve a mention in it, but the summary at United States presidential election in Florida, 2000#Palm Beach County's butterfly ballots is sufficient. Also, my reading up about this indicates her party affiliation was drummed into an issue to suggest that she was doing it on purpose. There have been many bad ballot designs and election systems, esp bad electronic ballot systems, and many causes for the outcome of the fateful 2000 election results. Keep in mind that this ballot design had been used in a prior election, with similar results, without controversy, b) the proposed ballot was published in local newspapers prior to its use, and it was seen by the Democratic party[41][42] and b) the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the ballot wasn't noncompliant.[43] (see also http://everything2.com/title/Fladell+v.+Palm+Beach+County+Canvassing+Board) The implementation of electronic voting machines in 2004 falls under 'doing her job'. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 September 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\ 20:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vasaeleth

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

Contested prod. The article contains a weak assertion of importance, barely enough to pass speedy A7. However, the article is sourced only from unreliable sources and primary sources, and I was unable to find anything better. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 September 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) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm's Money

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

Violates WP:PLOT and has no WP:RS. Derild4921☼ 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 September 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) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(It's Not War) Just the End of Love

edit
(It's Not War) Just the End of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable single. Recommend deleting or redirecting back to album article Postcards from a Young Man per WP:NSONGS. The song hasn't charted, primarily because it hasn't even been released yet. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. SnottyWong confabulate 17:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. If it had placed on a country's national chart, that would be different. As for now, it hasn't done that, so, delete.--Caravan train (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it will receive sufficient coverage is not, however. I really don't see how deleting it now is going to help the encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 September 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) 02:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Irani

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

The article does not appear to meet the guidance of WP:ARTIST. This is a new fashion designer and it is not too surprising that there is a lack of sources available in GNews or GBooks apart from tangential mentions. There may be suitable sources to support notability once this designer is established but it seems unlikely that such sources will be added in the near future. Raising for discussion as there may be a rationale for notability that I am unaware of. Fæ (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Far too much like a CV, very little encyclopaedic information, search of Ghits/Gnews suggests she has so far only got attention for this medicated clothing idea, so at the most this is a WP:BIO1E. There might be a case for an article about this medicated clothing range. There again, once someone tells Ben Goldacre about this, the media coverage might not be what Diana Irani whoever the article creator is hoped for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a badly written article but it just needs improvement: the subject herself is notable in fashion design, a field that is usually not sourceable by traditional methods like GNews. Her full name is "Diana Irani Gressier" and she is not a new designer, her first clothing line "Blank" was introduced over a decade ago, and a more recent line, "Clothes That Cure", has - as noted above - potential as an article by itself. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking 'new' in the nomination based on your comment. If you have some supporting reliable sources showing impact please add them to the article or article talk page. Fæ (talk) 05:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 September 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) 02:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Tiger

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

This is a biography that has no reliable sources and therefore fails WP:BLP and WP:V. It is essentially based on an article from IAFD. According to the relevant wikiproject WP:P*, that website "attempts to be the adult film equivalent of the IMDb ... Their filmographies are considered reliable, but not their biographies." As concerns the other two references, one is dead and the other leads to a PDF in which the subject is only mentioned by name. This means we do not have sufficient verifiable content on which a biography of this person can be based. (In case anybody wonders why I'm nominating this article in particular, it's because my attention was drawn to it by Ticket:2010082710000201).  Sandstein  19:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, keep per WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me: Even if the subject is notable per that guideline based on any awards she has won, the article must still be deleted per WP:BLP because there does not seem to be not enough verifiable material about the person in existence.  Sandstein  10:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IAFD is reliable enough to at least confirm she exists. Other reliable but trivial sources are available on Google which also confirm her existance. Epbr123 (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the basis of the current article and sources, we can verify that a person of that stage name exists and was nominated for one award. That is not enough to be the basis of an article about a living person. No other fact about her, including basics such as real name and age, are verifiable.  Sandstein  15:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's slightly wikilawyering. A porn star with nominations for both performing and directing would be rarer and more notable than a porn star with a couple of nominations for performing. Epbr123 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 September 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) 00:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SUIT Framework

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

Prod contested solely on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS grounds. Software with no evidence of notability. By the way, PHAML does not have its own "wiki article." It is Wikipedia that has an article on PHAML. Quite different: see WP:OWN. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Wikipedia owns the article or not is irrelevant an irrelevant concern, and is not what I was getting at. What I was referring to is the fact that there is an article on PHAML, although it has no signs of "notability" either. I'm not quite sure how this article on software fails to meet the criteria of notability, so if you could explain that, it would make this proceeding much quicker. Faltzer (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By its nature, you can (and should!) expect that Wikipedia will have some stuff falling through the cracks. But that's not a reason to widen the cracks. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the debate is that this article should be modified, I'd love to here suggestions, but I certainly think that this article should exist in some way, shape, or form. That being said, I'm wondering what I'd need to include to prove this products notability. As far as independent coverage goes, an old incarnation of SUIT was nominated for an award on PHPClasses (See the class page), and regardless of the fact that it wasn't ranked highest among users, it was selected by the creator of the site as innovative, and this was a horribly made prototype of what you see today. Is this sufficient? If not, please explain what would be. BrandMan211 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The debate is whether the article meets the notability guideline, not whether it should be modified; although you can save the article by bringing it into line while the debate is ongoing if that is possible to do. The essence of notability on Wikipedia is 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. You should read the guideline which explains what all these terms mean on Wikipedia. Currently, the article contains no citations to reliable sources at all and consequently is liable to be deleted. If no such sources exist, the article cannot be saved. SpinningSpark 10:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is yet another AfD by Blanchardb where GBooks and GScholar articles haven't been searched. I will add references to the article. I reiterate my request to Blanchardb to search GBooks and GScholar before nominating AfD. I will add a more thorough description of how I believe Blanchardb's nomination method is not according to the WP guidelines. I will have to do some wikilawyering first, unfortunately. (I'm also working on a more specific demonstration of the notability of Flux2D/3D which was deleted recently based on discounting of incomplete evidence of notability. In future, I will be more specific in providing specific references.) — HowardBGolden (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Scripting Using Integrated Templates), often referred to as SUIT, is a web template engine with implementations written in PHP and Python. Its goal is to separate the Client-side languages (HTML, CSS, Javascript, etc.) from the Server-side language (PHP or Python) using a third language with a user-defined syntax. Bulk of the page is in code, not in English. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources found on google news, google books, google scholar, google shopping, google maps, google finance, google translate, youtube, facebook, or myspace. Nomination looks fine to me. All sources currently in the article are primary. Fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong talk 18:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you all have to do. That said, if these are truly the standards for notability, please nominate every system on this page other than Smarty. BrandMan211 (talk) 16:26, 7 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_September_3&oldid=1142639504"