Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 4

< 3 April	5 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus to delete.

Several of the deletion arguments were very weak and I've discounted them: the use of the word "Premiership" (renaming articles to use a more appropriate synonym is obviously the right fix there), potential legal issues (not our problem: Wikipedia is not subject to Canadian broadcasting laws), various takes on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or not as the case may be) and the nominator's increasingly irate insistence that we're all being manipulated the Canadian Conservative Party.

There are some cogent arguments regarding the supposed walled garden nature of the articles, along with several editors examining the content and finding it to be somewhat systematically skewed. Nevertheless, multiple editors have pointed out that these are long-established articles with years of editing history and that deletion of such pages due to tone / POV problems alone is rare. One recent example was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews, but I think most parties can agree that was an extraordinary case. All in all it's not possible to discern an overwhelming consensus either way, although I think there is consensus that some major editing (and possibly some merging and moving of content) is required to address the alleged POV problems.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premiership of Stephen Harper

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

This article and the others about to be added to this AfD constitute spam, especially in the context of the current federal election. There is nothing in this puff piece that cannot be in the main Stephen Harper article and there is no other equivalent article for any other Canadian Prime Minister (in fact, the term "Premiership" is not used in Canada at all); there are also separate "ministry" (what we call a cabinet and also comes off long a foreign-imposed or wiki-spawned term). The "X Policy of the Harper government" articles also are clearly part of a politically-controversial effort/edict from the PMO to re-style/re-brand the Government of Canada as "the Harper government" and in that light those titles can only be seen not only as POV but also blatant spam and political rebranding. They also have nothing in them of note that cannot be in the main Harper article, and in their current state constitute gross undue weight on this one person. No other Canadian politician of any era has such intense/overbuilt coverage on Wikipedia. Skookum1 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons, with extra emphasis on the re-branding term "Harper government" but also because these come off like elaborate press releases and directories of this regime's policies/legislation, with only cursory NPOV critique, and in totally UNDUE fashion. They are unredeemable, despite suggestions in WP:CANTALK from time to time they be merged into the "Premiership" article though it has no valid reason to exist. They are all "political ego confabulation" and to say much more about the political machine that lay behind their creation would get more POV than necessary; suffice to say that one wag's comment about Harper is the only thing growing faster than his waistline is his ego, and after that his press machinery. Again, no other Canadian PM (many much more notable) have any such series of articles nor over-focus on his policies and in his chosen language; some like the foreign policy article make statemetns about past policies that are clearly slanted; saying "oh, rewrite them to make them less POV" is not sufficient partly because the amount of work that is, and because of the decidedly POV nature of Canadian news sources, many of which simply replicate PMO statements; the heavy reliance on mainstream media sources vs more independent sources of information is also problematic to these articles, though not limited to them. There is no point in merging them, or de-POVizing them; they should never have been let to exist at all, and now given their effective free-advertising nature in the context of this media-manipulated election campaign, it's time for them to be gotten rid of. Not next week, but NOW (i.e. not in the 3rd week of teh campaign, but the 2nd).Skookum1 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --papageno (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - AfD's aren't about votes or consensus. They are about providing keep/delete rationale's. Simply adding 'delete' does nothing to contribute to the process. Rklawton (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Wikipedia is not a Canadian election campaign advertising site. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Outback the koala (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being in contravention of the law is, and also being SPAM, UNDUE, SOAP, and violations of even more Wikipedia rules. Unless you're willing to provide balance by de-POVizing their content and creating articles for Chretien, Martin, Trudeau, Mulroney and Pearson and so many more, and also to provide proper balance of the sales pitch all of them are about, you have no valid reason to oppose their deletion....except partisan favoritism.Skookum1 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What law does this article contravene? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although I'm not confident on the policy grounds to base my argument. First off, I'm Canadian and I do plan to vote in the upcoming federal election. I've never seen these articles before and have read through them now. Looking at the "X policy of the Harper goveernment" articles, I note two items. The article titles are a branding exercise, make no mistake about it, a little while ago official government publications were ordered to be rebranded in tha fashion, that of itself has received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. That could be fixed though, but much worse is the sheer volume of apologia contained in these articles. They do not appear anywhere close to the standard of NPOV that we expect, they are basically puff-pieces that explain why everything the government hsa done is uniformly good. I'm frankly stunned at the scope of this, I don't see any way to correct the imbalance given the sheer volume of material to go through. To take just one example, GST tax rate reductions are discussed without mention that virtually every trained economist in the world would say (and many did say) that consumption taxes are the very last ones you should reduce. And these problms go on, in almost every paragraph. It's a bit of a walled garden of approval for a political party. The primary article also seems problematic, though marginally less so, as it does acknowledge at least a tiny bit of controversy and perhaps an odd mistake or two. But these articles all fail the NPOV test, and it seems rather lopsided to say "oh well, just fix all those NPOV problems in all those articles, we'll rely on the Google links while the campaign plays out". I do respect the primary authors of these articles, so I'm torn on this. And I've personally defended the Wikipedia articles of Canadian politicians whose views I strongly disagree with, because this is Wikipedia. But this is a big mess, so I think deletion is the way to go here. Franamax (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 28th Canadian Ministry - Pictureprovince (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Skookum, that's a lot of reading for one Afd. From what I can see, these articles (very nicely formatted and composed) are basically summaries of the various press releases by the Canadian gov't. over the last six years. These are content forks from other articles where this level of detail and lack of critical sourcing wouldn't be allowed Perhaps weeks of editing, merging, and stripping down could arrive at one good article, perhaps located at Pictureprovince's suggestion, I can't see the benefit. The titles alone make any argument of neutrality moot. Perhaps we should db-hoax them as the concept of "the Harper government" is a figment of the PMO's imagination? The Interior (Talk) 18:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment/reply Harper's importance/notability is certainly a hoax, in a sense, though his impact on CAnadian politics - not represented at all in these articles - is certainly notable; but a highly POV topic to even begin addressing. I had a look at the "ministry" article that PictureProvince suggested merging this to, but it has no political content and simply moving the POV/promo/spam material here there is not a solution, and those articles are really only listings of cabinet members, not policy records of any kind; the Economic policy items are properly part of the budget articles, but as noted I don't see their relevance in encyclopedic terms either. What we're seeing here, also, I maintain is quite clearly paid editing and of course highly COI in origin; somebody in Tory or PMO staff has taken a lot of time to study Wiki format/citations etc but the spin doctoring is obvious; trying to "balance" articles by applying criticisms of existing structure in the article is just playing within the walled garden, as Franamax calls it; it's not objective in origin and can't be made so. Surely articles such as Canadian environmental policy are conceivable, but that begins with Trudeau (and somewhat before, in fact) and runs a gamut of other politicians, many of whose policies are much more notable (and actually environmental, as opposed to anti-environmental) and of course involves non-politicians such as Suzuki and Paul Watson etc. I've heard "merge" here before but that's not a quick process, and though formally the campaign doesn't begin until April 11 we're really in the thick of it now aren't we? So these are very clearly ad-material and I do in fact wonder what the Chief Elections Officer might have to say about them; Wikipedia may be free space but their value as advertising has a dollar value, as does the money spent on making them. Nothing past the Stephen Harper main article deserves to exist, and no doubt it has POV problems of its own (I can't stomach reading political bios anymore, and de-listed Campbell's a while back and avoid Christy Clark's though still keeping an eye on it). "Balance" here would be Environmental policies of the Ignatieff Liberals r Economic policies of the Layton New Democrats, but again there'd be nthing in them that couldn't/shouldn't be in the respective bios or party articles. The problem here is how to get rid of these forthwith as they constitute S-P-A-M and a host of other wiki-violations. Sure, it's hard to prove paid editing, but what else could they be? Somebody did all this work on their own free time, for completely altruistic reasons?? I highly doubt it, as must you. Overall there needs to be a policy to deal with the use of Wikipedia by politicians, their parties and their p.r. staff/consultants, and some way t deal with them expeditiously, not via a long-drawn-out AfD - where potentially "votes" could be coming from people not familiar with politics especially Canadian politics. Recognition that such content violates election spending laws should be enough to get the Council interested, as it's something like violating libel and hatred laws and copyright etc.....more on this later, I'm packing and cleaning but wanted to push aside this notion of "merge" as I always hear that kind of thing, which t me is just a delaying tactic, and the people proposing it are never the ones who actually do it once mandated. But what's to merge? Repetition of Tory/GOP lines in e.g. the Foreign Policy article that speak negatively of past Canadian=US relations in a US-favourable light? What we see here, all unreadable but well cited mass of it, is nothing more than Harperite propaganda. Notability alone is enough reason to dump them; but they can't be allowed to stand after April 11 (the start of teh campaign) or Wikipedia might be in violation of campaign spending laws.....Skookum1 (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply/change of vote to keep While the information currently presented my need to be de-POVed, the fact that there are pages like the Premiership of David Cameron, Howard Government (redirected from Premiership of John Howard), Presidency of Barack Obama, etc suggests that there should be such pages for Canadian prime ministers. Whether these should be titled "Premiership of X", "X Government" or housed in the existing "Nth Canadian ministry" pages is a matter for debate, but pages of this sort belong on Wikipedia. - Pictureprovince (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the other discussants who make the point that this article is really just another 'puff piece' for an individual who is well known in Canada for his extraordinary degree of control over his public persona and that of other members of his party. As already noted, the term "premiership" is extremely odd in Canada and suggests that the term was used in order to create the appearance of a new topic, zooming the public in fact. The term "premier" actually refers to the leader of a provincial government so it is doubly odd. This overemphasis on Stephen Harper is matched on Wikipedia by an equal overemphasis on the wrongdoings of the Opposition parties in Canada. Specifically, there is an entire entry on Liberal attack ads for one election year, with no other similar entry for the Conservative party's attack ads, which have been widely censured in Canada for the 2011 election year (and other years). I have recommended that that entry be deleted. This issue is especially salient now as there is currently an election in Canada, with only 2 more weeks to go in the campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJeanHellyer (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Take what can be salvaged to the Stephen Harper article; and the rest to the various parliamentary sittings (ie 40th Canadian Parliament, etc). Redirect to Stephen Harper directly. This will save info here, not elsewhere and save us time with fixing the links. Outback the koala (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe some of it can be merged to the party page also. Outback the koala (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Change to Keep per my comments elsewhere. This is no valid reason for deletion at this time. Outback the koala (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - replies @Koala- then get busy; I'm not going to waste my time moving advertising/political-spam to another article where it doesn't belong either. I hear this "merge and redirect" stuff all the time, but those proposing it to defend a given article are never the ones who do it. These are blatant spam and UNDUE WEIGHT on a given Prime Minister and his media packets....@ PictureProvince's proposal; not much of these can be saved, especially since so much of the content (=nearly all) is blatantly POV/SPAM and also UNDUE. Saying that there should be a Premiership of Pierre Trudeau or Premiership of Brian Mulroney or Premiership of Arthur Meighen article is all fine and dandy except for two things: one is that "Premiership" is an unknown term in Canada, another is that those articles don't exist and for all the pretense that this one should survive because those ones might that's just defending the indefensible. We're in an election campaign here, PictureProvince, and these constitute illegal advertising and blatant violations of more than one Wikipedia guideline; as noted they may also be of concern to the Chief Electoral Officer and Wikipedia would be seen as a sponsor of donated-ads which are nonetheless counted as advertising by Elections Canada.....and have a clear dollar value. Why else was so much time/money spent on compiling them???? The election's at the start of May, these should not be tolerated any longer, they should be deleted as soon as possible. If you want stuff merged/moved, do it, don't say it can be done; nobody else wants to, or sees the point.Skookum1 (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - SO then just move the article - if its the word Premiership just move it to a more neutral wording, Policies in Canada under Harper or something along those lines. Outback the koala (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the other 4 article. They are well cited and seem neutral to me and notable. Zero reason for deletion - My rational for the Premiership article does not change. Outback the koala (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No they're NOT neutral, not in the slightest. Some of it's overtly partisan, they're intent is partisan, and some of it like Franamax notes is "subtle but clearly partisan"; deconstructing them for your education in Canadian politics is not what this AfD is for; if you're not Canadian and unfamiliar with our politics (your name indicates you're an Aussie but maybe that's not the case), you still have no rational basis to defend what are effectively election pamphlets with heavy POV content and overtly POV/advertising intent. THEY ARE NOT NEUTRAL'. Carefully worded and calm-sounding maybe, but they're sell-jobs and do not give proper NPOV weight to criticisms of this regime and its policies. They are also in contravention of election laws. Maybe that doesn't matter to you....whether you're in this country or another, but it's not inconsequential....Skookum1 (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anything that could be in an article titled "policies in Canada under Harper" should just very simply be in History of Canada or in the Stephen Harper article, and any of what that might be cannot be so much a replication of Tory press releases as repeated by CTV and CBC as these happen to be. The is ZERO reason to keep these, unless you're a pro-Harper person who doesn't care a fig for Wiki-neutrality and encyclopedism.Skookum1 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please keep in mind WP:No Legal Threats. Outback the koala (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any legal threat against you or any other individual being advanced here.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Otk, there is not even the remotest sign of a legal threat here. If there was anything close, I would be clicking on buttons that I rarely use, regardless of whether I agree with Skookum1's (sometimes over the top) arguments here. Franamax (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This comes closer to being a legal threat than "not even the remotest sign". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the timing of this nomination somewhat disturbing, the article has existed since 2006, if there was really a problem with the split why wasn't it addressed during the last 4 years when there wasn't an election about to happen? Monty ₈₄₅ 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the government of an entire country for five years is a highly significant topic and definitely one that has received enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for our notability guidelines; it's important enough that it will surely receive dedicated coverage in political science works of the future. If you disagree with the page's contents, you can easily turn it into a stub: AFD is not cleanup. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those so-called reliable sources (e.g. CTV and CBC) have done nothing more than reprocess press releases; and there is no balanced reportage given, either. Other suggestions have been that these become e.g. Canadian environmental policy - but it existed long before Harper came along; any mention of for example foreign policy before harper is portrayed negatively and in distorted fashion.....yeah I could have blanked heaps of what's on this page, and I could have launched an ANI long ago; but right now there's been no effort to NPOVize or merge them from people proposing that, nor any attempt to create corresponding articles for other governments/leaders....Skookum1 (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you go through WP:CANTALK archives you'll see I've raised this issue before, and not once. And you hear "merge" and "create other articles" as the excuse to keep them; to date nobody who's said that has gone and created corresponding articles fror other leaders/parties; in fact someone proposed splitting the Premiership article further, despite its obvious UNDUE nature and that it's something like a POV fork from Stephen Harper. The reason I raise them now is twofold: a current election campaign (date of election May 2; I was unaware of them during the last election, or was preoccupied with other articles), and also because the "Harper government" rebranding and associated matters, such as Harper's information-management policies, reveal them in the light of what they really are. Just because they've existed since 2006 and despite criticisms of them in the past is no reason for them to continue to exist. They are soapboxes, and directories of tory/Harper policy, nothing more.Skookum1 (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I never look at Canadian news, but I see enough media coverage in the American press to be able to write about the Harper government. Moreover, I can give you coverage of the Harper government in academic journals; see http://www.jstor.org/stable/40184864 and http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/tph.2009.31.1.46 for a couple of articles that study the government's positions on significantly different subjects. Do you believe that sufficient reliable sources exist to write articles about the government of Gordon Brown and the Obama administration but not for the government of Stephen Harper? Or do you believe that insufficient sources exist for all three of them and thus that all three should be deleted? Moreover, please think long-term: we know that political scientists and political historians write extensively about the governments of virtually every political leader in developed Western countries, so we have no good reason to assume that they won't write extensively about the Harper administration. I've shown that independent reliable contemporary sources exist for the Harper government, and we have no reason to doubt that more will be produced in the future: as a result, why do you continue to advocate deletion? Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the article is (allegedly) utter junk right now, so much so that there is nothing salvageable from it. Are you willing to go clean it up? NW (Talk) 04:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we do not delete sourced, non-neutral articles - we fix them according to WP:NPOV. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST also doesn't justify a delete - this would preclude articles on these subjects from being created for any government. Finally, it's not up to us to speculate if an article can exist "legally" - contact the Wikimedia Foundation if you have concerns. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (blank the content but leave it accessible in the page history) to Stephen Harper. Gaming Wikipedia policies to get weeks or months of free advertising during an election campaign is not on. Anyone who wants can neutrally merge stuff from the history into the Stephen Harper article but they don't get to keep a spammy version in mainspace while waiting for someone else to clean it up. (I don't oppose deletion but don't understand the article content well enough to tell if anything is salvageable. Some parts superficially look like they might be usable, other parts obviously not. If enough knowledgeable folks say it's all crap, then delete.). 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been pointed out above that the pages have been in existence since 2006, this is not a new development. Outback the koala (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The new development is the pervasiveness, which is unfortunately showing up during an election campaign. Try a Google search on "canada election economic policy harper government" - brings up 3 wikllinks right at the top for me. This is a problem. These are POV articles through and through. They are too large to diligently correct. Franamax (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are absolutely notable topics. The problems here are not so insurmountable as to prevent cleanup and compliance with the requirements of WP:NPOV. If the articles were new, and no NPOV version existed, I'd say delete and start fresh - but here we have more than four years of history to work with. If the entire recent history is unsuitable, fine - revert back to a good clean version and work forward. But deletion is overkill. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, the politics in the US and Canada differ wildly, but some insight might be had by talking to the folks who watch Presidency of Barack Obama, for example - surely they've dealt with biases in both directions over the past two years. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (facts that are actually notable can be rescued from the history of the article) Puff pieces with lots of unnecessary detail (a political application of WP:TRIVIA?). Gossip, putting together primary sources to make blow-by-blow accounts. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long-existing articles concerning significant topics that are, in the general case, acknowledged to be notable and noteworthy. The relevant issuers raised by the nominator and others should be addressed, here as in other cases, through ordinary editing processes. As for the supposed legal issue, the government of Canada has no more right to impose its election laws on an website hosted outside its jurisdiction than Muammar Qaddafi has to enfore his sedition law (or the equivalent) on the Toronto Sun or the Chicago Tribune. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Nyttend. Afd is not cleanup, and these are all appropriate and neutral topic titles. Wikipedia is easily able to cover them all neutrally and using reliable sources. If heavily involved and partisan Canadian editors don't know how to do this, then they need to take a step back and let others who can, do. There is no deadline, and if none of you care to get involved in the articles to fix any perceived issues you have, that's really not an issue for Wikipedia, but you certainly don't get to use Afd as an alternative. This level of coverage is certainly not RECENTISM, an encyclopoedia should have this level of topic division for all prior governments. Maybe the Canadians who find this era too upseting to be able to just get on with it, can create/expand the articles on past eras if they want. A lot of it needs converting/reducing from news type coverage to an encyclopoedic overview, but that's hardly a major issue. But I'm not convinced the nominator really even understands NPOV with some of his borderline ranting in here about SPAM and what not (we should bar use of CBC as a source? seriously?), and a quick scan of the articles revealed no urgent issues, not ones that would justify the complete wanton destruction of rather large articles as is proposed here. I find all the arguments about it being free advertising or being in violation of election law to be completely bogus frankly, and if there's any issues of political bias at work here to unduly influence the world or Canada using Wikipedia, it's evident in the comments/views of quite a few of the deleters far more than in the articles themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now that's a bit of a low blow, Mick. I'd feel the same way about these articles no matter which political party they represented. Let's keep this about the content please. The Interior (Talk) 15:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nyttend and MickMacNee. As noted above, it is standard coverage to have articles on the policies and tenures of national leaders and their administrations/ministries/governments. The SPAM and Canadian election law complaints are completely ludicrous, and the tone of many of the delete !voters is wholly inappropriate and smacks of a dislike for Harper rather than any valid editorial judgment. An election is coming up, so therefore we should have less coverage of what the officials running for office did or wanted/tried to do when they were in power? That's utter rubbish.
If these articles are POV or "soapboxes," obviously that is to be cured through normal editing, though it seems like at least some of that criticism comes from the simple fact of reporting what the stated policy of the Harper government is/was rather than these articles presenting a one-sided evaluation in favor of those policies' effectiveness. When I look at Environmental policy of the Harper government, for example, I see that Harper and the Conservatives were critical of, and eventually abandoned, the Kyoto Accord; there are statements attributed to Harper re: the Accord which are not treated as correct or better policies than the Opposition's, but simply presented as what he said and what the government subsequently did, in a manner that seems fairly neutral to me, not a "puff piece."
One of the worst arguments above (and one of the worst that I have ever seen in an AFD) is that these are "directories of tory/Harper policy". I don't know what a "policy directory" is supposed to be exactly (apparently a really tortured attempt to appeal to WP:NOTDIR), but why the hell wouldn't we want an article describing what a government or political party's policies are? Particularly where it's from a major developed country whose government and laws are the subject of significant coverage and commentary.
Re: the "Harper government branding" complaint, that is at best an argument for retitling the articles, if it is in fact incorrect for a Canadian government to be labeled by its presiding prime minister in the same way that we would say the Obama administration, but I haven't seen any alternate proposals for what these should be called. But I don't see any challenge to what seems to me the obvious fact that policies will change from one government/administration/ministry/whatever to another, which is why it makes sense to have separate articles like this. postdlf (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's precisely these kinds of articles that make us an encyclopedia. On topic, informative, relevant, sourced information on policies and records of governments is an inherently notable topic. I hope that sentence doesnt mean I have to hand over my Deletionist club rulebook and secret decoder ring. -- ۩ Mask 16:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Re this comment from someone above - "and these are all appropriate and neutral topic titles" that's incredibly wrong, did you not read Franamax's original post? Are we going to have to trotting out the flurry of media criticisms/reactions to the "Harper government" rebranding effort, where Harper's media machine sought to rebrand the phrase "Government of Canada", and was met with strong resistance by the Canadian media??? In fact, though it's become current as a news item again lately, that rebranding campaign dates to (wait for it) 2006, when these articles were spawned. This and so many other claims made in the "keep" column are wildly uninformed and not a bit precocious and/or disigenuous.Skookum1 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Media citations re rebranding - CBC, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, YahooNews, Winnipeg Free Press, MSN.com, Tribe Magazine, Rabble.ca (zine), MetroNews, - all these and many more from a google for "Harper government rebrand", 193,000 results. See also googles for Harper government rename (438,000 results), Harper government renaming (2,010,000 results), Harper government renaming (2,360,000 results)..... 'nuff said. NB the article Canada's New Government, for which an article was written, is also ANOTHER effort to personalize Her Majesty's Government in Stephen Harper's name.Skookum1 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that there is no equivalency between an American presidency and a Canadian prime ministership; the rebranding effort has in fact been criticized exactly for that reason - Harper aiming at a more presidential style of government.Skookum1 (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But see Premiership of Gordon Brown. Is that article (and/or its title) also inappropriate, or is a Canadian prime ministership different yet from a British one? postdlf (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Britain is not Canada, and as noted the term "Premiership" is not even used in Canada at all. And you tell me - are there articles like Economic policy of the Gordon Brown government, Foreign policy of the Gordon Brown government, etc. Are there articles like Economic policy of the Obama administration, Environmental policy of the Obama administration. Rather than answer to my proof that "Harper government", all you've done is try to evade that and move to another topic; There is no need for any article on Harper and his policies other than the Stephen Harper one, as per ANY OTHER Canadian politician.Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See thread below for OTHERSTUFF comment. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- What, in your informed judgment, is the proper neutral title for the Government of Canada during the tenure of Harper as prime minister? postdlf (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - The usual term in the past has been "the Conservative government" (or "the Progressive Conservative government", until they got rid of that "progressive" element), "the Liberal government", and in provincial cases "the Socred/Social Credit government", "the NDP government" etc...you do see references to things like "the Mulroney government" and "the Trudeau government", but only in passing, and not in any way connected with an effort to supplant the term "the Government of Canada" with "the Harper government" as the main usage in government releases/communications, nor with civil servants ordered to stop using "Government of Canada" in preference for the personalized rebranding.Skookum1 (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's already been pointed out above - the numbered "ministry", and the numbered parliament. But why don't you actually read the news coverage I just cited and educate yourself? The informed opinion isn't only mine.....clearly these are NOT "neutral titles" as claimed.Skookum1 (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So at best that's an argument that these should be renamed to Economic policy of the 28th Canadian Ministry, Domestic policy of the 28th Canadian Ministry, etc. That's not an AFD concern. Have you tried to enact that change through normal editing and discussion? postdlf (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no need, as just noted in my reply to your evasion of the rebranding-campaign media citations, for any article on Harper and his policies other than "Stephen Harper", as per any other Canadian politician; comparing any of this to the UK or Australia or the US is irrelevant; this is a media campaign. There have been proposals in the past to rename these to Canadian environmental policy, Canadian foreign policy etc and not focus on one PM whose penchant for media-conflation/bloat is every bit as media-citable as the rebranding campaign (of which it is a part).Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's non-responsive, and your criticism of Harper's media campaigning is irrelevant to whether these articles should exist and in what form. Energy policy of the Obama administration, Domestic policy of the George W. Bush administration, Foreign policy of the Bill Clinton administration, Foreign policy of François Mitterrand, Domestic policy of Nicolas Sarkozy, Premiership of Margaret Thatcher... What you're basically saying is, that unlike these other western nations and leaders, Canada does not merit detailed treatment of its government and the policies and tenure of its leaders, and should instead be covered purely by articles that summarize its entire history, or basic one-article biographies of its national leaders. Obviously enough substantive information is out there to merit such coverage; Canada is hardly lacking in media outlets or media coverage by foreign nations. That you think this period of Canadian government history should be titled as "28th Canadian Ministry" rather than "Harper government" is not an argument for deleting articles that go into that period's policies in detail, and that no other Canadian Ministry or Prime Minister yet has such detailed treatment is also not an argument for deleting these. postdlf (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Saying "oh go make other Canadian government articles then" is just evasiveness; as if there were time between now and May 2nd on the one hand, and as if the policy criticisms and positions from the other parties didn't deserve/warrant equal coverage on NPOV grounds. Economic policy debates during the Harper era is maybe palatable, but not with the content rigged and organized according to the Tory agenda as these so very pointedly are; such a title could incorporate the Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Green (and other) positions, and not be so clearly a sell-job focussed on trumping up this Prime Minister as if he were teh most important in Canadian history. What's in Category:Pierre Trudeau, Category:Brian Mulroney, Category:Jean Chretien, Category:Paul Martin? What's in Category:Michael Ignatieff (if there even is one), what's in Category:Jack Latyon (if there even is one), Category:Gilles Duceppe (if there even is one)?? And it's very clear to me that the other Canadian parties, more or less, have observed Wikipedia guidelines by NOT using Wiki articles for political advertorial space (with the notable exception of the BC Liberal Party and its proxies), though on most political bios COI is a major issue. But this is about a current election campaign, not a long-term History of Canadian environmental policy write-up which won't get done in time to balance POV. Give your collective heads a shake - you're saying "because one party/leader has abused Wikipedia means that others are welcome to, if they want to". Good Grief.Skookum1 (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As previously noted the term "premiership" is unknown in Canada, except in phrases like "so-and-so might go for the premiership" when referring to a provincial-level politician. I don't even know if it's current in the UK or Jamaica or NZ or Australia, in fact, and I doubt it. So I went and looked at the links above and it's revealed that the very term is original research, pure wiki-fiction, at least insofar as its primacy here as an article title, whether re Harper or Gordon Brown or whomever. A search for "premiership of Stephen Harper" as linked above turned up only one non-soccer, non-wiki-clone item from the Glasgow Sunday Herald, which if you'll please note is NOT a Canadian source and obviously not proof of any valid usage of this term re ANY Canadian politician. All other searches turned up Wiki-clones or sites citing Wikipedia. As for simply searching "premiership Canada" it turns out that lordy, lordy, the term "premiership" refers to soccer/footy primarily, the captaincy apparently, and has very little to do with politics/government EXCEPT in Wikipedia. In fact the ONLY item on that search that wasn't to do with soccer was this article. Maybe Harper is the captain of the Ottawa Bamboozlers football squad, I don't know, maybe, but the job he has is not "Ministership", it's "Prime Minister" or at best "he has the Prime Ministership" though that would usually be hyphenated if ever used (not by MOSites of course, who have a campaign to eradicate the hyphen). Wikipedia has a VERY BAD HABIT of inventing and spreading new usages, then vociferously defending them using procedural obstinacy. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reality, not create it. That the article is entirely advertorial in origin, despite efforts by some to add "anti-Harper criticism" of late, as with edits by User:MJeanHellyer, is the main problem with it; but even the concept, never mind the term itself, is unknown in Canadian politics/government, is presented here as some kind of authoritative, definitive usage - that's rank original research. That it's also been used to trump up a POV puff-piece and make it sound fancy-pants instead of fictional is the bigger problem, though. Those of you who are claiming that the article should survive simply because it's well-cited and allegedly well-written and that it sounds neutral are succumbing to the "it's nicely laid out, looks OK, doesn't use harsh language" suckering that con-men always use. At this point I have my doubts about the validity, maybe also the content, of articles like Premiership of Gordon Brown, given the origins of this one, and also the stonewalling that's taking place here to protect/preserve it - with none of you who making any efforts to provide balance for this man's electoral rivals, nor for any of his predecessors. The title is original research, the content is POV (carefully-worded but POV nonetheless), and as Franamax noted the whole set, including the rebranding-agenda articles, are a "walled garden", full of fluff and bloat and undue-weight posturing. Sure undue weight is no reason to delete an article, nor is POV; but that's not this set of articles violates a host of issues, the origins are POV/SOAP and much of the content is framed in difficult ways to fix, if ever....and despite posturing above that they are neutral in tone, they are anything but....they are "Harper spin" and many of the arguments being used to defend them here are the same as those being used publicly by Tory spin doctors and "media consultants"....I'm not (yet) saying WP:DUCK but either there's a lot of gullibility or just political innocence here, or other reasons for the digging-in-the-trenches defence to keep these have to be considered (given their origin, that's not surprising).Skookum1 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you really need to tone down your rhetoric. Your comments are showing that you're not doing this in order to improve Wikipedia, but to further a personal, political opinion. I thought the term premiership was self-explanatory, but I guess not. The articles about American presidents title their articles "Presidency of...". However, this clearly doesn't apply to Prime Minister's, since they aren't presidents. Thus, for Prime Ministers (and presumably, this would work for other titles of leaders as well), the term "Premiership of" is used. Premiership applies directly to a Prime Minister status, since it means the chief or first officer of a country. Silver seren^C 00:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a personal, political knowledge that these are part of a recognizable and rather notorious aggrandizement both of Harper himself and of the position of PM, which he has been widely observed as reinventing to resemble a presidency (though many compare it to a kingship, id.e. behaving/posturing as if he were the monarch, and is if the government was his own, and not the party's, or more pointedly Parliament's - you probably don't know but he was cited by the Speaker this last couple of weeks for "contempt of Parliament" which fits his known character and political behaviour, demonstrably, as does his denial that the Speaker's ruling actually happened). The positions and roles of Prime Ministers and Presidents are not the same thing, and the two political contexts are very different. Also the term "Ministership" isn't just controversial here; see Talk:Premiership of Tony Blair, for example. If there is a Canadian term it's "Prime Ministership" though the Brits on the Tony Blair talkpage indicate "Prime Ministry" might be acceptable there. But per WP:CANMOS, Canadian English is used on Canadian articles; imposing terms from other dialects/forms of English is "not on", nor is trying to justify talking about one country's political system looking for parallels with other unrelated systems. These articles create and enforce a paradigm which is "un-Canadian" - pointing at articles from other countries to justify these ones' existence is apples and oranges. They should be from the Canadian political context/culture, not jerry-rigged with titles and splits based on systems/persons in other countries; otherwise "you" are creating and imposing a foreign paradigm on us....an arbitrarily invented one no less, POV/NPOV or whatever. Oh there was one other usage in those googles from Britannica Online, which is not in Canadian English nor is it a Canadian publication, but rather in British English as also the item rfrom the Glasgow Sunday Herald. And to your sugestion that the policy articles are comparable to those of named US administrations, the same as I hvae just explained applies; American politics talks about administrations, named for the President; Canadian politics talks about governments, not named for their leader but for their party. If you bother to read the cited reportage/op-eds on the "Harper government" issue you'll come to understand this. Canada is not the United States, nor is it Great Britain....Skookum1 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and besides, we say prime ministership. GoodDay (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto, but even so the new title "Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper" is still not how the normative use of "the Conservative government under Stephen Harper" etc works...the use of "prime ministership" would mostly/if ever occur in phrases such as "Harper got the Prime Ministership in 2006" (or whenever), it's a reference to the JOB, not to the government.Skookum1 (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is how the other articles in the same vein are titled. You said that Prime Ministership was the correct title for Canada, in line with the naming conventions of articles about US presidents, e.g. Presidency of George W. Bush, and with articles about English Prime Ministers, e.g. Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. Since you have stated that the correct term for Canadian Prime Ministers is Prime Ministership, then we follow the naming conventions of related article and name it Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper. These articles are about the leader's actions while they held the job, they are not meant to be about the government, per se. Then again, they are also about how the government was run while said person was leader. Either way, this is the accepted method of titling such articles. Silverseren^C 06:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with Silver. Really what is the reason for this Afd? These seem to be perfectly acceptable articles within the project, do be as extreme as to say this articles are so well referenced they must be advertizing and that the title doesn't suit you (now fixed to what you want); are not reasons for such an extreme solution as total deletion. Give me a clear reason why these should be deleted. Outback the koala (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because they're campaign spam, and have been since they were created. Minority governments exist in a state of constant campaign (which is why there have been TV and print commercials throughout Harper's reign, which aren't covered by election spending laws, likewise his abuse of public advertising moneys to promote his agenda, but that latter bit is normal, sadly, in our country). One rationale given above for their retention is "oh, they're about a significant period of five years re these policies", but they were created when that five years began. All the objections to this AfD are either misinformed or disingenuous, or just expressions of political cupidity. These are so clearly spam and soap and POV it's beyond funny, and no amount of wiki-equivocation to preserve them. If they are retained by the chorus of "gee they're all pretty and have nice citations and seem to be NPOV, it will only serve to show how Wikipedia can be manipulated and abused by political operators. Has it occurred to anyone (as it has to me) that the reason that the other parties have not similarly abused Wikipedia is that they have more principle and they have more respect for Wikipedia's guidelines and purpose???.Skookum1 (talk)
        Skookum1, you're just repeating the same biased rants over and over. I've seen nothing presented here to suggest that these articles were edited by "political operators" or are otherwise the product of abuse by a political party, and to infer from the lack of articles for other parties' platforms that those parties therefore have "respect for Wikipedia's guidelines and purpose" is just complete nonsense. That Wikipedia editors have not written equivalent articles for other Canadian parties is likely because they weren't in power and so were not able to effect policy. That's the whole point of these articles, or the American ones for presidential administrations: to describe the policies espoused and enacted by those actually running the government, which gets far more coverage and interest than what those not in power do or say. Which is not to say that an Opposition agenda or other party platform generally is not encyclopedic; again, find the third-party sources and those could be written too. But as much as you are trying to claim privileged knowledge above and beyond the non-Canadian participants in this AFD, you don't seem to get at all the very concept of these articles, or the fact that, taken at best, your criticisms call for retitling and further editing, not deletion. I seriously question your objectivity here. It is extremely clear that you despise Harper, his party, and their policies and methods, and that is driving your participation and intemperate comments here. I think you need to just take a break from this rather than flood this AFD with the same opinions repeated ad nauseum. You've stated your position, and restating it does not add strength to it. postdlf (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I despise all parties, actually, and think they should be done away with so that we have truly representative democracy, not just this one; but calling my complaints about the OBVIOUS POV of these articles "biased rants" to defend their biased existence justified by the biased arguments presented in their favour here is just "more of the same". I've learned in Wikipedia that calling someone's post a "rant" is just a way to dismiss the things it has to say without talking to the points presented; the only way these articles should survive is if they are, as proposed befor in WP:CANTALK (not by me) that they become History of environmental policy in Canada etc; there is nothing to justify keeping them in their overly-detailed focus and UNDUE weight on the "Harper government" that cannot be addressed in the main Stephen Harper article; Canadian environmental/foreign/economic policy does need an article, but not one focussed on the agenda/perspective of only one party leader. "oh, they're not in power so they're not notable" and "oh, nothing's stopping anyone from writing articles on previous governments" is just evading the fact that these are campaign materials, and part of a massive rebranding campaign. Fine, have your little Tory-ite playpen preserved and wash your hands of it, Pilate-style, if the other parties don't have their shit together to write similar partisan diatribes/manifestoes as these happen to be, very obviously and very blatantly to anyone familiar with Canadian politics (who's not a Tory supporter). I'm disgusted by the snowballing of this by keeps and strong keeps since the initial round of strong deletes and speedy deletes.....for all the wrong reasons, with a chorus of "gee they seem neutral to me" by people who don't know or care about the contexts involved, and who don't recognize the press-release nature of the sources.....and the "we can't help it if no one else writes articles like this for the other candidates" disigenuousness.....these were written at the time that the "Harper government" rebranding campaign began, at the start of the regime, and have no validity except as Tory advertising tracts, with a smidgin of balance since added by others in the meantime; they are rigged around a Tory framework, and Tory revisionism. Calling my explanations of this as "rants" is just dismissive derogation, and I'm sick of hearing "rant" as a reason to ignore valid arguments - and the obvious fact that anyone but Tory supporters recognize these as POV manifestoes and pro-Harper advertising. If non-Tory people find these POV, that means they're POV; Tories and Tory apologists can say all the want that they're talking logically; that's exactly what politicians and spin doctors do all the time. Sickening, sickening, sickening.....nausea at the way reasonable-sounding people defend unreasonable content and dump on people who point out POV-ishness adn SPAM as "rants" because they're upset (and I obviously am). .... Tory op-ed controls the Canadian mainstream media now (the so-called 'reliable sources', with no zines/blogs allowed in Wiki), and now their little game of wordsmanship controls Wikipedia. Congratulations, you've won, it seems, with the support of all kinds of people who don't know enough about Canadian politics/policy to actually adjudge whether these are NPOV or not (and they're not). They're political advertising, pure and simple; that's not a biased rant, it's a statement of fact. I'm tired of Wikipedia guidelines which are used to defend the indefensible, when ignoring the much more important content guidelines as if they did not exist or did not apply. All kinds of things were pulled here to stop me, including an abortive ANI, and now this "biased rants" accusation....give your heads a shake, if non=Tories find these POV, THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE, and no amount of wiki-equivocation is going to change that. They['ll survive because of your collective obstinacy, but in doing so, Wikipedia has just lost a lot of credibility as an unbiased source not manipulated by partisan spinners....and it will likely lose me, and I will move onto blogspace and op-eds and news reporting and not waste my time with Wikipedia's star-chamber crap any longer, and you'll be forced to cite ME....it's allowing itself to become a slave to any media-machine efforts to paint and jig and jerry-rig it; "oh, other partisan efforts to coerrupt it are also welcome" is what you're saying, and accusing me of political bias is totally, totally just a dodge to defend obviously biased articles. "Criticisms of politicians criticizing their articles are just biased rants" is just so much p.r. spin....it's not like these articles came out of nowhere, and obviously came from a POV/fan of Harper. how can a minority Prime Minister have more Wikipedia coverage than any other canadian Prime Minister?? Simple - because "his people" put their pencils to work, learned the Wikipedia ropes, cited only friendly content, and bujilt their little walled garden. Either these articles are generalized away from their focus on Harper, or Wikipedians are just fine and dandy with letting propaganda machines "play the game" to control it. if this AfD is closed based on your derogations of me and the support of these articles by people either not familiar with Canadian politics or who are pro-Conservative, then Wikipedia is shown to be little more than a tool of Big Brother-style revisionists. I'm done with this, and very possibly with Wikipedia too....what a crock. "Biased rants" indeed; people using reasonable language to defend the unreasonable is all I'm seeing here; any sign of emotion is called a "rant" and any sign of political principle is called "bias". Disgusting....Skookum1 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Final Comment Calling arguments pointing out that these are biased, POV articles with an advertising arguments "biased rants" when bias in favour of them is evident in your own posts is only wiki-hypocrisy; calling something a rant because it contests non sequiturs made by the uneducated/uninformed, and calling someone "biased" for pointing out the obvious bias in an article's intent/content/origin is just more hypocrisy and posturing. Saying I'm just repeating my own arguments when the same illogical and a-contextual are being made over and over, and I'm taking them on, i.e. having to repeat points obviously made by deliberately ignored....this is a hosejob, and a snow-job; whether deliberate or not (though the articles' creations were obviously deliberate as part of the "Harper government" rebranding campaign). Calling me biased when you yourself are is only so much more dodginess; caling my posts "rants" because I'm upset about how POV and SPAMish all this is in the middle of an election campaign is just more POV crap. It means anybody who can game the Wikipedia guidelines and write pretty-looking overly-cited cherrypicked-content promotional material can have their way, and NPOV is the responsibility of those who haven 't taken the time to write articles/balance....what a crock. "Skookum if you werent' so heated I would support you" I've heard before; which is just a way of saying "you're making too much sense and I can ignore you because you're not talking in the same passive-aggressive tones that I am".....I'm certain there's Tory spin doctors in Wikipedia, amateur/volunteer or otherwise, adn they're here in larger numbers than any other in the Canadian political spectrum....part of a media machine, part of a revisionist empire....yeah I'm "outing" and NPA'ing, but I'm not stikcing around to put up with more of this so I don't care anymore about "tools" like that that are used to keep the truth from being given the weight it deserves. WP:DUCK.Skookum1 (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break

Keep How can this even be up for debate? I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this is analogous to Premiership of Gordon Brown and Presidency of Barack Obama. Clearly a notable subject, and yeah maybe it needs work, but deletion shouldn't even be on the list of options for this type of article. It's been around for four and a half years without problems. I don't think this falls under the purview of Canadian law either, unless they burn books before elections. If it's spammy or POV, fix it, simple as that. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep If this isn't encyclopedic then I really don't know what is. A Premiership of a major country's leader. obviously notable. Agree with Mick, AFD is not for cleanup, this subject will always be encyclopedic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep Are you planning on deleting the huge amount of similar articles? Are you going to end up deleting Premiership of Tony Blair, Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, Premiership of Gordon Brown, or Premiership of David Cameron? How about Foreign policy of the Ronald Reagan administration? Economic policy of the George W. Bush administration? Domestic policy of Evo Morales?

First off, all of these articles are linked to from the main Stephen Harper article. It's quite obvious that all of these articles are the usual application of WP:SPLIT, because they are far too long to include in the main article and would give way too much undue weight to their sections.

Secondly, the lack of articles on other Canadian governments is no excuse to delete this one. That just means that the other articles haven't been made yet. Maybe you should get to that? These articles are properly sourced and follow the general rules of splitting long sections off of their main article. I see absolutely no reason why they should be deleted. Silver seren^C 19:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title Change Made Because the title wording has been a major arguement for deletion, I have moved the article to Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper. I hope this helps. Outback the koala (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still Wrong as a Title I'm repeating a post above in reply to GoodDay, which your "convenience break" has obscured: Prime Ministership of Stephen Harper" is still not how the normative use of "the Conservative government under Stephen Harper" etc works...the use of "prime ministership" would mostly/if ever occur in phrases such as "Harper got the Prime Ministership in 2006" (or whenever), it's a reference to the JOB, not to the government as run by him.Skookum1 (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need a WP:summary style article that links to longer articles like Foreign policy of the Harper government and Environmental policy of the Harper government. The question is: can we do that from the article Stephen Harper or will that have so much biographical information that we need this as a separatie summary article? Given that Harper is not well know for anything other than being Prime Minister, I think that the summary of his time in office can fit in his biography article for now, but if that proves to be too long, we can go back to splitting it. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although there may be WP:NPOV issues to address and clean up here, AFD isn't really the venue for that. Comparable articles exist about many Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom and Australia, many Presidents of the United States, and on and so forth — so there's no really compelling reason why Canadian Prime Ministers shouldn't be entitled to the same treatment. This doesn't exist because Harper's a Conservative; it exists because he's actually held power as a national leader — and if another party should win the current election, then the equivalent "Ignatieff government" or "Layton government" or "May government" articles will become valid topics too. It's about actually having held power, regardless of ideology — if there are bias issues in the articles as written, then address them by fixing the bias, and if past Prime Ministers of Canada don't have equivalent articles yet, then that just means somebody needs to start them. The real issue here has less to do with Conservative spin doctoring and more to do with the fact that it's almost always easier to source and write in-depth articles about current topics (for which all you have to do is add three sentences and a weblink every time relevant news happens) than it is about historical ones (for which one might have to actually — the horror! — go to a library and crack a reference book or two.) Keep and clean up if needed. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in favour of the existance of articles like Presidency of Barack Obama & Premiership of David Cameron. But since they're gonna remain, the British PMs should be moved to Prime Ministership of X. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User GoodDay has now unilaterally moved all of the Premiership articles I linked above (perhaps more) to Prime Ministership. I have notified Wikiproject Politics of the United Kingdom of this change, which you can find here. Silver seren^C 22:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did. Premiership/Premier for sovereign states, tend to be associated with Communist countries, in the english language. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because what this AFD needs is even more irrelevant distraction. postdlf (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, the terms Premier and Prime Minister are, strictly speaking, identical in meaning and perfectly interchangeable with each other — Canadian English, specifically, follows a usage convention of reserving the title Prime Minister for the national leader and deeming the provincial or territorial leaders as Premiers, but in standard English usage the terms mean the same thing, a provincial leader can legitimately be called a Prime Minister and a federal one can be called a Premier. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that GoodDay's moves should be reverted? Silver seren^C 00:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be best to wait for a consensus as to what each country considers to be most appropriate in its own case. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true Bearcat. But for common-usage, what do we hear & read more often? UK Premier David Cameron or UK Prime Minister David Cameron. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage isn't necessarily the point here (and you didn't assert "common usage" in the comment I was replying to anyway; you asserted an absolute "truth" with no allowance for variability whatsoever.) If you're going to override an established naming consensus by moving articles arbitrarily, without soliciting discussion first, then there needs to be a policy-based reason why the existing title is objectively wrong, rather than just debatable. You should have proposed the moves for discussion first. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go to the UK project, that Silver seren linked to. GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rename, Pray for Improvement. The reasons given for deletion, with my responses:

Spam/Puff piece -- There is a mix (perhaps not a complete balance but a mix) of both positive and negative topics, with hundreds of references to reliable sources. Allegation made that this would be undue influence during the current election campaign. Article could use improvement but there does not seem to be clear evidence of a political campaign or followers wildly influencing the content. More of an overall quality issue to me.

Unique/no other equivalent article for Canadian PM -- Yes there is an absence but this does not mean precedent. A standalone article on the politics, policies and events of a current national government seems appropriate to me. I'd rather see a brief sub-section on the person's article with a link to the more wide-ranging, in-depth coverage on the entire term in office than to bog down the person's article with everything under the sun.

Gross undue weight on an individual -- Argument is that by giving current PM such breadth of (allegedly biased) coverage that wikipedia favours the current PM. I don't buy the spam allegation and suggest the focus on the current PM is more a case of recent-ism (by his sympathizers and opponents and neutral wikipedians).

Big G government is unCanadian or at least uncommon -- True. There is controversy from current PM's attempt to rebrand the "Government of Canada" to the "Harper Government" along the lines of the presidential administration in the US. While the official use is controversial, the use of small-g government is commonplace. See casual use of phrase Martin government, in Paul Martin or Trudeau government in Pierre Trudeau. I do not support the title Premiership in federal Canadian context. I would support Politics of Prime Minister Stephen Harper as an article.

Canuckle (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, per Franamax, viz. "They do not appear anywhere close to the standard of NPOV that we expect, they are basically puff-pieces that explain why everything the government has done is uniformly good. I'm frankly stunned at the scope of this, I don't see any way to correct the imbalance given the sheer volume of material to go through." – OhioStandard (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having done some research on names, I believe the most appropriate name for this page (and similar pages) would be "Harper government," this is the term used commonly in the media to describe this article and it is the form used on Wikipedia for Australian premierships (i.e. Howard Government, Rudd Government, Gillard Government). - Pictureprovince (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be acceptable, though we've got the 28th Canadian Ministry article. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that article title is a good one. This could be applied to all 5 articles. Outback the koala (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One hen sitting on the stolen eggs clucking at the other hen, saying "isn't this comfortable". I've done some research on names too, and gee I found all of THIS which was the impetus for this AfD in the first place: CBC, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, YahooNews, Winnipeg Free Press, MSN.com, Tribe Magazine, Rabble.ca (zine), MetroNews, - all these and many more from a google for "Harper government rebrand", 193,000 results. See also googles for Harper government rename (438,000 results), Harper government renaming (2,010,000 results), Harper government renaming (2,360,000 results)..... - it's clear now why you guys don't have a problem with the POV - you ARE the POV, and the voice of it here. "Gee I think they sound neutral" yeah, uh-huh, and "I think "'Harper government' is the best name" yeah uh-huh. WP:DUCK applies. It doesn't matter what goes on in Australia, this is Canada, and POV rebranding is POV rebranding. Yeah, I'm "repeating myself" as some arrogant, dismissive snot said about me (and that PA can stand, go ahead and file an ANI on me - again). I'm repeating myself here again so you are confronted with your own iniquity and chorus of me-too POVism/SOAPistry. These articles were spam from the day they were written, and as others here agree they are clearly POV/spam puff-pieces. Your denials of the same, and now your effort to rename all such articles to what the PMO's rebranding campaign wants (which the "reliable sources" now expressly avoid because of the PMO's heavy-handedness) are more proof of DUCK, DUCK, DUCK and now cluck, cluck, cluck....I've been avoiding commenting again but I've obviously been watching this to see where it goes and how the it will be "managed" in order to preserve the Harperite rebranding in Wikipedia, even if it's no logner tolerated anywhere else; and not even the mainstream media are suckered by such cupidity anymore...."good now that Skookum1 has ~~gone~~ driven away let's just keep them all, and create others using the same term he didn't like". Yeah, uh-huh. Victory by attrition. But you know what? Misinformed and deception-based consensus is still misinformed and based in deception . I'm clearly not the only person here who finds these articles not just POV by design but also by content, and finds it all too obvious that they were CREATED AS PART OF THE the PMO's self-rebranding campaign. Comparing this to Australia, the UK, or the US is just "not on". Though there are many comparisons I could think of to China and the former USSR and the like....Skookum1 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the controversial rebranding of the government does make it awkward to use "Harper government" as the term has become quite loaded as a result, the fact is that long before the current government chose that branding, the media had for decades used that form (i.e. "Trudeau government", "Clark government", etc) to differentiate different ministries from each other. If you click through to those Google searches you provided, you would find that that is so. I would be just as happy to merge it into the "28th ministry" but that seems to run contrary to WP:NAME as no one other than parliamentary/governmental nerds would know that Harper heads the 28th ministry, or even that the proper name for a government administration in Canada is ministry. And for what it's worth, I am not sure what your POV is, but I am a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party and have never voted for the Conservatives, so my bias is certainly not pro-Harper. - Pictureprovince (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a PR puff piece. Theo10011 (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All 5 articles? Outback the koala (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - DUH! Spam is spam, especially when it repeats itself as all these articles do with each other, and as you do in defending them.Skookum1 (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "this are exactly the kind of articles that Wikipedia needs more of" - translation: "we need even more articles about Stephen Harper". And it's clear that anyone who points out POV on articles about him will be accused of being POV themselves, and of being "anti-Harper" as I have been (and very definitely am, which is WHY I find these articles highly POV in intent and origin - as do others, which is how POV is recognized; when it is seen as a POV). Speaking of the term "Harper government", this youtube sums up some of the attitude of the Harper-defenders in this AfD, who maintain that they can't see why they're not neutral, or just say "I don't care"....and who are perfectly content with articles whose main body of citations is recycled press releases and not actual reportage.Skookum1 (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is also apt, concerning the penetration into social media (ofwhich Wikipedia is a part, or at least UGC and these talkpages are defintely social media) of Tory operatives. Not just DUCK here, but WP:If the shoe fits. And here is a youtube concerning the "harper government" rebranding from moxnews.com, and here is another one, which very amusingly points out the parliamentary language would require "Member from Calgary West government" since you can't name another member in the House.Skookum1 (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the assumption that other Prime Ministership of person articles will be created. I'll let others figure out what should & shouldn't be in this article & the other related articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sources provided do provide significant coverage of this topic, therefore it passes WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't pass WP:SPAM no matter how often the Tory supporters and the innocent-uinvolved here claim that it's NPOV and has no SPAM-intent, which to those of us knowledgeable about what's talked about on the page recognize the basis of it, and the focus of it, despite occasional tweaks is utterly, utterly, utterly promotional material on the so-called Harper government, which is the other big issue here (participation in a rebranding campaign); this isn't just about the Premiership article. It's about overt campaign and p.r. materials, recycled through so-called "reliable sources" largely unaltered from their original press release form, e.g.
  The Harper government has identified five policy priorities, in the areas of federal accountability, tax reform, crime, child care and health care.

The Conservatives replaced the existing federal child care program with a $1200 per year stipend for each child under age six, paid directly to parents whether or not they incur child care expenses. Harper has stated that his government will work with provincial and local governments, not-for-profit organizations, and employers to create additional spaces, and has set aside $250 million per year to fund these initiatives. which is unadulterated press-release-type language and if press releases were copyrighted would be copyvio. You're all behaving as if neutral-sounding and exhaustive citations were enough to warrant survival; but he focus, style and origin as well as the structure of these were and are all spam in origin and in intent. They are undue in scope, promotional in tone and purpose, and are not encyclopedic; they are only pseudo-encyclopedic and definitely, definitely, p.r. garbage that has intruded on Wikipedia as a planned p.r. campaign and are now being defended for the most specious and evasive regions. Tick-tock, it's now over a week that this AfD began, and these keep on turning up in the first page of any google using their title phrases, and in countless wiki-clones. Cheap, free advertising, very much campaign brochures in purpose and effect, and as of tonight there's 17 days 'til the election....and all I hear here is gamesmanship about names and "lots of citations, therefore they pass WP:N". What an utter crock of twaddle.Skookum1 (talk) 07:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to make any changes you want, to this article & the others. However, these Anti-Harper & Anti-Conservative rants of yours, are becoming boring. GoodDay (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken like a true, typically belittling, Harperite. What's boring is the posturing to neutrality that you are all making while defending clearly POV/SPAM-oriented material. If the so-called "Harper government" articles are kept, I'm just gona BEBOLD and change them to "X policy debates during the Harper era in Canada", because they shouldnt' be focussed on one leader's/parties platform, but include all aspect of "x policy debate:" including NGOs, op-ed etc. and give equal weight to what the Opposition parties are saying, instead of pretending the world revoles around Harper (as he'd like it to, as all of us who arne't pro-Harper realize all too well and any glance at a "reliable source" lately aptly demonstates. And don't chide me for a dimssive or POV tone when you clearly have that problem in spades yourself - and a history of pro-Tory editing on other articles. Don't trot out NPA, because WP:DUCK applies.Skookum1 (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what you did here, and on CANTALK, and on my talkpage, qualifies as WP:HARASS and Wiki-stalking. Demeaning me is not the way to win your little "protect Steve's garden" campaign....it's clear you're making your "boring" attacks because I'm making all too much sense, and despite your claim elsewhere that this is over and done with there are others who see the obvious SPAM/campaign purpose of these articles; all you guys want to do is talk about fiddling with the titles, while shameless ignoring the content issues, and persona-attacking, very childishly, the AFD's proponent as you are doing here....Skookum1 (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Notification. User Postdlf asked at AN/I that this be closed and that Skookum1 be given a "stern talking to". I have no opinion on whether this should be closed. But Skookem, although I'm not an admin, I don't mind saying that you need to stop arguing and commenting here after everyone's !vote. Please just stop commenting and responding to others comments; you've made your positions clear and you're just alienating people at this point. I voted !delete, up above, btw. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed due to speedy deletion of article. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turquoise Jeep Records

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

Queried AfD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nyoko-dō Hermitage

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

Delete as non-notable. I already transferred image (as per suggestions below) to Takashi Nagai article. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant with main article about Takashi Nagai. Picture is nice, could be transferred to that article. Perchloric (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd say merge to Takashi Nagai, but there is nothing referenced to be merged. Certainly, the image would work well, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 05:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep but severly chop content is the only consensus I can see emerging here. There is general agreement that the article is deeply flawed, but there is not a clear cut consensus on how to proceed. Several users have suggested a "middle road" solution of keeping the article but chopping it down to eliminate the most problematic parts. That's the closest thing I can see to a result that addresses the valid arguments advanced by both the "keep" and "delete" camps here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Race and crime

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

OMG lets see how many policies of are broken here , WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, I really cant see this article ever being neutral a classic WP:COATRACK. This is a classic scenario groups/books/people should be covered in those articles per WP:ONEWAY The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:56, 4 Apr

Keep The material is sourced to peer-reviewed studies. That crime rates differ is not disputed. The different theories may disputed but that is not a reason for deletion. The topic is obviously notable and important.Miradre (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that those critical of the article are deleting entire sections linking to whole subarticles on the topic, see [1][2], of so I suggest everyone to look at version at time of the deletion nomination: [3]Miradre (talk) 22:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cohesive concept of correlation any between Race and Crime this article is WP:SYNTH mishmash tangically related data and theories that really have nothing to do with each the idea is only advanced by fringe groups. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. For example, the article cites the Handbook of Crime Correlates which is review of 5400 studies in criminology. Many other peer-reviewed articles are also cited, unless they are deleted by those opposing this article. Again, I urge everyone to look at the original version at the time of the deletion nomination.Miradre (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk)•(contribs) 22:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have the source in front of me (one the great things about a working an academic library) and you are grossly taking the data provided there out of context. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The handbook? I also have it in front of me. What are you disagreeing about?Miradre (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specifally what the hell are you citing page number wise? You cited the whole book! I thumbing through it right now I see alot of stuff you could be yanking data from but lets be specific and make sure I aint wrong. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section on race on starting on page 20. Please do not accuse me of something before you have evidence.Miradre (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect the data provided is not connected with the causality of it being related to race. Its merely one category of data among many. Gross misuse of a source. The Resident Anthropologist

Causality? The handbook states that crimes rates differ for different races as the article also states.Miradre (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to contravening the policies that the nominator for deletion has noted, the article has grossly misrepresented other Wikipedia articles in order to promote this racist theory. It contained a link to Race and crime in the United Kingdom with the following commentary: "Different racial/ethnic groups differ in crime rates such as overrepresentation for Afro-Caribbeans". As the UK article itself notes, a Home Office study has shown that once other factors (e.g. age profiles of different groups etc) were taken into account, there was no correlation between ethnicity and crime rates. I have of course deleted this section, but I think further checks would be needed on other parts of the article too, if this is anything to go by. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagreed with one part of the sentence, you should have removed that part, not the whole section, including the link to the main page.Miradre (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you misrepresented what the home office report stated. The other factors accounted were for example SES and many similar factors. That different ethnic groups were over- and underrepresented regarding crime was not disputed.Miradre (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of race and crime receives significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Location (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article here is presents correlations and causations blurred. The articles cited use Race as category of data collection but do not conclude it causation or "ultimate cause" The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what you mean. The article does not claim race as "ultimate cause", whatever that means. That crime rates differ is sourced to reliable peer-reviewed sources.Miradre (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the material describe a correlation not a causation. Its saying in the source talking about context of crime and it indicates data related to race and crime. The way its being presented here as race as the causation of the increased crime rates among that population. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what for example the Handbook states "According to all of the available evidence, blacks commit more violent offenses than do whites (Table 2.3.2a). The extent of the differences has usually exceeded a ratio of 3:1. Additional evidence that blacks are substantially more involved in violent crime than whites has come from victimization surveys." The article only repeats such statements.Miradre (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You missing the point you are using data that does not prsented th same way you are using it The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs)

How is the text in the article different from what is stated in Handbook? See again my example above.Miradre (talk) 23:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I again note that those wanting to delete the article are doing mass deletions, including of whole sections leading to entire subarticles, so I urge everyone to look at the article as it looked when it was nominated for deletion: [4]Miradre (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC

Yeah when bunk material exists then its yanked The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting an entire section leading to a whole subarticle about the topic is obviously incorrect: [5]Miradre (talk) 23:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, you are tying together sources and trying to put together a pattern that aint there. When when were the Malori a race? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not written anything about Malori or Maori. Why was the entire section about crime in the UK, including a link to the main article deleted? See [6] Miradre (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I see that you have done mass deletions of sourced material: [7] I have not written any of that but I disagree with the mass deletion. Why was everything deleted if you do not think Maori are a race? Miradre (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single fringe POV which can be summed up as: "inferior races are criminal, it's in their genes". Ridiculous lip-service paid to mainstream views ("has been criticized" and that's it) to try and get away with it. If anything, article should be about how pseudo science have tried to link (types of) crime to biological conceptions of race, or how crime as a social issue is exploited in racial politics (which pseudo-science is definitely a part of), or how institutions deal with crime according to the racial classification they ascribe to perpretators & victims. In that view, there is nothing in the present article that is salvageable. Jagiello (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you dislike the sourced facts and proposed explanations. That is not a reason for deletion and Wikipedia is not censored. If there are sourced views and material missing, then you should add it to the article.Miradre (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are both using notoriously fringe racist sources and misusing reliable mainstream sources. When confronted with evidence, you retorted that the reliable sources were "afraid" to support your POV (conversation about diagram). This is not the way wikipedia is supposed to work. Jagiello (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was only regarding if races are biologically real or not. That is irrelevant for crime statistics which can be done on any arbitrary group like social classes or occupations which no one would argue are biological concepts.Miradre (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, after searching the literature I found a source giving more sociological theories for worldwide crime differences.[8] Does this resolve your concerns? I should note that there are still large scale deletions of sourced material, including of a link to an entire subarticle, Race and crime in the United Kingdom, so one should also look at what has been deleted. Here is a diff regarding the current situation: [9]Miradre (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think this is a similar issue to the recent Jews and money Afd. There is a decent article to be written about this topic: this is not it. I am uncertain whether to argue for deletion on the grounds that the current article is difficult to salvage and potentially puts wikipedia in a bad light, or thwther to vote Keep and stubify.. I don't see the problem here being the existence of the article, for me the problem is that we have a user who is very keen on making sure that every possible connection between race, biology and crime is being represented very thoroughly in wikipedia, but who is not apparently similarly interested in representing the opposing viewpoints. This amounts to consistent cherrypicking and povpushing, and there are not currently many editors with an interest in providing the opposing viewpoint, so the coverage quickly becomes heavily slanted towards the particularly biological racialist research that apparently interests this editor, but which does not represent the majority of reserach in the field. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)All the data centered around Minorities and Crime which potentially is viable article. This one has no viable Neutral content in its entire editing history. linking race and crime is bullshit and ingoring the issue in favor of POV pushing.... It Needs to be cleansed with fire The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Maunus that the article needs evidence on the other side, that crime is primarily a cultural issue. Since we liberals are right on this point, we shouldn't have much problem finding said evidence. Leadwind (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would put Wikipedia in bad light is censorship. Obviously the topic is notable. That crime rates differ may be undesirable but is not reason for deletion. Different theories are presented and it is not claimed that anyone is true. If a theory is missing, then please add it. It is unfortunate that many of those critical does not contribute to the article, except doing mass deletions of sourced material as per above, if something is missing as they claim. I am grateful for Leadwind's view and look forward to constructive editing.Miradre (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not censorship, it is about serving the interests of wikipedia. If you were in fact interested in and able to write balancedly and neutrally about the topic of race then wikipedia would clearly profit from your doing so. I have however seen nothing to suggest that that is the case. Wikipedia works when all editors try to work towards balance - not when one editor says I will provide this viewpoint then others can provide the opposing one if they they think it is so important.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what I said. I have added all significant views I have found. Just now added some material on sociological theories after searching. See [10]. However, I cannot add what is not existing. Furthermore, you are hardly a neutral Wikipedia editor on this subject since you without exception oppose biological theories and prefer social ones on a large variety of articles.Miradre (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So the reason I am not neutral is because I have been the only one to take up your challenge to provide the opposing viewpoint. That is laughable. Also race related article constitutes a very small portion of my total editing. That is not exactly the case for you.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also, for example, regularly edit the evolutionary psychology article and talk page and oppose biological views there. That pattern is constant, opposing biological theories in favor of social ones. Not saying that this is wrong but I find it strange that you should judge me regarding neutrality. I would consider myself far more neutral since I add non-biological theories and views whenever I find them in the sources.Miradre (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to assume good faith in the face of systematic hypercritical and subject-changing tactics. Mirardre will challenge you on the slightest detail until you patiently prove him/her wrong. Then s/he'll declare the whole point irrelevant, and move to another subject. Never integrating criticism, inviting you to doing it yourself then harrassing you for doing it. Attrition war and treading on the limits of wiki etiquette hoping you'll cross it yourself is the tactics here. Communication tactics are being methodically used here, be careful not to waste your time and energy. Jagiello (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That I do not include criticism if false since I regularly do that and try to include the views I find the sources. If you have specific complaint please give a diff and I will reply. Thanks.Miradre (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've started doing it only when your creature began to face the prospect of deletion. It seems you have concessions in store that you are willing to deploy when cornered. I am amazed at all the information and references you could come up with to give the appearence of "ballance" once your project was threatened with deletion, when before that you would state if you know of alternative POV and sources feel free to add them - as if you didn't know them yourself. You have a very well planned strategy but it is not opaque. Jagiello (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. If I wanted to include only the views of one side, then when I cited the Handbook of Crime Correlates I should only have mentioned official crime rates which all shows racial differences. But instead I also included the opposing views from self-reported offending. On the other hand, some of those disliking unpleasant views have simply mass deleted sourced information they dislike or links to entire subarticles on this topic.[11][12] If anyone should be censured, it is such editors.Miradre (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Those of us liberals who maintain that culture, not genetics, is the primary determinant of behavior should have nothing to fear from some statistics. If we're ever going to lay to rest the idea that "race" is the main correlate to crime, this is the very page on which we should do it. If we're confident that we're right, I don't understand why we should be afraid of this challenge to our viewpoint. And if we can only defend out view by forbidding debate, then shame on us. We should be happy to have this page so we can set the record straight. Steven Pinker, for example, demonstrates that the violent crime rate in "white" nations has dropped dramatically in the last few centuries, and that's clearly due to culture, not race. Leadwind (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As i suggested linking minorities and crime is doable. The Resident Anthropologist

(talk)•(contribs) 00:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - It would be convenient for us liberals who favor a sociological view if this page were about "minorities" and crime, but that's missing the point. Some would-be experts say that high crime correlates to race even when that race isn't in the minority. Those would-be experts deserve their shot at making their case based on evidence, and liberals like me should feel confident that the overall data will support a sociological rather than biological explanation for any correlation between race and crime. Leadwind (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page should at least be emptied before it is reworked. I'm not sure referring to liberal POV is desirable. There are "liberals" who believe in hard genetic determinism, and conversely. As to the culture thing, let's make it clear that it is culture (as the opposite of nature, a vague catch all signifier that includes social structures, relations and so on.) and not cultures (proxy for ethnicity). Ultimately it is probably better to have a relevant page with reliable data rather than see it perpetually re-made for pov-pushing purposes. Jagiello (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The data from for example the Handbook of Crime Correlates, a review of 5200 studies, is reliable. As was much of the other sourced data that has been mass deleted. Absolutely no reason for deletion except if one dislikes the data itself but that is not a valid reason in Wikipedia.Miradre (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the source! it does not back up what you are saying and only <1% of those sources are used in the race section of the book . The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not back up what the article is saying? Why did you do a mass deletion of sourced material (not added by me)? [13] Miradre (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the politically correct may recoil from the subject, it seems to me that it is a genuine one. I would expect to see articles on the links between 'poverty and race' and 'crime and poverty' as well. That is, I personally suspect the underlying explanation for most crime has to do with poverty and perhaps culture, more than race. But i don't know. Sweeping it under the mat given the existence of RS is pathetic. Greglocock (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the sources! They do not back the article its case of WP:SYNTH. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which source is cited incorrectly?Miradre (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is pure WP:COATRACK. The article had been a redirect, and was recreated by an editor blocked for racist vandalism. That the cause of the article was taken up by a WP:CPUSH editor only makes the situation worse, not better. While it is possible that there may be a good article with this title, there already exist several much better related articles which could be used to develop the topic before splitting it off into it's own page. See the "See Also" in Race and crime in the United States for a list of related articles. aprock (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is the article a WP:COATRACK? As far as I can see the article has survived two deletion attempts and nothing there stated that the article should be a redirect. I will also note that you are hardly neutral on this topic and have consistently edited against biological explanations in other articles. So I feel it is strange that you should judge me for neutrality. I always include any opposing views in the sources I find.Miradre (talk) 03:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe there is a problem of any kind with my editing, please do bring such issues up on the appropriate noticeboard. aprock (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Maunus that it's possible to write a neutral decent article on this subject (mostly about goofy 19th century theories long since debunked) but this isn't it. Given the amount of OR and SYNTH in the article (some of it sneaky and indirect - insinuating a casual relation without claiming one outright, since that would obviously be a red flag that something sketchy's up) it is doubtful if the present version can be salvaged. Were this to be deleted, and someone were to write a different, legitimate, article under the same title - or completely overhaul this one - I might vote keep.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Future ArbCom nightmare, I'm sure... The topic is notable, absolutely. I don't see this as a coatrack. I'm sure honest people can and do differ about the degree that this represents impermissible POV. This strikes me as a "Keep and fix" situation. Carrite (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this already went to ArbCom under the topic of Race & Intelligence. Perhaps some amendments or clarifications could nip this in the butt. I'm pessimistic about the potential for fixing this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different crime rates for different racial groups is not correlations. It is like saying that different incomes for different occupations if just correlations and does not prove anything for certain regarding the relationship between occupation and income. Different occupations have different incomes. Different races have different crime rates according to academic research.Miradre (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is just correlations - or "relations" if you'd like, since one variable is categorical - in the sense that the differences largely disappear once other factors are taken into account (from income to persecution rates, etc.). Same thing is not necessarily true for occupations and income, even if you control for "other factors" like, say years of schooling (a 2 year MBA makes more than a 6 year Educational Psychology PhD). Your analogy is false. Other than that I don't see what the parallel between occupations/income and race/crime is supposed to be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources for you claims regarding differences disappearing, then we could include them in the article. What are the sources?Miradre (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone also should take a look at Miradre's article on Immigration and crime.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Do you have sources for your claims above?Miradre (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little wary of being drawn into your game here, since that runs the danger of legitimizing this discussion. With that caveat, there's for example this [14] which states that the race/crime relation disappears once % of single-parent households are controlled for. Also if I remember correctly there's a study by Steven Levitt which shows that once median income, income inequality and % of households headed by women is controlled for the effect of race tend to disappear. Here's a general survey [15] which tells the same story - major determinants of crime are family structure and (neighborhood) income, arrest rates probably have as much to do with how laws are enforced and perceptions by the police and the general public than with actual crime rates, etc. Internationally I'd add in the % of pop that is composed of 18-25 single males. There is a lot more out there, just got to look.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: Economics of race and crime - "Controlling for moral compliance and economic conditions we find that race is not a factor in determining whether individuals engage in crime or not" (more).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see all of the above refers the US. Not crime rates in other nations or worldwide crime rates. There is a separate article for Race and crime in the United States. This article already notes that there are many explanations proposed for the US racial crimes rates. However, such explanation do not necessarily apply outside the US. More generally, even if racial differences should disappear if you control for many other factors, this does not mean that the overrepresentation itself disappear. So even, if one could explain all of the racial differences in crime with social factors, there would still be an overrepresentation that is important in itself for society to analyze and discuss.Miradre (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another point it that the textbooks considers race and crime a topic that is noteworthy enough to discuss. So I fail to see why Wikipedia should not.Miradre (talk) 05:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice dodge. Like I said, there's probably a legitimate article there to be written, but this ain't it. If this is deleted and somebody writes a decent, NPOV, not OR, not SYNTH, article on the subject then I'd vote keep - as I've already stated above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of your sources seems to apply to worldwide crime differences. Only the US which is a separate topic. Furthermore, controlling for many social factors does not disprove biology. This is because factors such as the SES of the parents in itself may be due to biological factors so controlling for many such "social" factors may actually remove evidence for biology. Exactly what is OR and SYNTH with current article? The article already includes the view that economic development and social inequality are theories regarding the different crime rates, so what is not NPOV? Miradre (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"controlling for many social factors does not disprove biology" - I don't know what it means to "disprove biology". Wait, are you really saying that the connection between race and crime is biological?

And yes, my sources apply to US, that's what I know about. But if this connection between race and crime is supposed to be biological then that shouldn't matter.

The SYNTH and OR are in the interpretation of primary sources in the article and in stringing together cherry picked sources, while ignoring many many many other studies out there. This is related to the problem of UNDUE WEIGHT given to a FRINGE "theory". You add all that up and it's pretty hopeless. So delete (or stubify) and then maybe recreate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that there are researchers arguing that there is a biological connection between race and crime. Such a possibility is not disproven by controlling for many "social" factors which themselves may have biological ultimate causes. Again, for example parental SES may be in part due to parental biological traits. Furthermore, even if biology was disproven, this does not mean that one cannot study the relationship between race and crime just like one can study the relationship between crime, and, say, class. Please give a specific example of what is SYNTH, OE, or POV. The article includes several sociological theories such as social inequality and economic development. You have given no evidence that for example IQ is a fringe theory that should not be allowed to be mentioned.Miradre (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And who are these researchers? A couple of fringe writers widely criticized (and even accused of racism) by the general academic community, but who's ideas are given widespread prominence by you in articles you work on. That is the essence of FRINGE and UNDUE. Here's an example - the article uses numbers from J. Philippe Rushton, without mentioning at all the controversy surrounding him or the fact that he "has been criticized by other researchers and civil rights organisations as being poorly researched and racist in nature.". Or that in his application of r/K selection theory Rushton "does not apply the theory correctly, and displays a lack of understanding evolution in general" and "that the sources for the biological data gathered in support of Rushton's hypothesis were misrepresented and that much of his social science data was collected by dubious means." Same for these other "researchers" you've strewn through these articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the impression you and many others have, the best available evidence is that most IQ researchers have the same view as those you call fringe. That is, racial differences are partly due to genetic factors. See The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy (book). Now regarding Rushton's r/K theory, it is certainly controversial, but it does for example have an article of its own in the "Encyclopedia of Race and Crime" (2009) by Greene and Gabbidon. The controversy regarding the theory is mentioned in this article and in the article Race, Evolution, and Behavior which this article links to.Miradre (talk) 06:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most "IQ researchers" may very well have the same views as those I call fringe but that just makes them fringe - come on, you're using a book about supposed "liberal bias" in academia to support your notion that this stuff is widely accepted or something. The controversy regarding Rushton's (mis)application of the theory in the article is "mentioned" with a paltry "There have been various criticisms of the theory as described in the article on the book" and that's it. And the point is rather that Rushton really shouldn't be used much in the article at all.

Anyway, I see that this discussion has become pointless - you ask for reasons, I give you reasons, you ignore them. You ask for sources, I give you sources, you ignore them. And jump from one detail to another and change (sub)topics. It's a classic case of civil POV pushing and IDIDN'THEARTHAT. I'm tired and not particularly interested in wasting my time any further - all you've done is cement my belief that it'd be best if the article was outright deleted. Otherwise these problems will continue.06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The only poll ever done on IQ researchers shows that most common view is the one you call fringe. Regarding the r/K theory we obviously cannot repeat all the criticisms here. Neither does this article cite all supporting evidence for the theory. Only the evidence regarding worldwide crime is mentioned. For the rest, the interested reader can read the separate article, where there is more criticism, as this article states. I again note that the r/K theory has a separate article of its own in the "Encyclopedia of Race and Crime" (2009) by Greene and Gabbidon.Miradre (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Quite a spirited debate, sounds like junk to me Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Stubify and Rewrite I think that's the best procedure for coatracky POV articles about notable subjects. Qrsdogg (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problems with POV and synthesis are so overwhelming that the article would have to be written from scratch, provided that there are reliable souces to support it. Note that the lead section is unsupported by sources. It says, "An observed correlation between race and crime has been noted in a number of countries...." But there are no sources that provide an overview of this type of observation. Also, the article assumes that racial categories are generally understood, but there is no support for this either. TFD (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have stated several times now something along the lines of Criminal justice system and minorities, or Simply crime and minorities would be extremely viable articles and Second year Sociology major could write. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "But there are no sources that provide an overview of this type of observation." I've added a source to support that now.Boothello (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a WP:COATRACK of bits of stuff that together implies a viewpoint that is somewhat creepy. Salvage anything useful, if any, into other articles and delete. --Martin (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've had a chance to spend a bit more time with this article. Despite the notable topic, this is a POV-laden catastrophe, highly US-centric in orientation and seemingly racist in fundamental intent. As with the Jews and Money mess, this needs to be blown up and rebuilt from scratch, sticking to the serious mainstream published literature. We've seen this same basic crap before with Race and intelligence and ArbCom may well be seeing it again unless this POV express gets nuked and replaced by something on the topic worthy of Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subjects such as race and crime receives significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Such as in this particular case.. I find not good faith reason to delete this article.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - I think it says a lot that this article has survived two previous AFDs. It means the article is plagued with POV problems, but also that the topic is clearly notable and deserves its own article. There are sources that discuss race and crime in a global context, and I added one of them to support the unreferenced statement that TFD pointed out. I've also looked at the AFD that a few people have mentioned for the Jews and money article, and the difference between that article and this one is that several parts of Jews and money misrepresented the source material. On this article, most of the existing content is relevant and well-sourced, and the problem is just that the article doesn't provide enough discussion about social (rather than biological) explanations for racial disparities in crime rates. Therefore, we don't need to get rid of the existing content, someone just needs to add all of the information that's missing.Boothello (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Boothello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It is incorrect to say that the article survived 2 AfDs. It was changed first to a redirect and then shortly afterwards to a disambiguation page. Then Giornorosso, an editor subsequently banned for his racist comments, recreated the page using a userfied copy of the deleted article. Mathsci (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any requirement in the AfDs that the article should be a redirect.Miradre (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Miradre Lionel (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or stubify. Miradre is talking here about "peer reviewed sources", but note that s/he added in the daughter article Race and crime in the United States several references to a report by the New Century Foundation, a body "dedicated to the ideal of the United States as a white European nation". There is some clear agenda-pushing going on in these related articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The New Century Foundation never made that statement. Please check sources before making claims. If there is anything wrong with the report, please add it to the article.Miradre (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A strange double standard to criticize a well-sourced report but at the same time uncritically accept unsourced statements. But then this applies to this whole emotional topic in general.Miradre (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That statement can be easily sourced to several reliable sources, whether or not you believe that NEw Century Foundation has said this is irrelevant.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then please give those sources. Regardless, there is certainly a double standard when uncritically accepting an unsourced statement in Wikipedia and while at the same time rejecting a sourced report. Anyway, that an organization may be an advocacy organization for a certain POV is not a reason for excluding reports from it. The articles in Wikipedia has numerous views and reports by various organizations with certain POVs.Miradre (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"That an organization may be an advocacy organization for a certain POV is not a reason for excluding reports from it". No, one can of course cite it as a source for its own opinions. They should however not be cited as representative of anything other than a fringe point of view, and should be given appropriate weight regarding their lack of recognition in relation to the subject matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should all advocacy organizations be described as fringe just because they are advocacy organizations? Anti-immigration, pro-immigrations, pro-liberal, pro-conservative, and so on? Or should all interest organizations for ethnic groups be described as fringe? Miradre (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all advocacy organisations are fringe, but even so, they are only reliable sources for non-contentious information. We apply commonsense and see groups as being on a continuum. Slow Food is an advocacy group but not fringe; the "911 truth" groups advocate a fringe idea; the English Defence League is an extremist source. The group you cited (a number of times) is somewhere on that continuum, and the important point is that you used it to support contentious ideas in an article on a contentious topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maunus: That statement can be easily sourced to several reliable sources, whether or not you believe that NEw Century Foundation has said this is irrelevant.. Miradre: Then please give those sources.. Here you go:

"white supremacist group led by Jared Taylor"

"both the organization and periodical (American Renaissance - VM) dedicated to the ideal of United States as a European white nation"

"far-right fringe", "white supremacist"

Organization's head Jared Taylor "white supremacist", "noted white nationalist"

And there's plenty more out there. Seriously, it's not like it's hard to find sources to show that the source Miradre is putting into these articles are white supremacist racist garbage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have put nothing from the New Century Foundation in this article. Only in the Race and crime in the United States article. There is nothing in the policies that prohibits reports on a topic from advocacy groups. Furthermore, per WP:NPOV notable views should be included. This report is widely cited regarding Race and crime in the United States so it qualifies. If you think that the statistics presented in the report are wrong, then please give sources with an opposing views. Ad hominem attacks are not valid. All the figures in the report are based on official statistics and reports on the scientific literature.Miradre (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for sources to support the contention that this "advocacy group", New Century Foundation was a racist, white supremacist group. I just provided these sources. Now you're changing topics and want to discuss "whether the numbers are wrong" - this is a standard POV pushing tactic, when proven wrong or provided with reliable sources pretend the discussion is about something else - and calling these descriptions from sources "ad hominem"; why did you ask for sources to support them then? I have no interest in having any further conversation with you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even its critics like the ADL admits that it considers Asians superior in intelligence to Europeans, and considers Jews to be valuable contributors, so it certainly does not fit the stereotype of a neo-Nazi or white supremacist group. All claims should be supported by sources, that is standard WP policy. I have not changed tactics. I stated above "Anyway, that an organization may be an advocacy organization for a certain POV is not a reason for excluding reports from it. The articles in Wikipedia has numerous views and reports by various organizations with certain POVs." Obviously there is no defense in policy for excluding notable views from a topic, so I understand if you do not want to continue arguing.Miradre (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "superior asian" and "non-antisemite" argument is a red herring. Multiple sources describe them as an advocacy, white supremacy and hate group. You did not use it to source "a view" you presented its views as facts. ·Maunus·ƛ· 23:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See no mention of hate group in the above sources. Only a few claims of white supremacy which is dubious as per above. For example risk of being in prison is not a view. The same with the Hispanics and whites being counted together.Miradre (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per aprock and Volunteer Marek. Prima facie example of WP:COATRACK, and would take a great deal of time and effort to bring into the realm of WP:NPOV. Harping on a single peer-reviewed source over and over won't change any of that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is certainly more than one peer-reviewed source in the article. Furthermore, some are literature reviews and based on numerous peer-reviewed studies. For example the Handbook of Crime Correlates lists numerous, well over a hundred studies just for black-white crime differences.Miradre (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't change the simple, stubborn, irreducible fact that the entirety of the article is WP:COATRACKing. The differences described have been attributed to several sources by many scholars, as anyone who's ever taken a basic Sociology course will attest. That said, this article, as it stands, would require a complete rewrite just to make it neutral. Better to bulldoze down to the bedrock and start building anew. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, whether or not you agree with the article, it should be obvious that the subject is quite notable.--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Stub. I agree with those who say the topic is notable - it is, and a good article about it would be worth having. But this AfD has to decide on this current article, not on the topic, and this article is full of NPOV and SYNTH and would pretty much need to be completely rewritten -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So go ahead and rewrite it. You don't need to delete it to do that.--RaptorHunter (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't need to rewrite it in order to voice my opinion here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it should be obvious the article's topic is suitable, but the concerns seem to be over the page's current condition. Per WP:BEFORE, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD". I don't think this article is hopeless enough for deletion, though, as there are some reasonable sources and workable material in there; I think, however, that the POV/SYNTH stuff should be removed and better content added. I'd do it myself, but my to-do list is already over 100 items long ... /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regard to the 'SOFIXIT' argument, I'd point out that if one wishes to write on the factors resulting in differential offending statistics, mainstream sources will only treat 'race' as a fringe theory at best. Essentially this article is a POV-fork on a broader topic, and as such is never going to be able to reflect the wider debate with due weight. That the 'fork' has been created instead of a broader-based article is unfortunate, but the appropriate 'fix' would seem to be to create the broader article, and incorporate (with due weight) whatever reliably sourced material can be salvaged from this article. I'd also point out that since the application of the term 'race' to human populations is highly controversial within the scientific community, the very title of the article is almost certainly a breach of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can always retitle the page and whatnot. But even if race is a fringe theory, as you say, surely we can then have an article that covers the differing views about race and crime? (Even though, I don't think it's a real "fringe theory"; there have been multiple publications about this by people of differing perspectives, e.g. [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25].) If there is a broader article that would be more suitable for this topic to be merged into, I don't see any problem with that, but I don't know which broader article that would be. /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you extensively rewrite the article (which seems to be what you are suggesting is necessary), and give it a new title, in what way is it the 'old' article at all? A case of Trigger's broom, I'd say. Simpler to start again with a clean slate...

What is so bad with current article that is should be cleaned completely is unclear, except that general revulsion regarding the topic itself.Miradre (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Stub: WP:COATRACK, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:WEIGHT; clear, willful, and unapologetic misrepresentations of reliable sources and use of sources unreliable for anything but their own views; US-centric, including in definitions of race (and confused even there: Hispanic is a linguistic category); WP:CPUSH and WP:TEND here and on the article's Talk page. Ergative rlt (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds interesting. What are "the clear, willful, and unapologetic misrepresentations"?Miradre (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in this, too. I've seen it asserted from multiple editors here that some sort of racist POV is being pushed in this article, yet no evidence has been provided to back-up those assertions. Location (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people hold the politically correct view that there is no such thing as race. Therefore any statement which would say otherwise, no matter how well sourced or backed up by statistics, must be a racist misrepresentation.--RaptorHunter (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny I don't know any such people and I hang around with politically correct people a lot, they all agree that race exists and is very important, several of them even study it for a living.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite The topic is notable, but the actual article is a mess. 'The chances of going to prison based on your race' image needs to be reworded, but as I don't know what the image's source is, I can't change it without the risk of making it incorrect.- SudoGhost (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the image needs to be deleted. It gives figures for 'Hispanics', which as has been pointed out before, isn't a 'racial' category. The link to the source seems to be dead too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The concept of "race" differs so much between different countries that any comparison of statistics becomes meaningless. In addition the classification and reporting of crimes varies considerably. It is true that the US and UK have moderately similar classifications of both race and crime, but even there the differences are large enough that we cannot make meaningful comparisons. If we are to have articles on Race and Crime then they have to be individual for countries. I am ignoring the obvious fact that this whole area is an ideological battleground. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly a notable topic. Does the current article have problems? Yes, but nothing that requires nuking and starting over. Frankly, the idea that this topic doesn't merit an article because it's "wrong" is ridiculous. We have lots of articles on things that are "wrong" but still notable (Phrenology, anybody?). Reliable, peer reviewed sources exist, and a high quality article is prevented not because the topic isn't notable, but because people hold strong opinions on the subject and will try to inject their opinions into the article. Buddy431 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Just because something is wrong or objectionable doesn't make it not notable.--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge with Racial Profiling. I have to say that both sides of this argument are correct that there needs to be an encyclopedic acknowledgement of the issues on this page and it absolutely breeches WP:NPOV in a way that cannot be fixed to have this article on the current topic due to WP:UNDUE.Clearly there are correlations between race and crime but there is a context of history and science that needs to be takne into account,

Laws have criminalised people on the basis of race: segregation or apartheid.
Anti-slavery laws obviously had a greater effect on people based on race than speeding laws.

The current article discusses the precursor to racial profiliing and it needs to be given the context of time and regarded as the history of science and modern thinking. While clearly racial profiling is prejudicial as it ignores overlapping factors such as poverty which leads to persecution this overlap can lead to statistical correlations. To find a criminal from a witness statement has to include categorising people, you cannot simply give the description of "a mugger" and expect to find the person.

The current page should be at most a disambiguation but currently the content only covers one aspect of race and crime.

Clearly, the subarticles should be AfDed (I may have missed some) for the same reasons:Race_and_crime_in_the_United_Kingdom, Indigenous_Australians_and_crime, Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States and other articles in Category:Race and crime should be checked.

This is very different from Race and Intelligence which is impossible to give a context unless you put it in an article labelled Racist fallacies and I only realised existed via the link from the article.Tetron76 (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly the two articles are largely maintained by the same editors...

·Maunus·ƛ· 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not surprising and why the NPOV needs to be enforced.Tetron76 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clearer my vote is not for compromise and I would pick delete as a second choice.Tetron76 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So long as the information is correct and the RSs are truly reliable sources, this is how Wikipedia helps readers with their research. Greg L (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but it isn't and they aren't....·Maunus·ƛ· 21:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do agree on something!--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relationships between race and crime have been described in many RS, some of which are used in this article. There is nothing like WP:SYNTH, WP:FRINGE, or WP:COATRACK. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of reliable sources regarding the subject that haven't been cited in the article, perhaps you should add them, rather than just asserting that they exist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really asserting that reliable sources do not exist? Have you bothered to click on the GBook link at the top? Location (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No he's asserting that right now the best reason to delet is the fact that the article is a POV mess and that if you actually added some better sources to the article to make it less biased your keep votes would make more sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would make more sense for you to clarify what POV you think is being pushed, so that we don't have to guess at what you think needs to be addressed. Location (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliography of Race and crime in the United States has a good sampling of the existing sources on this topic. That article looks better sourced than this one. Some of its sources are US-centric, but plenty of others (like most of the sources from Gabbidon, Greene, Walsh, or Wright) could and likely should be cited in this article also.Boothello (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have realised that the phrase crime rate is not defined in wikipedia and Crime rates takes you to Crime statistics which is different from the use in this article. How can you expect the article to be taken in a balanced way when you haven't distinguished between total crime and crime rates.Tetron76 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I don't see this article being over the brink to require deletion. There may be some POV problems though. I just added what seems a good book on it (based on the passage I read there on r/K theory). The comment "I think this is a similar issue to the recent Jews and money Afd" is symptomatic of this being just another thinly veiled attempt to exclude from Wikipedia articles on topics that some editors think should not even be mentioned because they contravene their POV or sensitivities by their very existence. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book added by Tijfo098 discusses r/K theory but points to 3 criticisms. It concludes with the statement (P 44), "Finally there have been concerns that Rushton's research returns to the days of Lombrosoism and the eugenics movement which, as Rafter has recently noted describing the biocriminology in Nazi Germany, was 'criminology's darkest hour.'" The summary on the section on various biologically-based theories states that "they all suffer from a variety of shortcomings; some have more glaring weaknesses than others." Mathsci (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your point? The current wiki article debunks r/K theory as well [26]. "Race and crime" is a topic in almost every Criminology textbook I've looked in, even undergraduate ones [27], never mind monographs on the topic. I don't see policy-based justifications to delete this article. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)To add to Mathsci's comment, from the article on r/K theory (which is a theory developed for non-human organisms):

"Rushton's work has been roundly criticized and mostly rejected by anthropologists and biologists"
"(Rushton's book) also has a wide following among White Nationalists"
"not only is r/K selection theory considered to be virtually useless when applied to human life history evolution, but Rushton himself does not apply the theory correctly, and displays a lack of understanding of evolutionary theory in general."
"the sources for the biological data gathered in support of Rushton's hypothesis were misrepresented and that much of his social science data was collected by dubious means."

How did you miss these aspects in your reading of r/K theory article?

The book added by Tijfo098 states:

That r/K theory as applied to humans is "One of the more controversial biosocial theories related to race related to race in general and crime in particular"
It states that "Implicit in such (biological/racial) theories (of crime) has been the notion of white supremacy"
The whole section on the relevant topic is in fact a criticism of biologically based theories.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly did I miss and where? This article is not about r/K theory, that is only a subtopic, and it is discussed in reliable sources in relation to "race and crime". I used r/K theory as a sampling point to see if the this article is tremendously POV (as claimed by deletionists) or not. I concluded that it isn't. The r/K theory article has been recently [28] edited by Maunus, whose POV is well-known, and who added some WP:PRIMARY sources of criticism, so excuse me for preferring a textbook to a Wikipedia article for comparison purposes. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And both you, Mr. Marek and Mathsci get the prize for selective quotations. The chapter in Gabbidon concludes (p. 44) with "In sum, many of the biologically oriented theories reviewed either directly of indirectly point to some race and crime linkages. Nevertheless, for over a century, opponents of such approaches have countered with alternative sociological perspectives; some are reviewed in the next chapter." Tijfo098 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... what's the point of your quotation? It says that these biological theories have posited a linkage between race and crime - of course they have! So has the Aryan Nation. That doesn't mean that a link actually exists and neither does the text says it does. Then, in the second sentence it says that those who disagree with these theories have proposed alternative theories. Nowhere does the text lend support to these biological theories and, as pointed out above it mentions the connection between them and white supremacist ideology. So how is anything being quoted selectively? Anything else you'd like me to read for you?Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About 60% of the article seems to be based on Lynn and Rushton, neither of whom are experts in criminology and both of whom espouse racialist theories. The sociological explanations get two throwaway sentences in the article, whereas textbooks on criminology devote large amounts of space to that topic. No undergraduate textbooks look remotely like this article. Race and crime has been disccused in connection with many non-English speaking countries, e.g. Sweden, but these receive no mention, Mathsci (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously 60% of the article is not based on Rushton and Lynn. Although their share have increased after mass deletions of other material such as crime rates non-English countries. Most of the sociological theories are in regard to US crime only with much less discussions of worldwide differences. I suggest that Mathsci contributes to article is he knows there is material missing. Anyhow, missing material is not a reason for deletion. Furthermore, I suggest reconsidering that the opponents of biological theories really occupy the high moral ground. If there are biological differences, then denying this is going to harm those with low biological ability the most. They have increasing problems functioning in the increasingly complex world of today, causing unemployment, crime, and so on. They need help which is not possible so long as the problem is denied to exist.Miradre (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about sociological causes is incorrect, since criminologists write about this in all countries. My own view is that a country-by-country set of articles is fine. Isn't there a significant literature about Sweden? Mathsci (talk) 07:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in most US textbooks the sociological explanations are only about the US. If you know of any significant literature that is lacking, then please add it, to this article or a new. Anyhow, lacking material is not a reason for deletion. Neither is Wikipedia:I just don't like it . All morally indignant condemnations should consider that the groups with the most crime who also suffers the most from it. Trying to conceal or deny harms these groups the most.Miradre (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How considerate of you to work to protect the weaker groups in society, by showing how much they really need protection. I must have misjudged you completely.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You likely have. If you had read my arguments in the AE case you would have found the same argument there. Denying biological realities will help the disadvantaged group the least. Although condemning such theories may benefit those doing so by making them feel morally superior and good.Miradre (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Denying biological realities will help the disadvantaged group the least." As far as I am aware, that is not the majority view in WP:RS. Mathsci (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is more or less the same argument as the one made by 19th century racists like Thomas Carlyle, who argued that blacks were "biologically disadvantaged" and so freeing them would only harm them. So you see, keeping them in slavery was for their own good. Just like running around pretending, and announcing to everyone, that blacks are "naturally" more prone to crime, despite there really being no evidence for this contention that can stand up to any kind of statistical or skeptical inquiry (as evidenced by sourced already provided), is also "for their own good". Disgusting (I mean just the hypocrisy, nm the racism itself).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. It is thinking that goes back trough Juan Gines Sepulveda to Aristotle and has been used to justify slavery and social inequality since classical times. Even when couched in paternalist verbiage it still amounts to simple racism.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I could just as well point out the massacres of Communism as evidence for what those who denies biological realities have done. Denying biological realities is not going the help the most disadvantaged groups. We have done that. Crime rates and unemployment have just increased for this group. Affirmative action has caused large scale failures for those in programs they cannot handle. Maybe those denying biological realities should take some responsibilities for what their policies has caused.Miradre (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crime rates and unemployment have just increased for this group - Bullshit. Sources? Crime rates for crimes that are not subject to prosecutor's discretion - like homicide rates - have fallen for "this group" dramatically since the 1960's. Unemployment fluctuates with the general economy but until this last recession, the unemployment rate for blacks (I guess this would be the "this group") had been steadily declining, from around 15% at beginning of the 90's (and much higher before) to about 8% by 2007 and converging to that of whites. Likewise the wage gap between blacks and whites - while still there - has gotten smaller since the 1960's, probably in part due to Affirmative Action.

So let's see, after the removal of the most racist laws and institutions thanks to the Civil Rights movement, economic conditions for "these groups" began to improve - contra that whole IQ, race and income nonsense - and at the same time, crime rates of actual crimes (not incarceration rates for petty offenses) fell along with increases in income - contra the whole race and crime crap.

But no, what's important is to insist that "these groups" are inferior, and can't help commit crimes etc. because not blaming them for this shit "only hurts them". Bullshit, racist nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No sources of course. Here is one: [29]Miradre (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're switching subjects again. Unemployment rate for blacks in 1975 was almost 15%. In 2007 it was 8%. Overall, from 1972 to 2010 (both recession years), unemployment rate for blacks has been falling by about .1 of a percent per year. Source: http://data.bls.gov/. I don't think you actually understand the Borjas et. al paper (nm about Borjas himself, or the fact that this is a cherry picked paper) that you're linking to. I note you didn't even bother to address your claims about crime rates "increasing" - hell, the graph proving that wrong is in the Race and crime in the United States article itself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Write a paper if you disagree with Borjas. Crime rates was incorrect. I should have stated incarceration rates as in the Borjas paper.Miradre (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other people already have (and maybe I am writing one). Anyway you said "unemployment rates" - I answered with unemployment rates. You changed the goal post and linked to the Borjas paper which does not use unemployment rates but rather weeks worked (which is essentially playing shenanigans with the data - cuz they know unemployment rates won't support their "story" - but nm that). And obviously incarceration rates don't reflect crime rates but other factors. So we have...

"Crime rates ... (has) just increased for this group." - bullshit premise, shown to be false.

"... unemployment (has) just increased for this group." - bullshit premise, shown to be false.

"Affirmative action has caused large scale failures for those in programs they cannot handle." - another false premise

"Maybe those denying biological realities should take some responsibilities for what their policies has caused." - bullshit conclusion based on bullshit premises, with obviously racist overtones.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have answered with nothing sourced. Give a specific link. I will also of course note that an official unemployment rate for a group is misleading when more than 10% is stored away in prison. In large parts thanks to factors such as drooping out of a school system not accepting biological realities.Miradre (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double Sigh. Biological reality? Really? How funny that "biological reality" according to your favorite scholars happens to align perfectly with a colonial social order. The failures of communism were due to their not recognizing innate racial disparities, not to its being totalitarian an authoritarian ? Does that mean that an authoritarian totalitarian rule that acknowledges innate racial hierarchies would be the best solution? Oops, I think we tried that too.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem taking up the massacres of communism if you take up slavery and colonialism. Whoever said, except you as a straw man, that acceptance of biological realities leads to an authoritarian totalitarian rule? According to that logic IQ tests and school grades should be prohibited since they imply that intelligence differ between people and almost all accept that this is in part heritable... But, wait we do not have a dictatorship despite that we accept that people differ in intelligence! Why should it be different if we accept that groups differ? Again, maybe those denying biological realities should take some responsibility for failures of their policies especially for the disadvantaged groups. Rising crime, unemployment, drugs... Miradre (talk) 15:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that accepting biological reality/(used here in your sense as a euphemism for racist ideology) leads to authoritarian regimes, I am saying that it is ridiculous to blame the horrors of communism on their lack of accepting "biological reality" when in fact the problem obviously their being a totalitarian regime and to show that the problem was totalitarianism and not egalitarianism I hinted towards a well known example of a totalitarian regime that did recognize "biological reality" and produced equal horrors. Your instinctive lash at communism is simply a red herring designed to divert attention from the real fact namely that your acknowledgment of "biological reality" was never meant to produce any kind of social improvement for the inherently week groups and that the people who argue for making this realization never ever work to produce any such kind of social change except through policy reccomendations of population control (eugenics or anti-immigration). It is the epitome of hypocrisy to pay lipservice to the possible beneficial consequences of discovering the "real" cause of social equality like you and the Lynns and Rushtons of the world when the actual agenda is visibly not beneficial to those groups at all, but rather to protect their own favored group from the harmful effects of cohabiting with the "weaker groups".·Maunus·ƛ· 15:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racist ideology? I could with equal justification or equal wrongness call the denial of biological differences for Communism. The horrors of Communism arose in large part from denial of biological realities. A superior "New Man" should be shaped by new superior environment and everything standing in the way of this good and just goal could be sacrificed even if this meant total destruction of the old environment and society and massacres. Did not work. Similarly, the policy of denying biological group differences has been destructive and most for the most disadvantaged groups. Rising crime, unemployment, drugs... Denying reality is in the long run harmful for all although you can certainly always find some people who gain from it short-term. Including those who like to feel morally superior.Miradre (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that denying the existence of a racial hierarchy is not the definition of "communism" (for example because it is possile to have other kinds of social hierarchies other than racial ones although that may seem strange to you), whereas affirming the existence of such a racial hierarchy is in fact the definition of "racist ideology".·Maunus·ƛ· 16:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A "hierarchy " for average group IQ does not imply that groups differ in "value" anymore than different IQs for people imply that they have different "value". Yes, communism as an ideology rejected any biological differences and saw man as a "tabula rasa". A new superior man, formed by a superior environment, should be created. It is similar with current policy of denying biological realities. The results has in both cases been gigantic failures. Another similarity is that the architects and proponents deny seeing the failures and destruction their policies have created.Miradre (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If hierarchy does not imply differences in value then how do you define hierarchy? Communism didn't reject biological hierarchy by the way, their policy of eugenics was similar to the ones of other countries at the time, except they didn't argue for racial biological differences as the basis of biological difference. Also as I have stated now several times, denying the existence of race does not equal communism because it is possible to deny the biological basis of race and still not be egalitarian - oppositely there is no way that arguing that different groups have different IQs is not the same as establishing a racist hierarchy based on differential values. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are arguing that that because individuals differ in IQ scores they have different "value"? If not, why would it be different for groups? You still not replied regarding the failures of the race denial policies: unemployment, crime, drugs... Maybe it is time to reconsider? Miradre (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is an IQ score not a value? (In fact for Rushton, Lynn and Gotfredsson IQ is clearly used as a proxy for "value to society" as their rididucloues arguments about IQ as predictive of success shows). Regarding your now 4 times repeated trio of "unemployment, crime, drugs" I cannot asnwer your loaded question, without starting a new argument about its faulty premises.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously people do not have less human rights because they differ on IQ or many other factors. The same applies to groups. It is only in your straw man version that this is necessary.Miradre (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not mentioned rights. I don't know of any definition of racism that requires a belief in race as the basis for differential human rights. Racism is simply ranking humans hierarchically according to racial group membership - it doesn't require any particular viewpoint on what that ranking implies politically. So your accusing me of erecting strawmen is itself ... a strawman. I shall stop now but I must say that this exchange has been highly enlightening.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting definition. So if someone found that different groups differed on, say, long-distance running ability, then this would be racism? Miradre (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if that someone was silly enough to propose that "long distance runnign ability", "penis length", "rhytmmic ability" or whatever criteria he decided to rank was an inherent an essential feature of a racial group rather than being caused by the specific bio-geographical ancestry which does of course vary both within and between different ethno-geographical groups. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If someone said genetic IQ varied in such a way it would also be OK? Miradre (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "genetic IQ". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike for the racial differences, there is no disagreement that IQ for individuals is partly caused by genetic factors.Miradre (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether the observer decided to equate the difference in long-distance running ability (a physical trait) with a propensity for crime. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that it does not matter if communist believe in racial differences or not. It does not matter what Hitler believes. It does not matter how many people suffered or died because of perceived racial differences. The only question here is if racial differences are supported by Scientific Fact. Keep your philosophical discussions out of it.--RaptorHunter (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.Miradre (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Hodja Nasreddin; a legitimate topic. There are multiple sources available for the topic, some already mentioned in the article. No reason to delete, just because some statements may be POVed (or rather, might not reflect the views of some users advocating deletion). Hence, keep and develop further. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though it is possible that an acceptable article might be written on this subject, and the subject is clearly notable in itself, it is regrettably clear that it will not be fixed. Wikipedia is not currently capable of dealing with this sort of subject. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was new argument.Miradre (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is obvious enough.--RaptorHunter (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion has been running for over a week now. I see no clear consensus for either keeping or deleting. Perhaps it's time to close this out, especially since I'm starting to see some circular arguments here and there. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This (and the associated Race and crime in the United States are a hodge podge of fringe theories usually the pet theories of one or two pov pushing editors and have no real place in an encyclopedia. --rgpk (comment) 20:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inherently POV and OR. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ornaments from the Silver Arcade

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

Contested prod, fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM Mo ainm~Talk 21:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It most certainly does not fail the GNG or the guideline for albums. Check out all these reviews, which Google offered on the first page of a search: [30][31][32][33][34]. There's plenty more on the pages after that too. Poor article, but that will be solved by editing, not by deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: I added these delsort templates but forgot to add them to the lists. Done now. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is an unreferenced stub, but it can be improved as coverage exists. Peter E. James (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't think that reviews constituted significant coverage. Mo ainm~Talk 22:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They do. In fact, reviews of albums, singles, films, are frequently the best kind of significant coverage we can provide. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. This is a poor nomination; there is sufficient coverage to pass GNG, and the record certainly passes NALBUM. Big Dom 09:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reasons above. - SudoGhost (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Sansom

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

No evidence for notability given (see WP:N, WP:PROF), even though the "notability" tag has been around since 2009. The very model of a minor general (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- agree as to non-notability of subject. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he may pass criterion 1 of the the WP:ACADEMIC guideline (Web of Science gives him an h-index of 13 with top citation counts of 96, 65, 61, 40, which strikes me as pretty good for paleotontology, if not all that exceptional), the complete lack of independent reliable sources (including for most of the info in the infobox) means the article fails to satisfy the WP:Verifiability policy, and as WP:ACADEMIC#General notes #3 says, "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject". I did search Google Scholar, News and Books for suitable such sources, but failed to locate any. Qwfp (talk) 07:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. It is difficult to find a source that is more independent and reliable than a citation in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (putting aside self citations). The hundreds of citations here make for borderline notability; as another editor says, the cites are probably fairly good for palaeontology. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment Where did you find "hundreds of citations"? Please add this information to the article. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: The Palaeontological Association thought he had made a "notable early contribution to the science" (2001) - hence the prize - and he has published (in Science and in Nature) and been cited well since. (I have added some refs to article) Would this ref, where his work is discussed, but he only gets a passing mention, in the New York Times help? Malcolm W. Brown "Evidence of Bone Shows Vertebrates To Be Far Older Than Once Believed" New York Times, May 29, 1992 [35](Msrasnw (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Keep—He did develop a new acid-etching technique that proved conodonts were the earliest vertebrates.[36] He also led a study that discovered an ancient shark ancestor that didn't have jaws.[37] These were covered in the press, so I think he has at least some measure of notability.—RJH (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please add the information that you found also to the article, not only here. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Visualistics

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

Neologism, unreferenced AndrewHowse (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visualistics. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Delete Like the other article linked, not notable. Nothing outside blog land and self references. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the same reasons given here. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 08:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Slee (artist)

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

No indication of notability per WP:CREATIVE (as an artist) or WP:PROF (as an academic). Article appears to be a minor rewording of this source, possibly making it a WP:COPYVIO; removing this content would leave barely a stub. Kinu ^t/_c 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A 10 minute Google search turned up various references now added to the article, including this essay that accompanies his recent exhibition at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London and discusses "Slee's important position in contemporary visual art". Clear notability. AllyD (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. References abound for this artist. Just a couple of other examples: here's a review of one of Slee's exhibitions by BBC Collective, and here's book about him by Garth Clark. Article needs to be worked, not deleted. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On WP:Creative, Slee is regarded as an important figure and is widely cited by peers or successors. He has created a collective body of work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles. On WP:Prof he meets Wikipedia's "professor test". On WP:copyvio, there are several references and the page does not depend on a single source. Biographical information on birthplace and education is bound to be similar in all accounts. The article can be improved but deletion is inappropriate. Marshall46 (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden and lost treasures in the Dominican Republic

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

Non-notable book. Does not meet WP:BK. Not quite spammy enough to be a G11 speedy deletion candidate. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not noteworthy. This user has created similar articles previously, and appears to have some connection with the work. Spanish and German versions of the book have his name on them, hence result in a clear conflict of interest. Mephistophelian † 20:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Fails WP:NBOOK, and like Mephistophelian said, author has a conflict of interest. As a side note, an article with a slight variation of this title was speedy deleted yesterday for a copyright violation. BurtAlert (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Again. This is a self-published book which has not been reviewed or written about in any reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've put a prod tag on the related article Gaëtan Algoet‎. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mostyn

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

Well, here's a nice little change-up: it's yet another unelected Canadian political candidate — but this one's for the Ontario provincial election in October rather than the federal one that's underway right now. It's still poorly sourced, relying mainly on his own website and on cursory mentions in coverage of other topics, and still fails to demonstrate that he's actually notable for anything other than being a candidate. As usual, he's certainly entitled to come back if he wins, but not to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate, and I do not believe that his legal career and community activism rise to notability. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has never held provincial or other significant office. I see that the previous AfD resulted in a "redirect" to 2006 Canadian federal election. Last month an WP:SPA undid the redirect and developed a full article (as well as expanding Mostyn's information at the federal election page). This time let's just delete it, without a redirect, as it wouldn't be clear which election to redirect it to.--MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found the following note on the article creator's talk page and I am posting it here as their !vote for Keep. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia so please excuse any stylistic issues. This article I have been working on for the past few hours is indeed an upgrade from the past one posted and does not contain any promotional material. Rather, I have based it off of articles already made such as that of Rocco Rossi and would greatly appreciate it if it was not deleted. Thank you.

Rocco Rossi has actually been the subject of media coverage in reliable sources in his own right. This guy hasn't. Bearcat (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2008. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Deutinger

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

Non-notable model. There's not much to say about her other that the fact that she was a playmate. Damiens.rf 19:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Same rationale as last AfD. Passes GNG from the many German news articles and satisfies Criteria 4 of PORNBIO as one of the participants in the German version of Beauty and the Geek. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, besides being a playmate, she was one of the seven female participants in one of the five seasons of one of the german reality-shows. The relevant question is: Did this "achievement" led to her be covered by third part independent non-trivial sources? --Damiens.rf 15:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? Largest newspaper in Germany not good enough for you? The link was given in the last AfD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2008. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect - No PORNBIO, no GNG. Being the Oktoberfest girl sounds nice, but no. Reality tv participants, apart from the winners, do not generally earn articles either. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wish i'd never got started on these playmate Afds. I am tired of fighting the anti-playmate brigade intent of redirecting all these articles to the year articles (and simply duplicating the content there), but I recall I worked on this one in the 1st AfD and her german coverage is pretty high profile.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Rogers

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

Non-notable model. There's not much to say about her other that the fact that she was a playmate. Damiens.rf 19:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Playmate of the month does not meet the WP:GNG or the WP:PORNBIO threshold. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 05:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anka Romensky

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

Non-notable model. WP:PORNBIO no longer has a exempt for all playmates. Damiens.rf 19:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - PORNBIO and GNG fail. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was REDIRECT. postdlf (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Carolin

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

Non-notable model. She was a playmate and appeared in some music videos. Damiens.rf 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Or redir if preferred. Playmates fail PORNBIO, and appearing in a few music videos is not a notability establisher. Tarc (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake eyre

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

A footballer who seems to have made more appearances than the record-holder listed at Football_records_in_England#Appearances, yet there are no relevant search engine results about him, and the single Nexis news result is about a player on an under-14s team in 2007. By contrast, a search for a contemporary, Jimmy Montgomery, gives 225 results in UK publications. There is an impressive amount of detail in this article, but none of the references back it up - they don't seem to mention the subject at all. I'm willing to be proven wrong on this one, but I haven't been able to find any trace of this person, which is unusual even if the most notable period of his life was before the Internet age. Kateshortforbob _talk 19:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. That about covers it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - massive hoax, no player by this name exists, as per the ever-reliable Post War English & Scottish Football League A - Z Player's Database. Giant Snowman 20:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Most of the keeps just state "it's notable" on principle, without actually discussing the actual article and topic and the sources about this institute. The ones actually discussing sources were unable to provide reliable, independent sources of sufficient quality and significance, making the deletes not only stronger in numbers but also by strength of argument, which is the deciding factor in AfD discussions. Fram (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary

AfDs for this article:

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

No secondary sources to demonstrate this unaccredited seminary meets WP:ORG. Specifically, it has zero non-trival sources to show "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The article has created in 2008 by Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs), who has done 100% of writing this.

This was previously nominated after its creation Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary. Three editors, including its creator, wanted it kept arguing it is old and a "legitimate school" (no source to support that). No attempts have been made to prove notablity and add third-party, non-trival sources per WP:OR in three years. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing adminstrator. The creator of this article is not naïve, but has been told for years not to create articles about unnotable things. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Billy Hathorn from 2008, which is a community response to his creating of unnotable articles or things that only have local interest. Then there are comments like this in 2007: "A number of your articles have been deleted for the policy violations. Yet, your editing behavior in those areas doesn't seem to have changed. Just today you have created several articles on non-notable individuals, some of which appear to be copied straight from the obituary section of a newspaper.... you'd been notified before about this issue of your creating articles for non-notable people...." HHaeyyn89 (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep colleges, we keep secondary schools, we should keep seminaries. Possible merge target might be L. L. Clover, the founder of the seminary. Carrite (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there are no sources about it? What policy are you citing? WP:ORG, which WP:SCHOOL says is the guideline, says third-party non trival sources are need to establish notablity. There are none. You can't have a good article without sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article created the article about L. L. Clover and cited his own article (which is what the entire article is based on). This appears to be self-promotion. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failure to meet the general notability guideline by an absence of independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 05:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to point out the one book that is cited was published by 21st Century Press, a vanity publisher that requires authors pay to make the books, then pay to ship them to a warehouse, and pay a monthly storage fee for the books. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well established precedent is that we keep degree-awarding institutions which this seminary is. TerriersFan (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is does award degrees? What's your source? So any organization that claims to award degrees also gets kept even if you can't verify it?

Comment: Let's be clear about this: There is ONLY ONE NON-INDEPENDENT "SOURCE" THAT EVEN MENTIONS THIS SEMINARY. It's entire mention is: "In 1952, Calvary officially began the Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary." There is nothing about it awarding degrees, nothing about it currently operating. The only source for its current operation is the unsourced claim in the wikipedia article. The only claim that it offers degrees is in the wikipedia article, which is also unsourced.
The other sources, which are dead links now, claimed local pastors served at churches. Local pastorial activities aren't notable or even relevant to the article. The last source is a self-published autobiography of a dead local pastor. It fails WP:RS, but even it kept it sources this trival statement: "Not all were preparing for the pastoral ministry". The local news link says "so-and-so" attended, but doesn't say when, why or offer any other details.
Without sources, nothing claimed in the article can be proven false or true. Does this even exist or did exist? The whole thing is an advertisement for a place that can't be verified.
1) Please cite the "precedent" that unsourcable organizations get articles made about them. 2) Can you offer some reliable sources that this place is allowed to award degrees or does awards, or even currently has students? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for deleting this seems to be centered on the claim it may not exist. I am not sure how to incorporate some sources I have found into the aritcle, however this obituary [38] clearly suggests the place existed, whether it now exists or not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here [39] is a link to a blurb by Joe Morell who is said to have been dean of LMBIS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what was added in was MORE links from LOCAL churches (plus an local obituary) and a business report. Is this local business notable for inclusion or will it remain an wiki ad without third-party sources? ~~ Abaamm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaamm (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There seems to be confusion here. I nominated it with this reason: No secondary sources to demonstrate this unaccredited seminary meets WP:ORG. Specifically, it has zero non-trival sources to show "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I'm not speaking about the validity of its education. It doesn't appear to be notable outside of a few local churches that mention it. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep www.stampslandmark.com/pastor.htm is a reliable independent secondary third-party source and the coverage that is there is significant. Also, there is a reference at L. L. Clover that can be expected to have significant coverage, "Billy Hathorn, "Austin Toliver Powers and Leander Louis Clover: Planting the American Baptist Association in Northwest Louisiana during the Middle 20th Century," North Louisiana History, Vol. XLI (Summer-Fall 2010)." This school has had a significant impact on society and satisfies the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice". BTW, it appears that calvarybaptistminden.com/pages/aboutcalvary.html is not an independent source as two sources suggest that they own/operate the school. Unscintillating (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Per WP:LOCAL and WP:RS, that is not notable nor acceptable as a source. A local pastor's autobiography is not notable nor is it beyond trival. As WP:LOCAL says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Has this place been mentioned by people other than a few local pastors who attended it or the two local churches tied to it?
Secondly, Clover is also an unnotable pastor. The creator of this wikipedia article (Billy Hathorn) also created the Clover article and several local pastors from that area tied to this. And he is the author of the North Louisiana History article cited. Guess who created the North Louisiana History wikipedia article too? The same person.
It speaks volumes that there are no non-trival independent sources, other the creator of this wikipedia article who wrote the sole local history article about it and then created the wikipedia articles related to it. This is sheer vanity. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't verify through reliable sources. Literally, anyone can "create" a non-accredited institution of higher education in their garage by simply saying it is one, so the claim alone doesn't protect it as a college. A church that is cranking out paper that says "College Degree" isn't notable without independent sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone is sabotaging this article as I sought to add new information. Some of the material being questioned was put there by someone else. I just added updated sources on some of the LMBIS graduates, and it was quickly deleted. The school does offer degrees but does not seek secular accreditation. Some have even questioned if it exists at all, but there is a picture showing the new building, with the name engraved on it. Billy Hathorn (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user created the article, but failed to mention that in this AFD and has been canvassing for people to vote keep. It doesn't help the article that John Doe of Anywhere USA says he went to the seminary and then you source John Doe's website. I mentioned this on the talk page here: Talk:Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary. Please do not add unnotable people to the article, it doesn't prove notablity. Please review WP:NOTE for any questions on why the articles you have created are nominated for deletions. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The saboteur may have stopped his attacks.

Meanwhile, there was an attempt a few weeks ago, maybe months now, to delete Sunset International Bible Institute in Lubbock, Texas. Fortunately, the article is still on Wikipedia but in need of more secondary sources. Just because some of the Wikipedia people don't think highly of these institutions, see them as less than fully academic, should not mean they are "non-notable."Billy Hathorn (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, which you created, is up for deletion because it doesn't have secondary sources. As someone else explained to you about the articles you created, it has nothing to do with opinion. It has to do with sources. If you can't prove Notablity then there is no reason for an article about it. I looked at the Sunset International Bible Institute, which you created. It seems it was WP:PRODED, but held off with other users saying you must add secondary sources. Please demonstrate the notablity of these articles you created if you want them kept.HHaeyyn89 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. And strong delete for "well, we can't tell if the employees are in this organization or that organization, but we'll mention it anyway".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sarek.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs)
Louisiana Secretary of State Record

http://coraweb.sos.louisiana.gov/commercialsearch/CommercialSearchDetails_Print.aspx?CharterID=11941

LOUISIANA MISSIONARY BAPTIST INSTITUTE AND SEMINARY

Type: Non-Profit Corporation

City: MINDEN

Status: Active

Registration Date:  10/25/1956

Last Report Filed:  10/13/2010

Comment The claim that the seminary awards doctorates is sourced to a local pastor's autobiography on his church's website, which only claims to he has the degree. Hardly a WP:RS to assert the seminary currently offers those degrees. How can we have an article about this place offering degrees without third-party sources that say it does? HHaeyyn89 (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put a {{fact}} tag in and wait for an editor to provide the sources? -- Avanu (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find with the non-profit corp registration, Avanu, now let's see if the editor that previously said, "nothing claimed in the article can be proven false or true. Does this even exist or did exist? The whole thing is an advertisement for a place that can't be verified", will now say, "nice find Avanu, I was wrong, what I said was unreasonable." Unscintillating (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fairness to HHaeyyn89, we must find reliable sources for Wikipedia. However, there is a choice between deletion or finding sources. AfD is sort of like challenging the article to prove itself, and if no one comes forward to help it do that, then it goes away. Its not unreasonable to demand sources, but it is also fine to just use the {{fact}} for a time to prompt people. -- Avanu (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Evidacen of existance is not evidance of notability. There seems to be a lot of sources but none that go any way (as far as I can see) to establish notability. However is there a ruleing on churches and what is it?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of sources, and from what I can see on the web it is non-notable. --Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 13:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike churches, seminaries are generally notable. I think we have enough sources here to demonstrate that this is no exception. St Anselm (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We don't obsess about finding "reliable sources" about high schools. This is a degree-granting institution, a higher level of education, if you will. We should not worry about whether this publication or that publication has written a feature story about them — if they are a verifiable, real life institution (and this one is), then they should be in. We waste far too much time parsing these things. Anybody that has spent more than five minutes at New Pages taking a look at the ceaseless waves of crap rolling in should realize that this page is in the top 10 percentile of Wikipedia articles. Hey, I'm an atheist and I've got no dog in this fight. We should be building the best encyclopedia possible. Nitpicking small seminaries for "reliable sources" isn't the way to do it. This is a degree-granting institution, we've got a nice history, let it stand. Carrite (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand your point, but it's not even an accredited institution. It grants degrees that are only recognized by a small segment of the population, and according to the article, doesn't even seek to have its degrees recognized outside of the church. Dayewalker (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, We do obsess. Even ACCREDITED institutions can be subject to AFD. Unaccredited institutions have always been held to the standard of having to prove notability. You can open up an unaccredited college in your basement by simply saying it is one, thus the declaration itself doesn't carry notability by itself, which is why we require independent verification and sourcing. Additionally, the standard for notability is not any lower for an unaccredited institution just because it is affiliated with a church or religion of any kind. This isn't new here. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd like to point out that the sources that claim this place offers degrees contradict one another. One says it awards just bachelor's and another says graduate degrees. I tried pointing this out on the talk, but the creator of the article has removed the tags several times to add his own article. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Notability from works created by the group itself should not be considered.Naraht (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the scope of "significant coverage" change based on how broadly an article's subject is spread? In other words, something like this Seminary might be significant in Minden, Louisiana, or even parts of Louisiana, but not in the whole state, or not in the whole world. So wouldn't we need to adjust the setting on "significant" to relate somewhat to the subject?

Minden, Louisiana is a town of about thirteen thousand people. Just being notable in that town or area isn't enough to be notable for a general encyclopedia with some reliable sources showing its significance elsewhere. Dayewalker (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if that is the case, then we could/would probably just merge all or part of this content into the Minden, Louisiana article. -- Avanu (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleethorpes Town F.C.

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

Not a notable team. Never played above level 10, club does not seem to have played in the FA Vase. Although a team called "Cleethorpes Town" once played a game in the 5th qualifying round of the 1919–20 FA Cup, there is no indication that this team is a direct continuation of the same team. 2 of their past players seem notable but that does not make the team notable by association. Original PROD removed because "Club is thriving and currently 2nd in league." Delusion23 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Delusion23 (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although this club appears to be flourishing and well-run, it has yet to play at a high enough level for the purposes of WP:FOOTYN#Club notability. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nominator. Club has not played at a high enough level to receive significant coverage. Big Dom 20:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, hasn't played at a high enough level. Giant Snowman 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as all above. It's more or less covered here anyway: career Acabashi (talk) 22:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The level that they have played at is irrelevant, they exist as a club so information should be available. They operate more teams at more levels than any of the local professional teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiddyMun (talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing that proves notability, either content or citation wise. Cymru82 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liam's Formula

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

Original research, non-notable "theorem", probably intended as an April Fools Joke. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article that openly states that it reports original research completed on April 1. Cullen328 (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not look like a "db-hoax" as the formula is as correct. As correct as 88+12=100, which has no article either. Delete as speedily as possible. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, self-described as original research. -- Stephen Gilbert (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an april fools joke it is a formula that was made on april fools day... (just conicidence) where is the fun in showing people a formula that works. If you try to use the maths you will see that it works perfectly as shown in the examples. Why would you want to delete this? I thought wikipedia was about helpful knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LiamCotterill (talk • contribs) 19:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC) — LiamCotterill (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply Have a read of WP:OR and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing original research, I'm afraid. The reason I suspected it was a joke is that it is far easier to square a number than to go through this convoluted formula. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 21:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A classic example of WP:NFT. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and not a useful search term. This can be found, in a different formulation but essentially the same, at Mental calculation#Squaring numbers. --Lambiam 08:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I hate to bite to a newbie, but if he wants to publish a new algorithm, there are lots of other places to do so, but we can't change our long-standing rules or make a bad exception in this case. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Liam's Formula was put together by Liam on Friday the 1st of April. In a chemistry lecture." Sorry, but Wikipedia is not for something made up one day. --MelanieN (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G11 unambiguous advertising or promotion. JohnCD (talk) 19:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purehmv (Canada)

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

Very heavily promotional and I will try to have it Speedily Deleted as such. VERY HEAVILY promotional and heavy editing by parties with a conflict of interest. I don't know how this article slipped through, but it looks like a paid ad for the company. Delete and preferably Speedy Delete. Safiel (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—This is not the process for a speedy delete. See WP:SPEEDY.—RJH (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am well aware of that, I was just making a note that I am also attempting the Speedy Deletion process as well. Safiel (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure spam. Peridon (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St Bernard's Catholic School, Brisbane

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

Unsourced stub, few hits in google books to indicate notability.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when is Google books the deciding factor in whether a school is notable. There's a long-standing consensus that ALL schools be considered notable. This one has been there for 60 years and has hundreds of students. The article needs references, not deletion.--Dmol (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        *Keep I agree with Dmol  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 12:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to article on diocese. The consensus is that secondary schools are assumed to be notable. This is a primary school, which need reliable sources verifying something distinctive about the school. Those sources are lacking. Cullen328 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Upper Mount Gravatt, Queensland per precedent for nn Australian primary schools. TerriersFan (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as per precedent for nn primary schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TerriersFan. Anything worthwhile can then be merged from the article's history. Jenks24 (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid in Saudi Arabia

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Saudi Arabia

AfDs related to this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, closed as "keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid, closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination), closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination), closed as "speedy keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination), closed procedurally in deference to the ArbCom investigation
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination), closed as "keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination), closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (second nomination), closed as "speedy keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination), closed as "keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid, closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid outside of South Africa - opened 5 Jun 2006, closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (second nomination) opened 29 Mar 2007, closed as "delete"
DRV 6 Apr 2007, closed as "overturn and relist"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) opened 11 Apr 2007, closed as "keep"
ArbCom review opened 12 Aug 2007, closed 26 Oct
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fourth nomination) opened 19 Oct 2007, closed procedurally in deference to the ArbCom investigation
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) opened 8 Jul 2008, closed as "delete"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid, closed as "delete"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy, open
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Bahrain, open

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

In conjunction with 2 current AfDs here and here along with the recently deleted Arab apartheid, this is an outgrowth/byproduct of the consternation that Israel and the apartheid analogy is a well-sourced, notable, and perennially-kept article. What we have here is, again, a WP:POVFORK created by crafting disparate, off-mentions of human rights issues in Saudi Arabia and trying to frame them with the "apartheid" label with the mistaken notation that tis will birng about some sort of balancing NPOV with the Israel article. I would also note a 3 yr old discussion at Talk:Allegations of Saudi Arabian apartheid#Proposal that resulted in a merge to Human rights in Saudi Arabia, but since there is really nothing substantively new in this article and no edit history to speak of to preserve, deletion is in order. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it is a well-sourced and widely applied analogy. ergo, it is WP:Notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POVFORK. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:COATRACK. Discrimination and apartheid are not actually synonyms, and the existence of a few conservative op-eds who don't care about that distinction doesn't rise to our sourcing standards. The only relevant section appears to be the section on women, which is actually copied without attribution from Gender apartheid. (Note: I do not propose a rename to "Discrimination in Saudi Arabia" or any such title. This title needs to be destroyed.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is a wonderful vital page. The great apartheid in S. Arabia is notorious. Especially anti non-Muslims policies[40][41] and Gender apartheid[42] You guys will excuse me if I am poorly familiar with wiki "codes". If POV stands for point of view, than it is no reason to delete. AS any allegation of apartheid today are a P.O.V. Especially Jimmy Carter's whose point of views in the M.E. are notoriously bias since his "handling" of Iran.Miraflores808 (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC) — Miraflores808 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. While there may indeed be discrimination in Saudi Arabia, this article is pretty much entirely synthesis. To justify its inclusion, we'd need to have some reliable sources attesting to the topic being one of general notability, rather than just some people apparently using the word "apartheid" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - previous delete opinions have said all that I would say. Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A POINTy FORK of Human rights in Saudi Arabia. The same editor is starting all these "Apartheid in..." articles and he needs to stop. Carrite (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians have an obligation to apply the rules objectively' I am concerned that the dtandards, WP:N and WP:RS are being applied differently here than they are to Social apartheid in Brazil or to Israel and the apartheid analogy For example, Roscelese removed a paragraph from this article, but not from very simlilar articles on Brazil and Israel. To me, the five articles , Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Israel and Palestinian Authority share many similarities. I would like some of the editors voting to delete to explain why an article about Apartheid in Saudi Arabia, where women and Christians suffer formal, legal restrictions, is to be deleted, while the article about Brazil, where there is no legal inequality, was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a common error made by new editors, that some sort of balancing standard must applied to all articles to achieve true WP:NPOV, i.e. "if you have an article about bad things that X does then we must have an article about bad things that Y does, where Y is usually some cultural/national/racial/ideological rival of X. But how it really works is simply this; this is an encyclopedia, where articles reflect verifiable information, supported by reliable sources, and in accordance with the general notability guidelines. If we can verify that reliable sources cover the accusation that Israeli actions are apartheid-like, then that gets an article. If we cannot say the same about Saudi Arabia and apartheid-like actions, then that does not get an article. Each is evaluated on its own merits; not in relation to each other. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT is only relevant to article content; this explication of how it relates to other rules is a serviceable argument for keeping the article. There is no rule at all about what balance there should be between articles. Anarchangel (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many, many sources analyzing and discussion the apartheid situation in Saudi Arabia. More than enough to make the topic is WP:Notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have made this claim several times yet fail to provide supporting evidence. What is in the article now...e.g. a feminist's 30-year-old book, opinion columns from newspapers, and the like...does not support this claim. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merging if necessary—There is no reason to have separate Human rights in Saudi Arabia and Apartheid in Saudi Arabia articles. The content can be covered in the former and it is better kept together unless there is a legitimate reason to fork (such as WP:SS). That being said, there is plenty of scope for expansion of the human rights article.—RJH (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also support merging Social apartheid in Brazil to Human rights in Brazil and Israel and the apartheid analogy to Human rights in Israel?I.Casaubon (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, false dilemma much? As I stated earlier, support for one does not predicate support for another. Each is evaluated on its own. Tarc (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, false dilemma. Like stating that an article about one nation is a POV FORK of another. Except that his statement could be assumed (WP:AGF) to be rhetorical, where quoting WP rules surely cannot. Anarchangel (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list of previous AfD results, which I took the liberty of adding as it was (already) in the related AfDs, is a record of consensus to Keep. I venture to say that the result to Delete Accusations of Arab Apartheid looks a little shakier for it. Anarchangel (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So far, there are rationales to delete, none of which I accept. The article is well sourced and its subject is sound. Its title could use a tweak or three, in my opinion. It might save a lot of trouble if we could get a consensus on the title here, as title change discussions on talk pages are acrimonious on occasion.

The oxymoron POVFORK (oxymoron because everything that is a FORK (copy of original material) cannot be POV, unless the original article was POV). This is also a claim that an article about one country is a fork of another. FORK that, I say.

SYNTH, which claims two arguments from sources are combined to make a third argument. Which arguments these might be is not shown, only asserted.

COATRACK, which posits that something rests upon it. But what? Again this is asserted but not shown.

Nom implies and another editor has specifically asserted that there someone has disrupted WP to make a WP:POINT. For the sake of argument, there is no evidence of it here. However, there is never any evidence of it; like most of POVFORK, this rule has always been and will always be founded on an implicit belief in the power of Extra-sensory perception. Like a stopped clock, the fact that it is right once a day is not the relevant assessment of its accuracy. Its adherents count their success rate as do Water witches; on one hand, for the successes, and failures, not at all. However much I might use my imagination, I will never see evidence that this article is pointy; just suppositions and plausible frames. Anarchangel (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"POVFORK" is not oxymoronic, because "Fork" does not mean "Copy", it means "Make a different version of" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because while its well sourced, finding a lot of sources that use a phrase does not make it a notable subject. By this logic we would create pages on "Chinese apartheid", etc., when these are obviously nicknames for particular human rights issues. In the case of Israel the analogy has gained a really huge significance in being debated so much in a way that it hasn't with these other articles.--Babank (talk) 06:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Article does meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above account has been blocked as the sockpuppet of a banned user. CJCurrie (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article I am adding material to the article, when I have time, but it had been my understanding that articles on Wikipedia are not required to be perfect, only that they be well-sourced, neutral in tone, and about a notable topic.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have to stop working on this now (I have a life), I believe that editors coming to this page have an obligation to look not only at the article as it now stands, and it does meet Wikipedia standards, but to loot at the widespread use of the term apartheid as applied to Saudi Arabia and its systemic discrimination against non-Muslims, women and Shia Muslims. Because the analogy is in wide circulation worldwide.I.Casaubon (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. A clear violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Saudi law and policies discriminate against women, foreign workers, and religious minorities, especially Shia and Ismaili Saudis. That is not my "synthesis" it is the language cited by Human Rights Watch, the UNHCR and the Saudi NGO Human Rights First Society.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But that has nothing to do with apartheid. You have taken legitimate human rights groups' criticisms, placed them side-by-side with people like Dershowitz and Dworkin who name-drop the term, and super-glue it all together into "Apartheid in Saudi Arabia". This could be the poster child example for WP:SYNTH once we're done here. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, exactly. You're taking sources discussing inequality and cobbling them together to advance the position that this is apartheid, which few if any of them actually say. Textbook WP:SYNTH.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pretty broad consensus in the world that when you don't like somebody because of their ethnicity, race, religion or gender and treat them mean, that's discrimination. But when you have actual laws whereby courts and government agencies make one ethnic group into second-class citizens with fewer rights because of their ethnicity, race religion or gender, that's apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. There is only one apartheid, that of South Africa. The Israeli apartheid article exists because notable and prominent people, organizations, and international bodies have compared Israel's actions to that of South Africa, it does not mean that Israel literally is an apartheid state. That same threshold for significant comparison of the actions of Saudi Arabia to that of South Africa simply do not exist. A handful of activists writing opinion columns barely scratch th surface of the "Israel as apartheid" allegations. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, darling, either "There is only one apartheid, that of South Africa." or, just possibly, the word came from Africaans, but is now being applied to a wide range of cases, Brazil, Bahrain, Gender apartheid, etc.. You really can't have it both ways.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is routinely misapplied, as in your Bahrain article that is likely to go down the AfD drain along with this one. In other cases, if reliable sources have mad the comparison (note there is a gulf of difference between saying something is like apartheid and something is apartheid; with this and other articles, you appear to be supporting the latter) then an article may be viable. There is, or was, only one apartheid. There are several areas in which apartheid-esque actions are alleged to exist. The sources supporting including Saudi Arabia being in this case are inadequate, as others have noted.

BTW, there's only one person in my life who calls me darling, and she tends to give a blowjob as she says it. So unless you are her, then please, no pet names. Thanks. Tarc (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does she, dearest? How lovely for you. Listen, sweetheart, you still have not addressed the fundamental question, which is: given that, as you say, "There are several areas in which apartheid-esque actions are alleged to exist." why can we have articles for Brazil, but not for Saudi Arabia or Bahrain?I.Casaubon (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed that concern several times now; "but but but Article XYZ" is never a valid criteria to assess another article, it has to be evaluated on its own merits. Your articles on Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the PA fall woefully short of what the Wikipedia requires for notability and reliable sourcing, among other concerns. As far as I recall, I have never been involved in the Brazil article and cannot put forth an opinion at this time as to whether it is article-worthy or not. I do note that the old AfD ran a solid keep, though the rationales were exceedingly weak and many of those "old guard" I-P editors are either blocked or long-retired. Might be a good time for a 2nd AfD, with fresh eyes and a better appreciation of the subject matter. Tarc (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, in one corner, we have Tarc, who maintains that the term apartheid is misapplied when used for any country except South Africa, Israel (he's not sure about Brazil) In the other corner, we have Vali Nasr, Mohammad Taqi, Mona Eltahawy, Alan Dershowitz, Patrick Bascio, Anne Applebaum, Mitchell Bard, Jonathan Raban, Andrew C. McCarthy, Brian Whitaker, Ali Al-Ahmed, Andrea Dworkin, Khaled Abu Toameh and many more including Colonel Martha McSally who say that apartheid accurately describes the Saudi regime.I.Casaubon (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, Argumentum ad verecundiam. Quaint. Also, while flattered by the prominence you have given me, I am not the sole voice of opposition. I think though that I have contributed enough counterpoint to this and the other apartheid-tagged AfDs, and much more would just belabor the point. I look forward to closure in 3 days time. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt as yet another obvious POVFORK and violation of WP:SYNTH. I.Casaubon, the article's creator, really ought to be sanctioned for persisting with this pointless waste of everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what the problem with these misconceived articles is, so there is no excuse for creating more of them. Prioryman (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I happen to believe that the government of Saudi Arabia is one of the world's worst, but that's not the issue -- the "apartheid analogy" in relation to Saudi Arabia hasn't reached a critical mass in terms of scholarly research and/or public commentary. I'll acknowledge there's more here than in the Bahrain or Palestinian Authority cases, but it's just not enough. CJCurrie (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of evidence I object to the attention this removal of evidence by User:Tarc. To me it seems that he is entitled to express his opimion, but not to remove significant sections form the article. Repeatedly.I.Casaubon (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have a definition of apartheid in every article that mentions it - we should link to Crime of apartheid, where it is defined. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LoL, "removal of evidence" ? What I removed is a section that has absolutely nothing to do with the article, as explained at the talk page. I find it most curious though that after edit warring once again to jam it back into the Saudi Arabia article, you went and removed it from the Allegations of Israeli apartheid article. Quite a dichotomy there, and quite wrong considering that UN officials have considered the actual question of whether Israel should or could be brought before the ICC for their actions. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the advice of User talk:Boing! said Zebedee. As I explained on that article's talk page [43]. I am trying to apply the same rules to articles on Apartheid in Bahrain, Social apartheid in Brazil, Israel and the apartheid analogy, Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy and Apartheid in Saudi Arabia.I.Casaubon (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you haven't removed it here...--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- User:I.CasaubonI.Casaubon (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt It seems like we're getting a new one every few days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is an off-wiki effort to canvass editors here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETED by User:MrKIA11. postdlf (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase complex in Alzheimer’s Disease

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

Pure original research - this appears to about the editor's own research and experiments. Scientific research papers belong in journals like PLoS Biology etc, not on Wikipedia. Any involvement of the α-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase complex in Alzheimer’s Disease can be covered in the Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease or similar. Pontificalibus (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ketoglutaric acid and Alzheimer's disease by the same nominator.

The closer makes the assertion that an article is undue weight for this subject, which is absurd given the volume of information that must be presented. The closer also rightly points out that the learning curve for the article is very steep (to address this problem, an article is required), but this is a reason for an RFC to gather editors to improve the article, not a reason for deletion Anarchangel (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Original Research, as was shown to the same nominator in the previous AfD. Indeed, the closer made no mention of OR. Pharmacological mechanisms in Alzheimer's therapeutics A. Claudio Cuello, page 196, shows the connection between Ketoglutaric acid and Alzheimer's is sound. Anarchangel (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is preventing you from adding sourced information to Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if the connection is "sound" (a non-scientific term) this is entirely original research, of which Wikipedia does not publish. The title is also so specific as not to be a realistic search term, so a redirect is out of the question. If someone wants to merge it selectively into Alzheimer’s Disease, I could go along with that. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Another option is to merge this into Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease as suggested at the other AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for consistency with the previous AfD. There has been no analysis of this topic in independent secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. Notability established, particularly by Milowent. postdlf (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Japanese-Jewish Common Ancestor Theory (2nd nomination)

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

I've tried to edit this article to make it somewhat useful, but there's nothing there. The original article is original research developed from articles that are not in English. It is impossible to determine if they qualify as reliable sources for any of the statements. Moreover, after a search of academic publications in linguistics and genetics, I cannot find any reliable, peer-reviewed source that supports this idea. There are a lot of blogs, but where does that fit? The myth of the 10 lost tribes of Israel is interesting to religious types, I suppose, but if we're going to create dozens of articles that try to lay claim to one of the tribes as part of their mythos, we're going to get a lot of bad articles.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The bot says this is the second discussion, but I cannot find the first one.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Claims of heredity are no longer a cause for concern. Genetic evidence is available to debunk or prove them all. The hypothesis is notable; the evidence indisputable. DNA evidence excludes this possibility.Abraham's children: race, identity, and the DNA of the chosen people: "the DNA evidence suggests that the Japanese are of exclusively Asian ancestry, with no Semitic markers" . Author is Jon Entine.

Anarchangel (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, debunked, fringe theory. We would run out of bytes if we included every Japanese urban legend about their origins and relations to other peoples. Bearian (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's mind-boggling in its improbability. But it is a theory that does exist. Keep it so that anyone running across it can quickly google up a proper debunking.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't matter if it is true or false, what matters is reliable sources documenting the myth. One casual mention in a non-notable book doesn't cut it for notability. Tarc (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, inasmuch as there is more than one, and WP does not only use books that have a Wikipedia article as sources. I agree, inasmuch as debunking is just gravy. Maybe a tiny bit more than gravy, but WP is currently missing a USEFUL rule (in fact, mentioning usefulness is supposed to be a bad thing), or any rules for inclusion, for that matter. Just rules against inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham's children: race, identity, and the DNA of the chosen people: "the DNA evidence suggests that the Japanese are of exclusively Asian ancestry, with no Semitic markers" . Author is Jon Entine
The Jewish encyclopedia: a descriptive record of the history ..., Volume 12. Isidore Singer, Cyrus Adler. "worship their ancestors, as the old Israelites did; and in addition to this McLeod points out the Jewish appearance of some Japanese, and supplements his "Epitome" with a volume of illustrations depicting among other things..."
Epitome of the ancient history of Japan; N. McLeod, page 46 onward, way back in 1878.
McLeod, Norman. subtitle:Japan and the Lost Tribes of Israel, Nagasaki, 1876.
^ An article of this book can be seen at the Rare Books site of National Library of Scotland with search words "Norman Mcleod Epitome", (accessed March 09, 2011).
^ See the article titled "TRIBES, LOST TEN" at Jewish Encyclopedia.com with search words "LOST TEN TRIBES" and its paragraph regarding Japan. (accessed March 09, 2011).
^ Takahashi and McLeod 1997.
^ McLeod and Kubo 2004.
^ Tokayer and Kubo 1999.
The sources cited by Millowent and BabbaQ. Anarchangel (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am writing and sorry to have disturbed you because of my ignorance. This is my first experience to discuss here and I' m sorry if I am impolite or incorrect.I am checking detail of policies of wiki. If I remember correctly, I think non academic sources are allowed if it is published by "mainstream publisher" according to the explanation in wiki. For example, Gakken publishing is a division of Gakken Holdings and (main business is publishing and education) this Holdings sell USD900,000,000/year. And according to the explanation about SOURCE, non English source can be allowed if short translation is added. Regarding the policy of NEUTRALITY in wiki, it requests various sources or opposite claims, but wiki also requests published sources, so it must be published opposite claims. I'm not sure about published opposite claims, so it is impossible to write opposite claims at the moment. I would like to consider for several days. Lakym — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakym (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This does not appear to be original research, but an odd theory developed in the late 19th century that has been cited (and debunked) and discussed many times in books and other sources. I don't know if the article title is the best possible title, but the subject does appear to be notable. At least as notable as Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories as far as kooky theories go. See [44]; [45] (book excerpt describing it as a "fairly popular" theory); [46] (books refers to McLeod and more contemporary writers, including one from 1980); [47] (1942 "Universal Jewish Encyclopedia" references McLeod's theory); [48] (1904 piece in New Era Illustrated Magazine concluding that McLeod's theory is "curious" if not "comical"); [49] (see footnote 1, above line text not available); [50] (1882 page discussion of McLeod and joiners); [51] (1911 mention of theory), etc.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Milowent. The article appears to be notable. especially per [52].--BabbaQ (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (content) and Redirect to the main History of the Jews in Japan that needs expansion, and because there is not all that much in this stub. It makes a nice point, but that's it. IZAK (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, rewrite and change the messy title. I have read about this theory in Tudor Parfitt's The Lost Tribes of Israel. The History of a Myth, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2002, which covers every such "lineage" from British Israelism and the Bnei Menashe to the Beta Israel. That, I guess, is a reliable secondary source which does not sympathize with the cause, but merely documents its existence. Dahn (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe theory not warranting separate article. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where you would you put the concept, then, though? its sort of its own thing, covered in many books and periodicals.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buxton Index

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

Non-notable concept. Only reference I can find on Google Books or Scholar is to the talks by Edsger W. Dijkstra. No other evidence of existence let alone notability. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting theory, but does not appear to have become notable or generally accepted. As noted by nominator, only one person seems to have adopted the concept. Google search finds only a couple of blog entries - plus lots of ads for index card holders made by the Buxton company. Google Books finds pretty much nothing. --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drumsmittal road

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

There's no indication that this is in any way a notable road -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, zero notability, article creator is blocked as a vandalism-only account. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not notable, no hope. bobrayner (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Padb

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

non notable software WuhWuzDat 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of notability - links are self-published, a blog, and one that doesn't mention it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Campbell

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

non notable person,.references consist of 2 articles written by the article subject WuhWuzDat 16:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This person isn't any more notable then any of the other BYU faculty members or Salt Lake Tribune editors who aren't notable ether.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. This person cannot be considered notable. I personally would like to encourage this user to find more rigorous and reliable sources. Many of his articles appear to use poor sourcing or at the very least are borderline.Aquabanianskakid (talk) 19:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He wrote a regular weekly column for the Mormon Times for four years. Past editor and writer for the Deseret News. Currently, a columnist for the The Salt Lake Tribune. That being said, there are 3 current SL Tribune writers/columnists listed on Wikipedia, two have published multiple books and the third has alot of scholarly work published. I don't think Campbell rises to their level yet. Bgwhite (talk) 07:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE This is only a post delete note. After the articles deletion I noticed that this page has been deleted eight (8) times. If recreated it would be helpful to be able to come here and to be able to refer to this note.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really relevant: the previous deletions were more than five years ago, and were all nonsense articles about a different person. JohnCD (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Crumm

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

non notable political candidate WuhWuzDat 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails WP:POLITICIAN and the article also has WP:BLP issues as it contains an unsourced accusation of lying. Cullen328 (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doubly fails WP:POLITICIAN: he has never held office, and even if he wins, the office for which he is running (Scioto County Commissioner) is not one which would make him notable. I deleted the unsourced allegation of lying. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Izabela Maria Furtado Kestler

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

Non-notable woman. She did a nice work but she is only mentioned in media because of her death in an aircraft incident. Damiens.rf 15:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - she may pass WP:PROF. Rescue? Bearian (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she was the expert on "literary German-speaking exiles in Brazil during the Nazis". 71.246.238.214 (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found 45 hits on Google scholar. Can anyone translate German or Portugese? Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also found many Google book hits. Can anyone sort throigh these? Bearian (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Bearian. As far as I can tell, her one book is essentially her Ph.D. dissertation, written in German and translated into Portuguese several years later. The other items look like journal articles she wrote or her name on forum deutsch, the journal she edited. 71.246.238.214 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, I just went over to read WP:PROF, but it clearly falls under TL;DR (too long, didn't read). 71.246.238.214 (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no indication that the topic meets WP:PROF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a newspaper article about the person from 1988. [53] Most coverage is concerning them being on the missing Air France Flight 447. The associated press has a profile of them, with a paragraph of information. Not sure why though. She was apparently a notable expert though, based on what I see, and what others have said. Dream Focus 16:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it would appear to be more accurate to state that you have found a newspaper article that mentions the person in a single sentence (as a PhD candidate, not an established expert). I can see no indication that the article makes any further mention of her (but as it is a bitmap of a Portuguese article, I cannot be certain). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the sources added in, I beleive there is enough for an article. Hopefully, more can be found in other lang sources to expand the article more later. Outback the koala (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Octavio Augusto Ceva Antunes

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

Non-notable guy. He did a nice work but he is only mentioned in media because of his death in an aircraft incident. Damiens.rf 15:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has he published any journal articles? What does Brazilian media say about him? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before the accident? Nothing, according to Google news. The article mentions "over 200 scientific articles". If we could source this (and make sure these are important publications), that could be a case for keeping. --Damiens.rf 19:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 200 articles are already mentioned in the link. I think that should be enough to consider him notable. Media mentions may be low, but don't forget that we are talking about an academic, appearences in media are not a mandatory part of their career as with politicians or musicians, so it would be out of place to expect that type of coverage MBelgrano (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep. Just publishing articles is not enough. What is needed is that they should have been widely cited. A click on the scholar link above shows that they have not been. I appreciate the personal tragedy here but Wikipedia is not the place to publish obituaries. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep: WoS indicates sufficient work to indicate noted scholar and pass of WP:prof. WoS reports 189 pieces of work with 1,468 and a h-index 19. (Msrasnw (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

If the WoS data can be verified I will change my vote, but on GS there are several Antunes with different initials. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know how to verify WoS other than by cutting and pasting all the refs and the citation counts. But that might be a bit o.t.t. All the refs are for Antunes OAC and chemistry and look right (his h-index of 19 is quite solid - he has 50 articles with 10 or more cites!) Google scholar is better with Antunes OAC, Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for this info. I get an h index of 13 on GS, but WoS should be better. The field is a fairly well-cited one. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Dreyfus

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

Non-notable guy. He did a nice work but he is only mentioned in media because of his death in an aircraft incident. Damiens.rf 15:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is considered a key figure in the battle against illegal arms trade by the Herald Scotland. Cenarium (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. He was called a key figure in a posthumous article about his death. --Damiens.rf 03:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not just posthumous homage going beyond facts. The article gives evidence to support that he was a key figure. He's made lots of noted contributions in the area, he's consultant in Small Arms Survey, an organization advocating small arms control, which seems leading in the area, used as reference in several WP articles such as Small arms proliferation, his work was essential in the development of landmark small arms legislation in Brazil, he made noted investigation work on arms companies and drug gangs, he advised the government of Mozambique and was about to advise the gvnmt of Angola. In addition to this source, several reliable Spanish sources suggest his importance in the field as well, making him the subject of multiple secondary sources, ensuring notability, and this notability is independent of the crash. So, keep. Cenarium (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google News stories about Dreyfus in Spanish go back to 2001. His work for Viva Rio was first mentioned in English in The Economist in 2002. Guns in Brazil; Disarming: A law that might save many lives Nov 20th 2003. Then Please Don't Shoot; Marcela Sanchez May 5, 2005, Washington Post. Notable for his work in the area of arms smuggling prevention and gun control for seven years before his death, even in English-speaking countries. The Spanish language cites outnumber the English at least 10 to 1, but together with the reports published at the time of his death, there is more than enough to source the information in the article and provide verifiability.

Anarchangel (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been demonstrated that sources other than those in relation to the aircraft incident exist and show notability for this person. Artichoker^[talk] 16:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an obituary may be the major reliable source about a person's life, as in this case. Luckily, there are other sources already added to the article. Once notable in life, or at death, then a person is almost always notable in the yeasr after death. This is not a 1BPE case. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was obviously notable enough to pass WP:GNG from his work alone. His death only added to his notability. --NellieBly (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable even before his death. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Rutkoski

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

Non notable author WuhWuzDat 15:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Examples: Publishers Weekly[54], The Harvard Crimson[55]; Deseret News[56], Chicago Tribune [57](pay site).--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Broad coverage in RS; sourced major details. Multiple book deals (initial for two books, now expected four part series). Nationally recognized by ABA listing, and internationally by SF Site blogger's book review. Left out references to Bolingbrook, Moscow & Prague - most sources have identical wording to her site or publicity bio, and these details are non-substantive. Rutkoskis still reside in Bolingbrook, so this is likely maiden name, but this, parents' names and (married name?/name of spouse) are as yet unverified. Dru of Id (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos - other sources already in the article include bookweb.org. That's enough of RS for most editors here. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good enough coverage in RS TangSing (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kieu Tri Nguyen

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

Contested PROD. After searching, I was unable to find (excluding wikimirrors) reliable sources which verify the existence of demonstrate the notability of this artist. The solo exhibition might or might not rise to notability ... if it can be documented. Additional sources welcomed, as always. Note there are a few hits for an actor with the same name. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete (even though I was the one who contested the prod). I'd like to keep this, but as it stands, totally unreferenced, it really can't. If anyone has access to sources, please assist and I'd be happy to not vote again against the way I haven't just voted. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can just about verify that this person exists but in the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources the article should be deleted. Hut 8.5 19:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It dosn't have a reliable source. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 20:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The dissenting "keep" vote points out several points which would have validity if Burundi once had a railway system, but in this case there is no evidence of there ever being one. Concerning proposals for a railway, I note the article does not point to any sources for such proposals whatsoever. The remainder of the article is about railways in neighbouring countries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rail transport in Burundi

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

There is no rail transport in Burundi. This is presented as the main article from Transport in Burundi#Railways, but it contains less information and just directs back there. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. I have begun to expand the article and it will be required later when the railways are built. Biscuittin (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – All of the sourced or sourceable content here would be best placed within Transport in Burundi, a 3kB article that is crying out for expansion. It is a disservice to the encyclopedia to split out multiple stubs when the parent article is left so sparse. cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railway stations in Burundi --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Anything that can be sourced about plans for rail development should go in the very short Transport in Burundi article, and do not justify their own article outside of it - if that article ever gets too big (like after Burundi actually gets a railway), things can be split out then, but having a multitude of tiny articles which taken together say very little is extremely unhelpful. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No sources and too much WP:CRYSTAL at the moment, but even if the proposals firm up, it shouldn't need its own article until there are reliably sourced plans and signed contracts to build something. In the meantime, it should be merged into Transport in Burundi#Railways. Tim PF (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I favored deleting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Railway stations in Burundi, the content on railways in a given country in general is encyclopedic. Railways are a major worldwide transportation function. Did this country have railways? If so, what function did they serve? Why don't they exist any more, or why did they never exist if that was the case? Are there any under construction? Proposals? Even if they don't exist, did exist or will, those aspects in of themselves are encyclopedic. --Oakshade (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see someone has moved the railways content from Transport in Burundi#Railways into this article now (making Transport in Burundi even shorter), so in its current form this should not be deleted unless it is decided to undo those changes and put the content back where it was -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. The page history of Transport in Burundi is sufficient to recreate that article, even if this article is deleted. For what it's worth, it is clear that removing relevant content from tiny articles like Transport in Burundi is no way to build an encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, true - Transport in Burundi can simply be reverted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking any actual railways in Burundi, it would be better to fold a paragraph of text back into Transport in Burundi - an article which is crying out for expansion & improvement (the structure still looks as though it was copy & pasted from one of those CIA World Factbook pages). bobrayner (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a WP:COPYRIGHT issue here? I had to remove a large quote from Railway stations in Yemen by the creator of this page; I wonder if there's a wholesale systematic copying? Tim PF (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Rail transport in Burundi. There isn't any." Stifle (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest (software)

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

non notable software WuhWuzDat 15:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another advertisement for a web application for time tracking, invoicing, expenses, and project budgeting. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion b2b

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

non notable marketing firm WuhWuzDat 15:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another integrated marketing communications agency in business-to-business markets. Petty trade awards shouldn't even count as minimal importance to survive speedy deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ISL Light

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

non notable software WuhWuzDat 15:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another article about a non-notable remote desktop application created by single issue editors. In short: spam. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real Art Ways

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

non notable art gallery WuhWuzDat 15:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article does highlight a pretty good track record of exhibitors and performers across its history; the question is whether that amounts to notability. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is near-notable for any alternative arts space to survive 35 years in the face of ever-changing economic challenges. More tangibly, I've added a couple more references to the article itself; between those and quite a number of appearances in a Google Books search I reckon this one is notable. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD, there's a lot of coverage in the G-News archives, see e. g. this detailed review (NY Times). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Burundi

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

There are no railway stations in Burundi. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (That's the best AfD reason I've seen in a long time ;-) There are apparently no railways at all in Burundi, though there are plans for some. Until something is actually built, Transport in Burundi#Railways would seem to suffice. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And all the stuff about proposed routes is almost completely unsourced - of the sources there are, one is a forum and one is a general African Railways site -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are a lot of rail articles like this which use those two sources. In terms of reliability of sources, they aren't too bad in one sense - they mostly just repeat what other media have said. Unfortunately, there's a gap between reports and reality; every month some grand new plan is announced for rail infrastructure in the developing world, but it doesn't get built. Hence articles like this can accumulate a "timeline" full of different proposals, with or without sources, but nothing will actually change on the ground. bobrayner (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy snowball delete, per nom. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm usually in support of rail stations, however if premise of this article is factually inaccurate, then I will have to say delete.--Oakshade (talk) 20:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't object to deletion but some of the content could usefully be transferred to Rail transport in Burundi. Biscuittin (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – All of the sourced or sourceable content here would be best placed within Transport in Burundi, a 3kB article that is crying out for expansion. It is a disservice to the encyclopedia to split out multiple stubs when the parent article is left so sparse. cf: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rail transport in Burundi --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plans are developing to build railways in Burundi. Tabletop (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - By golly, the nominator IS RIGHT. Delete as an exercise in crystal balling. Wikipedia will still be here in 2014 when there will hopefully be something to actually describe. Gotta run, time for me to get to work on my List of native snakes of Hawaii and Rabies deaths in New Zealand articles... Carrite (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If there are no stations, then there's no need for an article. Plans aren't sufficient (WP:CRYSTAL), at least for a whole separate article. If someone wants to copy whatever useful info into the general railways article, that's fine, but until there's something more concrete (literally) this doesn't belong. oknazevad (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - I cleaned up a lot of railways-stations-in-countries-without-railways articles a while ago but there was some resistance to deletion (the Chad one, for instance, is now a redirect). If the community decides that this one is worth deleting then I might bring a few more to AfD. bobrayner (talk) 06:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not only is this a case of WP:CRYSTAL, but it is also essentially unsourced. The Rwanda rail plans on track reference is about "feasibility and route studies" of a railway to Rwanda, and merely speculates that "Extensions to Bujumbura in Burundi and the Eastern DRC are foreseen as coming later", whilst the other reference is to a web forum that vaguely refers to something from two years ago which has probably fallen by the wayside. Tim PF (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also:

bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Nations, Enduring Crimes: The North Caucasus Between Past and Future conference

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

non notable one-time event WuhWuzDat 15:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- It has been attended by numerous public figures (see page), including parliamentarians, major activists and major scholars... as noted on the page:

“

This conference attracted far more participants than its prequel.[3] Attendants came from 15 Un-recognized countries, and still more ethnic groups. Present were member of the British House of LordsFrank Judd, Georgian parliamentarians Nugzar Tsiklauri and David Darchiashvili, Chechen secular-national rights activist Lydia Yusupova (of the group Memorial), Israeli geopolitical scholar Moshe Gammer, French philosopher Andrei Glucksmann, Georgian Caucasiologist Merab Chukhua, French journalist Sophie Shihab, genocide scholar Stephen Bronner, representatives of the Circassian Nationalist organization Adyghe Khase, including Ruslan Keshev. Aminat Sayeva, a former diplomat of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria also attended, and was pivotal to the discussion on Chechnya. In addition, there were a handful of other Georgian parliamentarians, Western European intellectuals and university scholars, a group of Ingush activists, Chechen activists, and reporting agencies.[1]

”

You could merge it with the other one, under a subtitle "sequel" or something, but I would not say it is so definitely non-notable. --Yalens (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't seem to pass WP:Notability#Events, or at least I don't see any reason why it would. WP does not usually have articles about conferences. I've been to several conferences with "big names" participating, yet none of these are even close to being notable enough for our purposes. Nanobear (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attendance by notable figures is not enough for notability of the event. People, including celebrities, get together and talk to each other in too many places and on many occasions. GreyHood ^Talk 23:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Beth Israel (Sharon, Pennsylvania)

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

Article does not assert why the topic is notable. I would have said this falls under WP:CSD#A7, but it has references (even if many of them are not independent of the subject), so AfD seemed like the right place to take this. ~~Every place of worship is not notable.~~ Not every place of worship is notable. I see nothing that indicates why this particular synagogue is notable. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient sources referenced in the article to meet WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for you, then. I could probably find enough references (local history books, etc.) to create articles on every church building of sufficient age in the town I live in, which is probably a dozen or so. (Not that I'd want to...) I can't imagine any of them being notable in any sense. Are churches, synagogues, and mosques to be treated like schools in that nearly every one is considered notable regardless of a complete absence of a claim of notability? I could see keeping this article if it claimed it was the first in the region or metropolitan area, had a notable history, etc. But this article makes no such claim. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An old American-Jewish congregation (133 years old!), first synagogue in Sharon, only one in Mercer County, sufficiently well referenced. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I suggest these things that make it notable be mentioned in the article! Rkitko ^(talk) 13:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)][reply]
  - That would be fine, of course. But its absence from the article itself is not what we base an AfD !vote on. wp:before makes clear that the nom is to do a check to see if refs reflecting notability exist, even if not reflected in the article, and if they do then AfD is not the appropriate forum (as AfD is not for cleanup). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Understood, of course. I checked the refs and for other refs before nominating. Nothing seemed notable about it, unless you consider its age implies notability (I don't). What I meant is that if Jayjg thinks these things make it notable, it should be added to the article regardless of whether I think those things make it notable. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 19:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh -- I thought you were focusing on the AfD discussion. For purposes of the AfD discussion, whether it is in the article is wholly irrelevant. If you want to suggest to editors that they should take it upon themselves to add refs to articles, that is a conversation more properly had (if it is proper at all; I can expect some salty responses) on their talkpage, as we should limit conversation here to what is relevant to the AfD. IMHO, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Interesting nom -- I was surprised to see it was made by a sysop, and was surprised as well that he would base his nom on an otherstuffexists argument. Was also surprised by his blanket statement: "Every place of worship is not notable"; and can only assume that that is not at all what he meant ... he must have mis-spoken, and meant to say "not every place of worship is notable" ... which is of course not what anyone is saying. Agree w/the responding editors that it meets GNG, for the reasons spelled out by the above keeps.... and we may as well snow this if it continues to be all keep !votes.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two minutes of online research confirm that this was the first Jewish congregation in its area, and it has been in continuous operation for one and a quarter century. I invite Rkitko to write articles about all similarly notable churches in the town that he/she lives in, and I will vote to keep those articles in any resulting AfD debates. This encyclopedia is not printed on paper, no trees need to be cut down, and we have room for articles about historic religious congregations of every faith in communities worldwide. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, Rkitko's argument can best be described as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, which has equal validity, namely no validity at all. Cullen328 (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I invite you to include referenced info in this article mentioning its notability. In its current form, it lacks any mention of why it is notable. Is notability supposed to be implied by its age? I read through it twice looking for any scrap of information, but it's all dry facts without claims of why it's notable. And I suggest you re-read my comments above. My argument is not that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, but rather that the article lacks mention of its notability (I did tread close to WP:OTHERSTUFFSHOULDNTEXIST, but that's a different argument). I also don't necessarily agree with the idea that being the first congregation in the area makes it notable, even though I suggested it above. I was thinking more along the lines of the first congregation in Pittsburgh or larger cities. Being first can be a factor, as can being old, but it doesn't seem to me that this synagogue has any notability. (My local newspaper gets this wrong all the time by calling moderately old places or things "historic.") What, beyond being old, is notable about the building or congregation? Rkitko ^(talk) 13:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Or, if nom were to see fit, he could even model best behavior per wp:admin and withdraw the nomination, considering the (so-far unanimous) reaction to the nomination. I understand that his nomination was completely good faith, but perhaps the response to it has informed his view as to what consensus would appear to be on this issue--Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nom was sleeping when all these comments came in or he might have withdrawn earlier ;-) I still have concerns about its notability as described in my comments above. The response has only pointed out what I already knew and I still consider the fact that its old to not be enough to warrant notability. And the article still lacks any claims about its notability. I'll continue to think about this today and may withdraw later. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for handling our difference of view with such aplomb; well done.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overwolf

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

spammy article on non notability software WuhWuzDat 15:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable spam - creator is a Single-Purpose Account; no refs provided to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not verify through reliable secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability. Theo10011 (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2N7000

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

Contested nomination for PROD. No referenced assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog nor an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a parts catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article. No "who", "what", "when", "where", "how" or "why" information, just quotes from data sheet. Possibly merge to Transistor but not an article as it stands now. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for what Modern Electronics calls "absolutely ideal hacker parts". Plenty of sources are available by following the links above. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on this proposal. With the current glut of electronics components presented for AfD individually it is impossible to legitimately determine what the consensus is for any of them: discussion is simply fragmented over too many fronts such that no one can keep track of them all. A central meta-AfD is needed for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The recent merge with an unrelated transistor has lost any vaue this article might have had. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two articles each referred to the other and said they were the same device in different packages; if that's not the case, a revert would solve the problem. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the article said that beforehand, it wasn't worth saving. If it was changed to say that, then there's little hope for any article once ARS and the Legions of the Keen'n'Clueless get to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try to avoid personal attacks. Articles are kept based on the arguments presented, not how many people show up. Although it is easier to get something deleted if no one else is around to notice. Dream Focus 13:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - AGF and accusations of personal attacks work both ways, DreamFocus--suggesting a conspiracy theory does not become you. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If those who know about this sort of thing decide to merge similar ones together so be it. Otherwise, let it be. Every new transistor played some significant part in history, new things built, or things made cheaper or more powerful by constant improvements. Dream Focus 08:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator This has to be verifiable. We need reliable sources that say part X played a role in history. These are commodity parts and individually not notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't Dicklyon find proof it was notable? Dream Focus 13:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Notability requires multiple, signficant, idedpendent, reliable sources. The Google snippet doesn't show how much of the magazine article is about the 2N7000 or something else. Clicking on Google Scholar above and excluding patents, and excluding "Q1", gives 99 hits. The ones I looked at refer to the part in passing and don't give any analysis or discussion of the particular part, or use the part as an example for study purposes. I don't think one magazine article snippet constitutes enough to show notability, though it's more than we started with. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The significance of the 2N7000 really rests on its "Fetlington" behaviour. Although a dubious term (it isn't a Darlington), it indicates the usefulness of a part that combines the FET's output drive capability with a Darlington's easy input driving and resultant simple circuitry as a minimal digital output for switching medium loads. This is why it collected the label "ideal hacker part" and why it's so widely noted as such in recent electronics construction texts aimed at schools and entry-level electronic hackers. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Delete unless this can be sourced. If it is really such an influential part, then this must be attested to by multiple reliable sources, as does each and every Wikipedia article. No multiple, independant, significant, reliable sources: no article, no matter what. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe it is so attested in the four cited sources and many others. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This component is notable. For example, see Circuitbuilding do-it-yourself for dummies. Note also that if a PROD is contested then this is a good clue that the article should not be brought to AFD as it demonstrates a lack of consensus for deletion. A nomination which starts in this way immediately starts with one strike against it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator Removal of a PROD means nothing. (And I've had a bunch of nominations that started off as contested PRODs, go through to deletion.) Any random IP on Earth can remove a PROD tag end the polite fiction around here is that this is significant. It isn't, of course, but Wikipedians ofter tell themselves stories to keep their spirits up. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular ^talk 15:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. A popular component that is described as the "most common type of MOSFET". At worst a merge candidate.—RJH (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided by Dicklyon and improvements to the article during the course of this AfD. SpinningSpark 17:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at the changes since March 26 [58]]:
  - The BS 170 has been added in. Now it's about two devices, not one. That's not very discriminating.
  - First citation is a manufacturer's sales literature - of course *they* think it's notable, they make a dime off each one sold.
  - Then we talk about the 2N7002, a different part again. Discriminate?
  - Then we say it's a lovable and well respected semiconductor like its cousins, and a list of most of the parts nmominated for AfD the last week or so.
  - We cite a book about radio scanners(!) as a character reference - apparently we should have a bag of these handy for hacking scanners. No coverage of *this* part, it's listed with a grab bag of other parts.
  - Then we talk about two more *other* parts in DIP packages.
  - We recite the data sheet properties for this transistor (and another, different, transistor).
  - Then we quote the ad brochure for "Fetlington". Does anyone else but the maker call it this? The term hasn't made it to IEEE Std. 100 page 426, at least non in the edition I have handy.
  - Some unreference stuff about properties of power MOSFETs in general, of which this device is one. OK, but non-specific.
  - Then we have the all-important schematic symbol, and a scholarly note that the parasitic diode isn't shown.
  - Then some external references, some of which are for other parts.

Who invented it? When? How many are made? Which companies made it? Why was it needed? How does it differ from its contemporary parts? What was a technical issue solved in the design of this part? We'll never know. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a notable enough part. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, this seems to confirm notability. Who invented it and makes it is not easily answered, perhaps, but such small components aren't exactly like Ferraris or books. Drmies (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because they are not NOTABLE! If you can't even in principle identify sources for this, it's not VERIFIABLE and doesn't belong here. Take a look at Kowloon Motor Bus to see what an encyclopedia article looks like - now, I think that topic is obsessive trivia, but it's 20 times the article than any of the parts-list entries are. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That article doesn't have twenty times the number of sources - they both have the same. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Counting sources is dubious. Weight of sources matters. As below, my name is in thousands of books and that doesn't make me notable. Appearing in X parts lists doesn't make a part notable unless we find a source somewhere that says "This part is notable because everyone uses it." I look forward to the whole hardware store getting individual articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No, the weight of sources does not matter because we do not write article according to a schedule or priority. We are a volunteer project writng upon topics that happen to interest us as we please. Notability is a threshold concept which excludes topics of no interest to anyone but the author. Once a topic is across this threshold then it's in. If it doesn't interest you then you should please move along to the topics which do. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Wtshymanski has banged on about the lack of history sources now in about two dozen of these electronic part debates, most of which have now closed "keep". This is a seriously misguided argument. Lack of history would cause a failure at FAC and be a serious issue even at GAN but it is certainly not a requirement for an article to exist. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that even hints at a requirement for a history section. The requirement is merely that sources discuss the subject. It matters not what aspect of the subject they are discussing (usually how it is used in the authors favourite circuit). SpinningSpark 00:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think it's the tiniest bit odd that an article about a band that says in total "Their names are Tom, Dick, Harry and Philomena. They made a demo tape but lost it." would be shot down in flames in picoseconds, but a listing of a part number that says essentially "It can carry 1 Amp at up to 50 volts" is somehow a sacred article? That strikes me as being very odd. At least Philomena's band has a theoretical possibility of notability. Diodes don't. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be disengenuous, you know perfectly well that the article currently says a lot more than that. Tom &C's band is a false comparison, they do not even have a datasheet published, let alone a book that says they are an "absolutely ideal hacker part" as this transistor does. SpinningSpark 02:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See above - most of this article now isn't even about the epynymous part but a whole zoo of other semiconductors. Let's put in references to the CK722 while we're at it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And my name appears in 300,000 books, but that doesn't make me notable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, let's agree to disagree. BTW, thanks, but I think I know what an encyclopedic article should look like (that this one isn't great is no reason for deletion, since that should concern the topic, not the article). Besides, one can ask whether you appear in 300,000 books or your name--it's hardly the same thing. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - ? Could this parts list entry ever look like an encyclopedia article? I don't think so. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not find more then a passing mention of either of these parts in the citations given --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 23:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search for [allinurl: 2N7000] yields 568 websites that by using the name in a webpage URL show that they consider the "2N7000", under the definition of notability in WP:N, "worthy of notice". It is reliable that these URLs exist and Wikipedia readers can verify that these webpages exist. There is no deadline for completing Wikipedia, it is enough for now that we know that the part is notable. Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:G7. See this request. Airplaneman ✈ 14:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Cottage

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

I found the following plaintive little sentence in the deletion log: "We want to delete the Maine Cottage page/article, but cannot figure out how." I'm fixing the nomination because I genuinely am a nice guy. Go and make a cup of tea while you wait for User:Cordsouth to offer up a deletion rationale. It'll be worth it, I promise. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The company went bankrupt February 2011 and is now closed. Please delete Maine Cottage entry. Why is this process so complicated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cordsouth (talk • contribs) 13:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - there's a speedy deletion tag on the article now, as Cordsouth is the original author. (See User_talk:Dylanfromthenorth#Maine_Cottage. Tagged as WP:CSD#G7. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bird Blobs

AfDs for this article:

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

non notable musical group WuhWuzDat 14:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. I'm struggling to find significant coverage. What I have dug up is a short Sunday Times review here, and a Stylus magazine paragraph here, but not enough to keep to be honest. doomgaze (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Retain' - Meets criteria 4 & 5 of WP:MUSIC, with the band having toured both Australia, the United States and the UK. The band has also release two albums on a notable indie label (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable).Dan arndt (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per previous comment (seen on Talkpage): Second album (and band) is described by Music Australia, try here, hence meets Wikipedia:Notability (music) criterion 5.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some more coverage below. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glorfeld, Jeff (17 September 2004), "FEATURE ALBUM - Bird Blobs", The Age

Levin, Darren (9 July 2005), "ROCK - Bird Blobs (supports Black Level Embassy, Kulak)", The Age

Keep, band now passes WP:GNG with new sources so I have struck out my previous vote. doomgaze (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG pass.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alkaline (Web application)

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

non notable software, references are ALL primary sources. WuhWuzDat 14:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Delete. Non notable image uploarder. Referenced to internal sites and a Twitter account. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The use of twitter as a reference is telling. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no 3rd party reliable sources. Article created by single-purpose account so possible spam. Dialectric (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whitchurch Alport F.C.

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

Non notable team. Has not played in the FA Cup. PROD removed Aug 2010 - no reason given. Delusion23 (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played at a notable level. Giant Snowman 15:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Club has not played at a high enough level to receive significant coverage. Big Dom 20:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Center for Appropriate Technology

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

Notability not established. JFW | T@lk 14:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Humboldt State University#Academics. tedder (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - a Google New search brings up hits, while a google search for the ___location brings up ten thousand plus. While some of these are indepth coverage, the news hits are mostly local. Therefore, it may fall under WP:LOCAL. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not very impressed by all the coverage in the local town paper, but I found this full-length article about the place in the Washington Post. That's rather remarkable coverage for a facility at a little-known university like Humboldt. I added that reference to the article, which still needs expansion but is no longer unreferenced. More references [59] could be added. --MelanieN (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MelanieN; the sources she has found show this article passes WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Vickers-Jones

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

This individual is non-notable. The reference supplied is an interview, generally not accepted by the community as establishing notability. The Google News archives provide a grand total of 18 hits—and with all due respect to WP:GHITS, there is nothing there to come close to demonstrating notability. ^Bongo_matic 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am unclear why it was necessary to delete the PROD and go to AFD within a few hours of this article being created. I have added a bibliography and a second reference to a national newspaper without having to do anything more than check GBooks and GNews. Having never heard of this presenter, I originally looked at the speedy G11 raised on the original non-neutral version to see if it was a reasonable speedy deletion case, however there seems every prospect of being able to improve the sources further were anyone more interested in improvement rather than finding a reason to delete. In my opinion this is a situation where some of the friendly improvement notices available for newly created articles seem far more appropriate rather than slapping on a series of escalating deletion notices based on a weak search. Fæ (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Fae's references there is sufficient to show notability, I thought my blpprod was a de-escallation, rather than speedy deleting it when improvement was easy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Fae's references establish notability. Jll (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The references are, in order, a brief interview, a trivial passing mention, and a feature in an alumni magazine. Interviews alone are not "independent" coverage and have not been found to establish notability. The passing mention, obviously, is not "significant coverage". And the alumni magazine article is neither a reliable source nor independent. ^Bongo_matic 02:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was the first attempt created by a new editor and it has not yet been 24 hours since it was created. In that time it has had a speedy, PROD and AFD when it could simply have been trimmed to remove the spammish text (which I did) and had an improvement notice put on it to encourage the new editor. The editor has not contributed since having their user page filled with templated notices (though they were never correctly informed of the BLPPROD). I disagree that interviews are not independent coverage as these are often incredibly useful sources for BLPs and just because it is an interview does not mean that the newspaper ignores its own editorial policy. In this case the fact of being chosen for the 60 seconds feature in the Metro says a great deal about the significant impact of a celebrity. Rather than arguing the case, perhaps you could spend a little time going back to the article creator to advise them on how to do a better job next time rather than scaring them off Wikipedia. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo, seriously, you are not looking cool for skool today. Maybe stick to history topics? How about look at Alton Towers or Battersea Station and their owners.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelebrityFanClub (talk • contribs) 14:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Fae have showed that this article is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Fuller

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

Notability per WP:CREATIVE seems unclear. All content came from single-purpose account RoAlFuGr (talk · contribs), which sets off the alarm. Google searches yield nothing but book reviews. bender235 (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno, the bibliography alone is probably enough for notability. The image files all have dubious copyright status though, they should probably be looked over. Hairhorn (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article seems weak and promotional, but the subject seems worthy of a better article. here's a new scientist book review, an associated press review, new york times review. another AP mention. Sources are out there and article would benefit from rewriting, not deletion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Two editions of Extinct Birds and a substantial monograph on the Great Auk Alca impennis have established Errol Fuller's credentials as a chronicler of vanished species." from a peer reviewed journal. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78 google scholar citations for just one work. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or userfy - As a popular writer, he might pass WP:CREATIVE, and the reviews could be used as reliable sources. If not, than it could be moved to user space. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Night Gyr. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:AUTO; only cited author is Errol Fuller himself.~~the subject of the article itself.~~--Darius (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:AUTO does not mandate deletion of autobiograhical articles or of articles based on autobiographical sources, so "Delete per WP:AUTO" is meaningless. And the point of this discussion is to discuss whether sufficient coverage of the subject exists in independent reliable sources, not just to point out what is or is not currently in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is an open debate, so a fix "point of discussion" is also meaningless. The only source for the article is Errol Fuller, and "writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged". Few independent sources cite Fuller in google books, while a couple of reviews don't make him "an important figure" or " known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique", as established by the criteria for notability.--Darius (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been demonstrated above that plenty of sources are available for this subject that are not written by Errol Fuller. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we have so many sources, then the article should be rewritten using exclusively those sources and not Fuller himself.--Darius (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's apparently not an autobiography and the subject is not the only cited author. I think Night Gyr has established that he's notable, as the author of books such as Extinct Birds, not as an artist. —innotata 14:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skins (TV series)#Film. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skins (2011 film)

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

Per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL, future films should not have articles until they are confirmed to have begun shooting. This film has been up in the air for a year (or longer?) and doesn't appear to be going into production in the near future. 97198 (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: can't find any sources to suggest it's in filming, and most of the article prose is unsourced interviews from last year with the television cast members saying they haven't been approached about the film. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 14:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skins (TV series)#Film per WP:NFF. As so much is still unconfirmed, this is the place where the topic is best discussed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and resurrect when more details are available. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - there is official confirmation of the film and two actors have signed for it already, so it bears mention given the series notability. That's as much as it can be said at this point though, and it is summed up in full in the existing section - patitomr (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and resurrect at a later date all this is in Skins#Film and we can easily put it back into here when there is proper confirmation and we have more details ConconJondor (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Orreal

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

Has been delisted by Sydney and never played a senior AFL match at the club, so fails the Australian rules football criteria of the sports notability guideline. Has some coverage from when he was drafted, but is that enough to pass the general notability guideline? Personally, I don't think so. Jenks24 (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bit of a sad footy career, but he's not notable per WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unique draft history does just get over the notability line, regardless of whether he played at senior level. Significant, not trivial, stories about him exist in major reliable sources.The-Pope (talk) 23:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There was a LOT of coverage about his drafting, with full articles that said a good about him (I can provide more details if requested), but that could well fit into WP:BLP1E. Apart from that there is not that much (mostly listing on injury reports). Outside of 1E is speculation he could make his debut (The Courier-Mail article hosted by Fox Sports) but that is very much a look what a local boy might do. IMO with the coverage outside the drafting and that footy players on AFL lists are not really low-profile the level of coverage puts him past BLP1E. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, despite the unusual circumstances of his drafting, I see nothing here except another hopeful professional Australian Rules player who had their dreams dashed. It's sad, but it's hardly notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Kamkars. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bijan Kamkar

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

Unreferenced BLP of an Iranian musician. I was unable to find significant coverage of him. I did find a passing mention of him in a reliable source: [60], that refers to him as "[one of] Iran's greatest singers", but I was unable to find anything of substance. Jujutacular ^talk 13:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a reliable source calls him "(one of) Iran's greatest singers", then that is a strong claim to notability, which creates a presumption that other reliable sources in Farsi discuss this singer in depth. Hold off on deletion until a Farsi-speaking editor reviews sources. Cullen328 (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a Spanish language source that calls him a Kurdo-Iranian, so perhaps Kurdish would be the best language to search. Cullen328 (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The band he's the lead singer of performed in London in 2003, and received an excellent review in The Guardian. Cullen328 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with a redirect to The Kamkars, or keeping it if someone can find significant coverage in Farsi sources. Jujutacular ^talk 22:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 22:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 22:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Kamkars, I couldnt find any thing on BBC Persian to prove that the subject is independently notable but The Kamkars are obviously notable. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Kamkars Thats were it belongs, at least until more is known about him. --Illume1999 (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Author is welcome to create an article on Global Simplicity Index if sources are available. JohnCD (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simplicity Partnership

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

Minimal gnews/ghits. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:MILL as far as I can see. OSborn^arf_contribs. 13:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The company have come out with a groundbreaking piece of research (nobody before them have calculated the cost of complexity), in a field which is increasingly of interest. I have seen their research covered in Top Consultant, on CNBC and in the Sunday Times, but I could not find anything about them on Wikipedia. I am studying this area for my Masters dissertation. To conclude, I feel that this article meets with the notability criteria and I believe that groundbreaking research in an important area of business should not be regarded as run of the mill. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakibai (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn^arf_contribs. 13:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. WuhWuzDat 14:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Were an article created about the Global Simplicity Index instead of this business, it might pass notability scrutiny; the one independent source is about the index, and mentions the business that made it only in passing. The article on complexity management itself is quite awful right now as well, and needs to be turned into English in places (Fact based transparency over the costs of complexity as well as its value is created along the entire value chain.) All of these tasks are encyclopedia subjects in a way this particular firm is not, and frankly we'd be happy to have someone studying the field improve them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be happy if I created a Global Simplicity Index article, and updated the complexity management page accordingly, instead of this Simplicity Partnership page? I agree that the Complexity Management page at the moment is completely inadequate and this piece of research would really add to the quality of information within wikipedia on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.176.190 (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means go ahead. You can't break anything beyond our capacity to fix it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Goddard

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

The following person is not notable. Songs are only released on YouTube, and she has topped the UK charts only 2 times. Not acceptable. Illuendo (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The very fact that she has topped the UK charts twice means that she is notable, per criterion 2 of WP:MUSICBIO. A Thousand Doors (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've rechecked, and she's actually topped the UK Indie Chart just the once. That still makes her notable, of course. A Thousand Doors (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A Thousand Doors and WP:MUSICBIO.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - the AFDs raised on Pomplamoose, Me at the zoo and Alexa Goddard appear to be deliberately disruptive rather than raised for any good reason. The nominator has been warned and I suggest this AFD is closed on this basis. Fæ (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nominator is disruptive troll.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 09:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my comment, I think what happened here is that nom had some of his contributions challenged, and he made some pointy challenges.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A Thousand Doors and WP:MUSICBIO, which are sufficient reasons. Motivation or actions of the nominator need not be mentioned for the decision to keep. I nominated this article for rescue to attract attention to the merits of the article.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We can and should start from a position of assuming good faith for any nomination, however this does not overrule all consideration of m:What_is_a_troll?#Misuse_of_process or preclude associated action (such as early closure of an AFD) when there is a blatant larger pattern of misuse. Fæ (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Top the charts makes you notable. I don't think the nominator was sincere when they nominated this for AFD. Dream Focus 15:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the above mentioned points. --Another Type of Zombie ^talk 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nomination seems somewhat bad-faith (criterion 2.2) and is clearly very errornous (2.5). Stickee (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pomplamoose

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

The band/group is not of notability. Just selling 100,000 songs online does not make it notable. In need references from reliable sources. Illuendo (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Sufficient sources are already provided in the article, including an interview on All Things Considered[61] and an article in SF Weekly[62]; plenty of additional sources available, including a recent cover story in SF Weekly[63], coverage from The Atlantic[64], Fox News in New York [65], etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In these heady times, it's no longer necessary to sell pieces of plastic to be notable. The ATC interview and the SF Weekly cover article together appear to satisfy WP:BAND. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 15:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-based on the sources listed above, and on the fact that it was freaking impossible to escape the commercials they were in over the Christmas holidays. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-based on growing awareness of this original duo and their tremendous musical talent, plus their fresh approach to media editing known as "video songs" Hidden Writer 4 April 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.41.10 (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - the AFDs raised on Pomplamoose, Me at the zoo and Alexa Goddard appear to be deliberately disruptive rather than raised for any good reason. The nominator has been warned and I suggest this AFD is closed on this basis. Fæ (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy strong keep If the nominator actually looked at the article than he or she would know that the article is properly sourced. This is a waste of people's time. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Self identified "weak" arguments all around. No convincing case made for retention or deletion. I kind of doubt being the judge of a Lego robot contest is a reasonable claim to notability but nobody seems to have objected to that... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Dalgleish Donaldson

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/John Dalgleish Donaldson

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

Not a notable individual beyond being the father of Mary Elizabeth Donaldson.

Professor Donaldson has no notability which warrants a Wikipedia page. He has no significant academic accomplishments. His sole notability is a daughter who has married into a reigning Royal family, but no individual personal notability. In addition, most sources which discuss Donaldson are non-reliable, "gossip" style blogs and minor journal materials. The page on his daughter adequately discusses her background, and there is no further notability required.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ProperlyRaised (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom. Does not pass the general notability guideline or the subject specific notability guideline for academics. Also, notability is not inherited. Jenks24 (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My above argument still stands, but perhaps a redirect to Mary, Crown Princess of Denmark#Early life would be a better outcome (I guess he may be a plausible search term)? Jenks24 (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this AfD was not transcluded onto a log page until 4 April. Jenks24 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I remain neutral on this one as I am too busy to look for sources, but it could well be that he is notable as an academic. Full Professor is more elite in Australia than some other countries, including the US, and Dean of the Faculty of Science is an important position in the University of Tasmania. Someone needs to search for his CV and his publications list. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MathSciNet only lists 10 papers by him over the period from 1972 to 2004, and one edited volume. In Google scholar, the most heavily cited paper ("A unified approach to quadrature rules with asymptotic estimates of their remainders" from 1972) has 59 citations, and it goes downhill rapidly from there. According to this report he seems to still be at Tasmania, where he has recently done some graduate supervision. But this is not enough for WP:PROF#C1, and his sometime administrative posts are also not enough. So it looks like a case of WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTINHERITED to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is his receipt of the Grand Cross of the Order of the Dannebrog (and his rather splendid shield in the Chapel of the Royal Orders) sufficient for notability (Heraldisk Tidsskrift, Vol 10, No 95, (March 2007), pp 201-212)? (Msrasnw (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Based on the source provided, it appears that the award and the creation of the heraldic symbols were a result of (and possibly necessitated by) his daughter's marriage into royalty. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, senior member of a heraldic order, but not much other non-inherited notability to be seen here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Most claims to notability appear to be inherited. WP:PROF might be met for his former position as the Dean of Faculty, but however this is ultimately an unsourced WP:BLP without any actual sourced information about him to justify an article. Optionally redirect to the article on his daughter. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOT Delete: Come on, this is ridiculous! He is the father of the future Queen of Denmark! Even the sister of Kate Middleton, Pippa Middleton, has her own page! Seems to be a case of Wikipedia:bureaucracy here? Why not making more fuss about all those Pokémon characters which have their own pages too... Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can you find sources which show that this subject meets WP:GNG and explain why he is notable outside of the scope of being his daughter's father? --Kinu ^t/_c 18:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Father of the future Queen of Denmark" - when put that way does to me sound compelling. The reference to his being a senior member of a heraldic order should be sufficient for notability. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: as the article indicates, he received membership in the Order as a direct result of his daughter's marriage into royalty. This appears to be another example of inherited notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Will this reference help? : Mathematics professor John Donaldson, perhaps best known in Denmark as the father of Crown Princess Mary, will serve as patron for the First Lego League robot tournament, set to get underway on 13 November at Århus City Hall. The Copenhagen Post: Online : MONDAY, 08 NOVEMBER 2004 (Msrasnw (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Keep By no means notable as an academic, but his family connections seem likely to ensure a steady diet of news coverage and interest. Ray^Talk 23:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. In view of some of the comments in this ill-tempered debate, I should say that I have taken no account of aspersions cast on the nominator's motives, or of the status or reputation of the contributors. There are weak arguments and reasonable ones on both sides, numbers are roughly equal, and I see no other possible conclusion. JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me at the zoo

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

Can be merged with YouTube as a section. Not of importance at all. Illuendo (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ with articles in the NYT, LA Times and recognized as an internet milestone on the BBC some years after the original event, the impact on the historic record is obvious, particularly when compared to lengthy Wikipedia articles about some guy screaming about Britney or a random chipmunk for which there is no merge proposal. Keep per WP:GNG and WP:UCS. Fæ (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - the AFDs raised on Pomplamoose, Me at the zoo and Alexa Goddard appear to be deliberately disruptive rather than raised for any good reason. The nominator has been warned and I suggest this AFD is closed on this basis. Fæ (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete|Merge: The following article is not important to the world of Internet, but, it can be a section of "YouTube", since it was the very first video ever uploaded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.248 (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In Wikipedia, articles like 'Me at the zoo' are considered stubs. Unless there is some improvement which shows this web content is an achievement (which is obviously ruled out since being first somewhere on the internet is nothing really special), it should be merged with YouTube. 203.116.251.232 (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How odd that you are interested in David Choi as well as the last anon IP commenting here, oh and I see that the nominator is also interested in the same articles. Please be aware that this sort of thing does not go unnoticed, particularly on AFD pages. Fæ (talk) 18:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fæ,. adequate sources to support notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with YouTube. No notability outside the website. I does have trivial mentions in some media outlets, but it has not been the subject of in-depth coverage for its own sake. Notability is not inherited, nor should it be. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the BBC article is not a trivial mention. The GNG asks for detail rather than making depth a specific requirement (it actually states that depth may vary) and a valid Wikipedia article may be both entirely encyclopaedic and short at the same time, by itself this is not a reason for merge. Fæ (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of the difference between short and trivial. It isn't necessary for you reply to every !vote on an AfD that doesn't agree with yours. Out of the three nominations made by Illuendo, this one may actually hold water. You've given your opinion, let everyone else have a go. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your characterization is misplaced, I replied to your observation that the sources were trivial mentions which appears factually incorrect to me. My other contributions here were to change my own opinion and highlight that three of the accounts appearing here have similar contribution histories. This is not a "reply to every !vote". Thanks Fæ (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominating statement does not provide a valid reason for deletion. One editor's subjective view of importance is outweighed by the sources showing notability exists. It may not be The Jazz Singer (1927 film), but its been the subject of sufficient coverage for its special status.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 09:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Milowent • ^talkblp-r 09:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Youtube, per WP:MERGE criteria 'text' & 'context'. (Delete otherwise, do not keep -- as already covered in Youtube.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its mentioned in many news sources, plus is historically important for being the first video ever uploaded to YouTube. LA Times lists why it is notable. Many others cover it as well, as a Google news archive search reveals when. I searched for "Me at the zoo" AND "YouTube." [66] Dream Focus 14:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete|Merge with YouTube. This is a very interesting and exciting bit of information which would be better served as part of the YouTube page. TehGrauniad (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already mentioned on the YouTube page, though if deleted this would be the only notable video mentioned there without its own article. Fæ (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have a good point. But I was thinking of it more on its own merits, not comparing it to the conventions of other articles: it may well be that those other articles could be either deleted or merged into YouTube. What do you think? TehGrauniad (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering how much there is to say about the social impact of each of these top importance videos I doubt there would be a strong case to merge any of them, I suggest you read through a couple of those linked from the parent article, some are pretty extensive. Fæ (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with you in part. you don't need a sociologist to tell you that YouTube and its videos are socially important. This video is of course notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Also the first few words of a new technology at the forefront of web 2.0 certainly should be included. However, there is already the article Social impact of YouTube, do we really need each video that caused a craze to have a fanzine-esque article like at Charlie bit my finger? TehGrauniad (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I think it's unfair to call it a fansite, Charlie Bit My Finger is well sourced and provides well written context. Personally I have randomly seen this video played in several TV programmes and remember seeing the family interviewed about it (and I'm rather uninterested in this sort of thing), so I have no problem thinking of it as a social phenomenon. Wikipedia embraces all notable knowledge and this includes transient social crazes so long as the impact can be verified. I see no benefit in tucking these articles away in a long list just because they are not "traditional" encyclopaedic material. The same views apply to Me at the zoo. Fæ (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I should add that this is bad faith nomination. The nominator was annoyed that his own contribution related to web video was nominated for deletion, and retaliated thus. This article should not be deleted on such a faulty basis, as its tainted the conversation. Merge votes are keep votes, pending editorial discussion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much 'water under the bridge' now. What we have is a "very short and ... unlikely to be expanded" article that only has significance in the context of Youtube, and thus an obvious candidate for a WP:MERGE there. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size of the article is not reason to eliminate it. It meets all notability requirements, and thus has the right to continue to exist on its own. And I already found something to expand it with earlier. The LA Times states: "as the first video uploaded to YouTube, it played a pivotal role in fundamentally altering how people consumed media and helped usher in a golden era of the 60-second video."[8] Dream Focus 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that User:Dream Focus read WP:MERGE before making such ill-informed comments. "The size of the article" is EXPLICITLY a reason for merging it. It is only ever mentioned in context of Youtube, so its notability is obviously only subsidiary to the notability of the latter topic, so should be addressed in that article (the article you are making such a big deal about is titled "YouTube turns 5", NOT '5 years since Me at the zoo was uploaded'). Any huffing and puffing to the contrary is merely so much hot air. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, MERGE is not a policy, if you are going to call other contributors "ill-informed" and deride their opinions as hot air, perhaps you should stick to pointing to real policies rather than making it appear that information pages are rules that have to be complied with. I believe that the significance of the video is clear, there are multiple high quality sources and the rationale for merge (that any YouTube video is a candidate for merge to the article on YouTube or that any short article is a merge candidate) is weak; perhaps that makes me ill-informed too? One could as easily argue that this article should be merged to Zoo, Jawed Karim or even Elephant. I am certain there is no reason for me to refer to WP:CIV as an editor with your experience will be fully familiar with these most basic policies. Thanks Fæ (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(i) "WP:GNG and WP:UCS" aren't policy either. And claiming that WP:MERGE criteria are ~~"irrelevant" to~~ ["not reason" for] a "merge" nomination and !votes is either "ill-informed" or outright tendentious! Per WP:SPADE, it is perfectly reasonable to characterise such spurious argumentation as "hot air". I really don't care what you "believe", but what you cannot substantiate with evidence. What the evidence suggests is that this topic has no notability outside the context of Youtube. "Thank you" for your WP:CIV-violative, WP:POT & spurious scold! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be quoting me as using the term "irrelevant", I did not. I have not said that either GNG or UCS are policies, though it should be noted that the later is considered a fundamental principle as supported by WP:5P (which is not policy either). It is not civil behaviour to criticise other contributors in an AFD as ill-informed, this is an unacceptable ad-hom argument. I suggest you take some time to reconsider your approach here and if you still believe that I am in breach of WP:CIV, WP:DE or WP:GAME then I suggest you follow a dispute resolution process as these are quite serious accusations to make against an administrator during an AFD. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was attempting to quote Dream Focus, and have now corrected my quote. To impugn WP:MERGE as "not a policy" having previously cited "WP:GNG and WP:UCS" as a basis for a !vote is ludicrously WP:POT. How would you characterise calling the explicit statement of an explicitly relevant and explicitly cited information page "not relevant", if not "ill-informed"? Whether through ignorance, or ill-intent, his claim is blatantly WP:complete bollocks. What is the the relevant "dispute resolution process" for misrepresentation in an AfD process? This is NOT an "ad-hom argument", it is a conclusion based upon the stark inconsistency between his statement and the reality of what WP:MERGE states. I suggest that you cease and desist your partisan, hypocritical and spurious WP:BAITing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Youtube. The first ever video for a highly notable site with millions of videos is pretty notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the same as delete in this case. Please state one or the other. Dream Focus 07:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TomCat4680 is under no obligation to accept your unsubstantiated premise, and "Keep or Merge" is not an uncommon !vote. Please keep your unwarranted demands to yourself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly believe anything will be taken from this article and added over to that one if it ends with merge? You can't say "Keep" OR "merge", you have to pick one or the other. Dream Focus 10:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of 120,000,000. Notable to me. --Lošmi (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of lots of videos on youtube, so quite notable. Doh5678 Talk 20:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with YouTube (and be sure to move all the content there). It's notable for being the first YouTube video, but I doubt that it will ever grow to any significant length. Therefore it serves the users best to have the content in the YouTube article. Jiiimbooh (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a no-brainer redirect. It's two paragraphs long and the only notable thing about the clip in question other than that it was the first is how nondescript it is, as amply demonstrated by the references. ~~If we must retain any content, then any one of the newspaper sources could be imported along with a line about the content (the sources unsurprisingly all say pretty much the same thing)~~ (striking: YouTube#Company history already contains precisely this amount of detail.) People pick the lamest articles to stake their reputations on sometimes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Staking their reputation? You should always do what you believe is right, and not care what others think about you. Although as far as reputation goes, I personally have a very bad opinion of people who try to delete things without having any legitimate reason to do so. I'm sure many people feel that way. Dream Focus 10:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should all stop getting so personal. Nobody is staking their reputation on this article. It's an AfD discussion, we aren't the UN. Calm down. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thumper, it was a pretty odd comment to make. If I had to stake my reputation (if I have one) when adding an opinion to AFDs then I would not bother ever giving an opinion unless the AFD was about to close and I was on the "winning" side. The only real issue for folks chipping in to an AFD is to make sure they do so in a civil and welcoming way. Neither should AFDs be a question of having to be "right" by always putting policy over common sense, otherwise our policies would never improve. Fæ (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that. Perception of how likely an editor is to have a firm grasp of policy and a reputation for following it is an important aspect of weighing up consensus, especially on battlegrounds such as XfD. Closing admins have to make judgement calls like that sometimes in assessing how strong a given argument is. Many of the arguments made above (and indeed the one directly below) would be extremely weak in isolation but could be bolstered by the support of editors with a reputation for fairness. This is a little meta for this AfD, but I felt I ought to explain my comment further. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was unexpected. Perhaps you should propose your viewpoint as an amendment to WP:DGFA as at the moment it says nothing about closing AFDs based on the reputation of "names" contributing rather than purely the merit of arguments being made. How much more weight do you think your name carries in an AFD, is it 2:1 compared to the opinions of "ordinary" contributors, or maybe higher? Out of interest, do you think that my opinion only counts at a standard weight or would you allow me to "pull rank" too? Thanks for explaining your comment, it makes things a lot clearer. Fæ (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned it's already covered by WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. I think you're reading rather too heavily into an explaination offered merely as courtesy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and remember to avoid reading your comments heavily in future. I note that ROUGH CONSENSUS (which is a section of DGFA as I referred to above) says nothing about "reputation", so until it gets changed I'll continue to expect AFDs to be closed on the basis of arguments put forward rather than the perceived reputation of editors. Fæ (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this to your talk. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simply notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per previous keep notes. trainfan01 talk 20:15, April 11, 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salama Hamad

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

Tried my best, but I still can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject about this biography of a living person. As always, please, prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does exist but I'm unconvinced he is notable from the one source I can find - see Time Magazine Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find sufficient references to provide the subject of this article passes WP:GNG. There are mentions of him, but it is debatable if those mentions constitute significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination and RightCowLeftCoast. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westboro Baptist Church (disambiguation)

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

Not sure of the CSD rules for disambig pages, but this isn't actually a disambig page at all seeing as it only links one article. However, there is a usedraft at User:D'Iberville/Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa), but it doesn't look like it's been worked on for a while. But even if that does become an article, there's a clear Primary topic that gets the Westboro Baptist Church name, and the disambig page would still only have two entries - so it would be done by hatnotes rather than a disambig page. (PS: Also sorry if AfD is the wrong forum and maybe MfD would be more appropriate) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:D'Iberville hasn't been active for a few years, but I've left a note on their Talk page about User:D'Iberville/Westboro Baptist Church (Ottawa) just in case they might see it. It's out of date and has no current links, and I can't find anything in the way of reliable sources - just brief mentions of its existence. So I may propose this for deletion too at some stage later -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:DAB, even if there was another article, a disambiguation link would be sufficient. Disambiguation pages are not made for 2 entries only, especially with an obvious primary topic.--96.23.34.3 (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I can appreciate the second Westboro Baptist Church possibly not wanting to be associated with the first, running up an empty disambiguation page on Wikipedia isn't going to help. A permanent name change strikes me as likely more effective. Carrite (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:DAB. (A one- or two- prong DAB may be speedily deleted, I believe) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 04:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)s[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Slang

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

Contested PROD, no evidence of notability in independent media. Acroterion (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So adding sources of notability from independent media should prevent this article from deletion? User talk: Sampack 4:49 AM April 6 2011 (EST)

That's the general idea; please feel free to add sources and note it here. Acroterion (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added: Bloomberg Businessweek, Fox Business, The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch, St. Petersburg Times, and Ebony Magazine. -Sampack (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undecided does The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch [67] count as a substantial mention if so then I guess I am in the keep column otherwise delete. I couldn't really find anything beyond their own press links [68]Tetron76 (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in Bloomberg Businessweek and Fox Business. Needs improvement, but notable. Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on above sources, plus Ebony Magazine (passing), St. Petersburg Times (more substantial). --joe decker ^{talk to me} 22:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (If my vote counts) I believe that this article is worth noting. With the inclusion of notable sources that have been added this article should be considered reliable. -Sampack (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not sure what priority board-games like these have. It's hard to gauge their encyclopedic value in terms of a global audience. Theo10011 (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources Chzz ► 02:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorian Baxter

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

A colourful character but hardly notable. Has run in a number of elections as a fringe candidate but never elected. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Recommend delete. Suttungr (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As archbishop of the Christ the King Graceland Independent Anglican Church of Canada as well as a key figure in the Progressive Canadian Party looks very notable to me. As a highly visible and constantly in the news, I'd say there are easily a good number of sources to support this. It would be detrimental to not have this article in the encyclopedia, given most people in central Ontario know of him. Outback the koala (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe this entry should be kept. The combination of the controversies with the Anglican Church and Children's Aid Society, his political activity (always a fringe candidate, but always popular and well-covered in the media), and his church work as the Rev. Elvis Priestly make him a high-profile enough figure to warrant inclusion. stantoro (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - referencing needs to be improved, but Google News clearly suggests sufficient coverage of various events over several years, meets WP:BASIC. Dl2000 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple RS coverage means he meets the GNG. Use of an SNG which isn't even a central "claim to fame" for him is a pretty dubious reason for deletion, but I agree with the immediately prior !voter that the article could clearly stand to be improved. Jclemens (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be edited, but the fact that his is consistently and persistently a notable figure in the region, the politics and the press suggests he should be kept on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drclark (talk • contribs) 00:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The reason given for deletion was unattributed copy-pasting, but this allegation has been withdrawn. Sandstein 06:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic history of the Arab world

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

Okay, this is complicated. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Economic_history_of_the_Muslims was created as a copy-paste job from various articles; mainly Islamic banking, Islam and slavery and Arab slave trade. It had no new content, as far as I'm aware, instead being mostly taken from Islamic banking as well as a few other articles. This is some sections from that. Unfortunately, as a cut-and-paste job of a more complicated cut-and-paste job, if left to stand, it may well violate the Creative Commons license, by permanently muddying the credit. Islamic economics in the world is the pre-existing article. I, of course, have no objection to expanding that article with content from the original articles, if documented, but I don't think we can muddy the attribution as much as this article does currently.

However, the point isn't to stop work, so other solutions, such as deleting the content, but leaving the headers, and re-summarising from the linked sub articles could also work, and this should probably be closed if it is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuerden writes in error. The material Cuerden describes has been removed. The material now in the article was mostly created by me for this article. Additions by Editor:Tijfo098 I freely acknowledge that it is no more than a start on an article about a notable topic. But it not a bad start and the topic is notable.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's correct, I withdraw my request. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears written in good faith. However it has major gaps in coverage. I added the empty sections by just scanning for (top-level) section titles in the first ref in "Further reading" to give the editors an idea what this should cover, and to prevent the reader from coming to the conclusion that this some hack job attempting to denigrate a large part of the world. There are some NPOV problems with the organization of the sections that have text. While topics based on Islamic law institutions cover a wide time span, and some have relevance today, others have only limited time and geographic relevance, e.g. slavery and to lesser extent oil too, so they should be presented as such. Perhaps userfy; the article has very marginal quality for mainspace. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's potentially a valid offshoot, but the potential copyright issues worry me. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and the article is a long overdue companion to Economic history of Europe, Economic history of Africa, Economic history of Britain, Economic history of France, etc. The article on Economic history of Germany is a particularly good model. The since unified German state is not much more than a century old, and the article does a reasonably good job of covering such topics as guilds, the rural economy and peasants, and the development of towns that were similar across the German world, just as many economic institutions have been similar across the Arab world. And with scholars like Timur Kuran coming out with new analysis of the Arab Economy as an entity [The Long Divergence (Princeton University Press, 2011)] appropriate for analysis on a region-wide basis, I truly fail to understand the arguments for deletion. Just hang a needs improvement tag on it. it does need that. And attention form an expert on the economic history of the region.I.Casaubon (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody said the topic is not notable. The concerns are about the content of the Wikipedia article with this title. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am primarily concerned with the copyright status - after as many cut-and-pastes as it went through, particularly with one link in the chain likely to be deleted, there's a good chance this violates the Creative Commons licence. If the attribution status is carefully fixed, it may be salvagable, but it's borderline copyvio as it is now, and copyvio cannot be left on Wikipedia indefinitely. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (without prejudice to re-creation by an expert on the subject) Another sloppy copy-and-paste job, reusing material from elsewhere on Wikipedia with no regard to copyright. Now Economic history of the Jews is deleted, can we have a moratorium on the creation of such content forks? Or at least if editors insist on creating them, can they do it in their own user space first, using their own words and research. (NB The history of the Arab world, including its economic side, began long before the coming of Islam, see for example Himyarite Kingdom, Petra etc.). --Folantin (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you please explain why we might not assume, for the purposes of determining whether an article subject is worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, that "material from elsewhere on Wikipedia" (article content) conforms to copyright laws? If you have any examples of copyvio, you should include them. On the talk page. The alarum has been raised, and yet this invasion by a single red herring seems strangely anti-climactic. Anarchangel (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sloppy, false assertions Here is the history of this article. I stumbled upon Economic history of the Muslims. It was a paltry article (there are lots) so I added sections on Jizya, Waqf, Piracy and Raiding on March 31. On April 3, in the course of participating in the Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Muslims I created Economic history of the Arab world because it is a notable topic in its own right. The Arab world, after all, is not all of Islam, and there are parallel articles, which I detail above on this page. The content of those sections was written by me based on the sources cited. Others have since expanded the article, which needs work, but which is a valid article on a notable topic.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Ryan (footballer)

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

Previously deleted PROD. Non-notable footballer who still hasn't played at a fully-professional level. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above. Re-create should he play for Portsmouth on his return. As a side note, I like how his height seems to be sourced from a video game screenshot! doomgaze (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 23:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Gao

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

WP:AUTOBIO lacking third-party sourcing. No indication that topic meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:NMUSIC. No indication of substantive third-party sources via Google News/Books/Scholar. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judging from the Google scholar citation record, he clearly does not pass WP:PROF (the material that forms the bulk of this article), and I see no evidence of notability from his musical or artistic activities either. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Clipsham

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

Non notable local councillor, unelected candidate for national office, fails WP:POLITICIAN, no other indication or claim of notability Jezhotwells (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jezhotwells (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I knew I must have been forgetting about one. Bearcat (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. City councillor in a major Canadian city. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The notability cutoff for city councillors generally requires the city to be considerably larger than Regina is; even Hamilton, about four times the size of Regina, is still stretching it. And WP:BLP doesn't permit articles to stay around when they're this poorly sourced, either. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - this isn't just a matter of saying keep, because i like it. You need to justify how the subject meets the criteria set out in WP:POLITICIAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat and Jezhotewells. Regina is really not large enough for automatic notability to confer on its city councillors, and press coverage seems to be trivial in the context of city politics. Ray^Talk 23:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His current position does not make him notable, and coverage about his current campaign for higher office is minimal. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Helping is Easy

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

This charity does not appear to meet the notability guideline at WP:NONPROFIT. There does not appear to be significant coverage of the charity in reliable secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails Criterion 2 of WP:NONPROFIT. --Djc wi (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure this charity does good work, but it does not meet the criteria for notability. References are self-referential. Nothing found at Google News Archive. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Evanchuk

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

Yet another unelected Canadian MP candidate in the current election (will this ever stop?), still with no properly sourced indication of notability per WP:POLITICIAN. As usual, he's certainly entitled to come back if he wins, but not to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 07:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as he fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other credible claim to notability is made. This current wave will end, Bearcat, when these Canadian elections are done, but there will be more waves to come. We need to be vigilant in enforcing our consensus here, or we will be flooded by promotional articles about unelected politicians. Cullen328 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as while he may be a candidate for Parliament in the current election, the article as I wrote it notes that he held province-wide office for the NDP, and the riding he is contesting is considered to be a swing district. Furthermore, I am in the process of adding references which note outside notability beyond his current status as a candidate for office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnyr (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope he does win the seat, actually (Ray Boughen, bah humbug), and if he does I'm the guy who usually creates our initial stubs on newly-elected MPs/MLAs anyway — but that's beside the point. The fact that somebody might win the seat they're running for does not, in and of itself, meet our inclusion rules as spelled out at WP:POLITICIAN — and neither does holding a position in a provincial political party's internal structure. (AFD just killed an article about the president of the Alberta Liberal Party less than two weeks ago.) The baseline for a politician's inclusion in Wikipedia is that the person has actually held an elected public office of some type, not the fact that they might win one in the future. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that he was an elected provincial councillor; I take it that wouldn't qualify? I'm currently searching for outside proof of that. Otherwise, I fully understand why this article would qualify under AFD. Rnyr (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as things stand. A politician does not need to win an election to be notable. However, if they haven't been elected (to at least prov level), they need to qualify under WP:GNG like anybody else. I see a lot of passing mentions of him. But, there's nothing substantial and independent that focuses on him. I object to the improper synthesis of sources here. A couple articles mentioned him, barely, as a lawyer in specific cases. That was spun into to a more general statement of working at "all levels" of court, as though that's something special (I'm guessing there's not that many levels in the province anyhow). Finally, as Bearcat mentioned, being president of a provincial party isn't adequate for inclusion, so being an executive on a youth group in a party, clearly doesn't cut it. --Rob (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Without prejudice to re-creation if he should win the seat he's running for. PK T(alk) 00:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clone_(rapper)

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

This page should be removed. Links were removed because they were all dead, discography was updated because he has no references that such even exist, and music video sections were removed because none of them exist Joshalameda (talk) 07:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to meet the notability guidelines for musical performers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.174.106 (talk • contribs)
Delete due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the musician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.174.106 (talk • contribs)

For the benefit of the closing admin: Joshalameda (talk · contribs) created the Clone (rapper) article last year, but also created this AfD. 66.189.174.106 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added the AfD tag to the article and is likely the same person as Joshalameda. 66.189.174.106 also voted to delete the article, twice. So, to be clear, only one person has registered an opinion above, albeit through three separate comments. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite any chicanery that may be going on in this AfD, I agree that we should delete this article. The subject of the article, a rapper from California, fails all of the WP:MUSICBIO criteria. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed because of Speedy Deletion (A7). Peridon (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchurian Nomads

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Manchurian Nomads

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

This page has not got enough info and is about a non notable club. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per criterion A7. VQuakr (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. I see no valid deletion rationale below (alas, not even "lists are a blight on Wikipedia"), just WP:VAGUEWAVEs and complaints about completely mundane editing issues. As observed below, it is common practice to have lists limited to only notable entries that merit articles (or listing sublists of such notable entries), and it is not disputed that there are notable hotels. Normal editing takes over from there, no matter the concern about "bloat potential." postdlf (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels

AfDs for this article:

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

All the hotels in the world, really? The article has nothing to limit its incredible bloat potential, especially since it includes redlinks. Obvious example of Wikipedia:Overlistification. This article isn't useful without an enforced definition of "notable hotels". JaGa^talk 06:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I forgot to add WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --JaGa^talk 06:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is intended to be the notable top hotels by country A-Z, five or four star hotels, notable skyscraper landmarks or historic hotels which are covered in multiple reliable publications and have encyclopedia info beyond the usual hotel listing amenities which make them notable and encyclopedic. It should not be a directory of every hotel in every country. Is List of minor planets an example of Wikipedia:Overlistification, Bullshit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curb your tone, Blofeld. There's no need for incivility. The list should only allow hotels that already have articles. Redlinks can live in your user space or a project space, per WP:REDDEAL (at the bottom of the section). --JaGa^talk 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator you should also know that you should notify the article creator before taking an article to AFD.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did notify the creator. But I did forget to also notify you, a major contributor, so my apologies for that. --JaGa^talk 07:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated this not so long ago, but did not know the right words to use in the nomination so it was "speedy kept". Now JaGa has been able to articulate using the rules why this is just not the sort of article that should be here. The rules and policy pages (Wikipedia:Overlistification and WP:NOTDIRECTORY) seem to sum up the problems this article has. Mtking (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per "Wikipedia is not a directory". Lists are a blight on Wikipedia. This one could become an endless list of hotels with potentially millions of entries.--Dmol (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll turn them into tabled lists with info.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split. Deletion of this article is not necessary. Changing it to a disambiguation page and linking it to pages such as List of five-star hotels in Dubai would be sufficient. --Djc wi (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But even that would be an endless list, as each major city in the world would have to be listed. And still we'd have the problem that "Wikipedia is not a directory"--Dmol (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That list could be huge, better to leave it to a "list of five-star hotels in county x", but then we have the issue of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTTRAVEL Mtking (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Point taken. Then, this should be userfied to either the author or the largest contributor. This article looks like too much was poured into it to just delete. --Djc wi (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is not intended to be a directory of every hotel in the world. It is supposed to be a list of the top hotels in any country e.g five and four star hotels/skyscrapers/notable country house hotels. This list was voted to be kept just a week ago.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but that still could be huge, and who would decide which hotel get included and that still leave the issue of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or WP:NOTTRAVEL Mtking (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason we can do a red-link including list like National Register of Historic Places listings in Alabama is because the notability is clearly defined. There's no room for debate, no way to squeeze in spam links. Either the building is on the registry or it isn't. The same is not true for this article. The definition for "notability" you recently added is vague enough for all kinds of cruft to sneak in. Got a fleabag hotel in Ibiza you want to advertise? List of hotels! You got a B&B that Washington may or may not have once slept in? List of hotels! No, if this list is to have any hope of being useful, only include hotels with links. Otherwise it's a linkfarm disaster. --JaGa^talk 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really know bugger all about hotels do you. Fleabag hotels and a crummy B& Bs in Washington rarely get adequate coverage in books. Try doing the research first before blabbing your mouth off about them. Who exactly is going to list such crappy hotels anyway? These lists are supposed to be luxury hotels and those with an important history, Immediately that excludes at least 3/4 of hotels in any given country.. Secondly removing all of the red links exposes the current severe bias towards anglo country hotels on wikipedia. I've identified hotels which are covered in multiple publications and in due course will become articles in their own right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC) WP:NOTDIRECTORY is quite frankly a misused guideline given that most of our tens of thousands of lists on wikipedia are nothing more that directory lists.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think an article called "List of hotels" is not going to be a mega-spam magnet? You can find reviews of pretty much every hotel in "multiple publications". Your criteria is far too vague. You might as well start List of Europeans next. --JaGa^talk 20:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My criteria isn't too vague. If you actually look at the lists you'll see so far there is not a massive number of hotels for each country and if you google or google book any of them you'll find tons of hits. I know what I'm doing on this and the lists are on my watchlist so should anybody add a crummy hotel in washington or scabby hotel in Ibiza they will be removed instantly. Honestly the number of luxury hotels or those with significant history in any country is not that many. Obviously US and UK will be the toughest and will perhaps require the toughest criteria. I am only interested in hotels personally which have an interesting history over centuries or are prominent luxurious architectural buildings. I am also good at writing about hotels without making them sound like an advert and making them encyclopedic,. The majority of hotels are not encyclopedic. And no you can't find encyclopedic coverage of most hotels in multiple publications. There is a difference between travel brochures which are number of rooms/facilities and price and those which contain actual extensive coverage on architecture and there history in books, especially those beyond travel guides which are mentioned in important books on other subjects from terrorism and economic growth to books about war etc. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC) In many countries five star hotels, even in London are self proclaimed and lack official guidelines. What I have done is included hotels which are widely covered in reliable publications, enough info to quantify articles and notability. Given time I will go through and add sources to support each one and split into smaller lists. Top hotels in any country are notable and this is supposed to be a refined list. If hotels are not found in multiple reliable books then they are removed, plain and simple. I've already put a lot of work into this and have been writing articles like Penally Abbey etc which have historical note. Hotels seem to get people worked up on here for some reason. Notable hotels are no different to any other notable landmarks, This is not supposed to be a directory of every hotel or motel. i think its a useful source to have the top/historic hotels listed under every country in a list and the history shows that people actually search for this on wikipedia on a daily basis.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still going to be a huge list. Even having only 4 star or better, there'll by from a dozen to thousands for most of the 200 countries in the world. Who is going to decide what ones are notable (other than star rating). It's wholly subjective and will still be a directory.--Dmol (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Most countries at best have 50 notable hotels, in fact most of the countries barely have more than 10 which are particularly notable. Countries like US, UK, France, Spain etc will have tons of notable hotels of course but coverage in notable publications beyond travel books usually indicates what it notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment - So you are saying that this should be a list of every hotel that has (or would qualify for) a standalone encyclopaedia article ? In which case is this not what categories are for ? Mtking (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Mmm I think i'll split by letter and turn into encyclopedic tables with info summarising them something like Grade I listed buildings in Brighton and Hove. But it will take time. Oh and if we can have such lists of every listed building in Brighton we can surely have lists of the most notable hotels by country... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You are right that is going to take a long time, but will also take lots of work to keep up-to-date, is it really worth all the time and effort for something that is a travel guide, would that better hosted at either Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead? Mtking (talk) 11:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes say Tourism in Turkey etc anything other than WP:NOTTRAVEL?? What makes List of Cobra characters WP:NOTCARTOON? You could argue that List of Power Rangers characters or list of Star Wars characters are better suited to fan sites. Look how many people actually visit the page looking for a decent list. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Comment - Setting aside that is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which should be avoided, does not "Category:Hotels by city" (can't make the link to the page work) already do that. Mtking (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it does? WP:CLN makes this more than acceptable (pages and categories co-existing). Lugnuts (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. It neither routes out notable missing articles and it neither has the potential for information. These lists can and will contain informationwhich a category cannot provide. But again your argument is redundant as we have tens of thousands of lists which are nothing more that a mirror of categories. I'm not buying the NOTDIRECTORY argument when the vast majority of our lists contains merely names. Personally I think tabled lists with info summary is probably a better solution than creating lots of seperate stubs on hotels. If the hotels really have enough info for seperate articles then they can branch out later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very likely search term, page has clear inclusion criteria of notable content and is used as a springboard to List of hotels: Countries A, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is notability clearly defined? Four and five stars, as decided by whom? The only way this article can avoid mega-bloat is to only allow hotels that already have articles. The redlinks can be userfied/projectfied. --JaGa^talk 19:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun converting the lists into tabled lists. See List of hotels: Countries A. Already I've excluded hotels from the list I couldn't find any info about. Books are usually a good indication of notability. Obviously it is going to take months if not years to build a comprehensive list with encyclopedic info but for starters I can convert into tables and the information will gradually be built over time. like the rest of wikipedia.. I'll try to get the A list formatted today so you can at least see where this list is headed and that it is a] not my intention to create useless directory of every hotel in the world b] it is possible to root out notable hotels and provide information about them beyond a travel guide. c] That they can have encyclopedic use and once fully completed can be a very useful source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normal article, has potential coverage. Also constructive in making summaries of notes that maybe included, such as landmarks. The instance of this article, doesn't satisfy the criteria of WP:NOTADIRECTORY. (Read the policy details, carefully! It refers to overlinking, logs, release notes, not the article content). Just because the article has is large that doesn't mean it also fits Wikipedia:Overlistification (WP:BIAS, WP:WORLDVIEW). Many featured lists article also focus on table format content. I am suppose you are also going to account accusations of your non-AGF civilty onto that. Control Yourself. Further, i think other contents can be supplemented such as Cottage/Inns and Various Contextual Introductions lead section. --111.241.72.178 (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article should be kept as long as a clear criteria for inclusion is adhered to. 4 star and above works for me. ~~Perhaps the title should be changed to reflect that if this is kept?~~ Qrsdogg (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why not is because many countries don't have an official hotel system and bill themselves as five star when they are really only four or three etc, Many London hotels bill themselves as five star and are really only four given by AA. Same with four star. Also there are three star hotels which may be very prominent skyscrapers or historic country hotels which have an important history. But yes the the list will mostly be those which are universally considered four or five stars hotels and which have decent coverage in books to render them notable. If you can't find adequate coverage of it then its probably not worth commenting on, unless it is an extremely poor part of the world and coverage is as poor. A notable hotel in Chad of course may only be 2 star by western standards! Contrary though to this nomination there is actually a finite number of top hotels by country and usually it is pretty easy to root them out by google book searches. Obviously countries like Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy. Spain, UK and US in due course will have enough notable hotels to qualify for seperate lists if not by state. I'm creating tabled lists which are intended to be filled out with history background and summary and if there is no information in google books I generally will not include them in the lists. It will take a long time to built an adequate coverage, but same with rest of wikipedia... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, I agree with your take on this. I've struck out part of my comment. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually there's nothing in the notability criteria that states that being a four star hotel or higher automatically confers notability, and I seriously doubt it should automatically confer notability. Such a judgment on notability should not be decided by this list. The only way to insure proper adherence of notability for the items in this list is to only allow hotels with articles. --JaGa^talk 06:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on this gradually and aim to cover notable hotels fairly by country. The bias is extreme at the moment. Novotel Conakry for instance is the sort of notable hotel which was missing. I do think five star hotels are virtually always very notable and most four star hotels can claim notability although some are generic. Most three star hotels I'd say are not really notable, depends on their history and architecture. If they are like the tallest building in the city or where the place of a historic fire or something then I'd say they are notable. But it is all decided by book sources. Books tend to write about hotels which are high quality and the best or have historical significance. You won't get decent publications writing about crummy Ibiza hotels. Some books will have a fair bit of info on the notable luxury hotels in Ibiza which are likely notable. Every country has notable hotels. It will be me who decides what or what is not notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is an ongoing draft, which admittedly has major content issues. There is a need for some clear inclusion criteria and it may be neccessary to cut the list down slightly. However deletion (I might add that it was nominated without any attempt to contact the clearly active good faith main contributor - which is generally good wiketiquette) is not the answer. The idea behind this draft is to follow the normal approach to list building on wikipedia - create a big list with all the notable content on, and try to break off the parts which deserve their own section, obviously that can't be done overnight. It seems to me that this is a better approach than the old version of this article [69] or the current approach of people creating lists completely at random (see List of hotels in Malta and List of Las Vegas Strip hotels) Bob House 884 (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree List of hotels in Malta should be deleted. I am doing something about inclusion see List of hotels: Countries A so far. If the hotel does not contain adequate coverage in books I will simply remove it. It is intended to be those hotels which are universally considered five star or four star luxury hotels, those of architectural prominence, and those which are historically significant, like many of the country house hotels in england for instance. What or what not to include is dictated by sources... Most countries will be pretty easy as they don't have a great number of particularly notable hotels. The difficult ones will be US, UK, France in particular which have a massive number of notable hotels but I think it is possible to whittle down a list by state of the most notable ones. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Dr. Blofeld, although in my view and as with similar lists only hotels with WP articles should be included. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that the extreme bias of wikipedia completely ignores the very top hotels from many countries which are far more notable than many of the hotels in the US and UK currently with wikipedia articles. The hotels in the lists will all be started eventually...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the redlinks were userfied, we wouldn't have to worry about the list becoming a spam magnet. There's no reason to keep a to-do list in article space. --JaGa^talk 16:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again. We just had this discussion recently. [70] My arguments then are the same as they are now: "Not a valid reason to delete. List do not have to be completed, ever. There are sources listing all the four star hotels, or whatever the rating is to indicate which are most notable. Also those with historical importance are surely notable. I'd think the number of notable hotels in some countries is long enough to warrant its own article of course. If this article gets too long, it can always split out into separate ones. Dream Focus 04:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)" Dream Focus 14:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Criteria are irredeemably vague. What makes a luxury hotel more notable than my uncle's B&B? Both of the local newspapers had articles about it! Who decides that something is a "4-star hotel?" Fine as a category, and it doesn't take long to create stubs. Ma^t_chups 15:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple reliable sources containing encyclopedic information is the criteria. Hardly vague and no that rules out most hotels. Your uncle's B&B would not have coverage in multiple book sources. Would your uncle's B&B get coverage in New York Magazine? Sources dictate what or what is notable, like the rest of wikipedia. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say he puts a redlink to his uncle's B&B on the list page, complete with a few references. What then? You remove it, saying the references aren't good enough? But there are multiple independent articles that discuss the B&B! He points to Wikipedia:Places of local interest. An edit war ensues. Then what? You can't AfD an entry in a list, but its notability is definitely debatable. Without some sort of iron-clad inclusion criteria, like being on a Historical Register, this just doesn't work. A list in Wikipedia should never allow non-notable entries, and this list doesn't have a mechanism to keep them out. --JaGa^talk 16:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If his uncle's hotel has significant coverage in multiple book sources or The Good Hotel Guide or whatever then chances are it is notable. Something tells me though you would not find his uncle's hotel listed with any adequate information in google books so if he tried listing it I'd simply revert him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:N that defines "reliable publications" as requiring at least one reference from Google books, so your grounds for reverting are flimsy. The problem is, there is no rock-solid and clearly defined test for hotel/B&B notability. Even being a four star hotel does not automatically confer notability. So how could the community decide what redlink hotels have a right to be on this list? It looks like your plan is to control the content of the list yourself, and be the self-appointed judge of what has a right to be there. That's no good. You don't WP:OWN the list, even if you've contributed 99% of the content. This simply doesn't work. --JaGa^talk 21:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think it would be possible to list all the hotels om the world, and even if that was done, to maintain and modify it as they close down and are created/re-opened. --Another Type of Zombie ^talk 16:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think it would be possible to list all the hotels om the world". LOL do you think this is what the list is for?? re you blind or just a plain zombie? What part about This is a list of what are intended to be the notable top hotels by country A-Z, five or four star hotels, notable skyscraper landmarks or historic hotels which are covered in multiple reliable publications. It should not be a directory of every hotel in every country. aren't you seeing??♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the incivility. You could have made your point without being rude, but you chose not to. Bullying can be a very effective way to influence a debate, but I can't say I'm impressed by it. --JaGa^talk 21:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL @ the incivility. Make dumb comments which are not true then you're not going to get a round of applause from me. Could I really? I've tried explaining myself to you being perfectly rationale and you've made life particularly difficult here and unnecessary. Your warped ideas about list building are over the top and rather misguided. We have thousands of open incomplete lists on wikipedia which have a poorly defined criteria for inclusion and few people worry about them. LOL at WP:OWN. You know what. If somebody did actually bother to help build the list I'd be pleasantly surprised. You seem to think that somebody is going to be adding lists of B & Bs and Ibiza 1-star chav hotels. Utter rubbish. Given that every entry on this list is going to have an article soon enough the community if a hotel truly is not notable then I'm pretty sure it would end up here anywhere. I aim to get all of the hotels linked currently red linked with articles within a few weeks, so what exactly is the problem with you?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no policy-based reason for deletion given. Lists of lists are perfectly acceptable. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. Perfectly reasonable to organize articles and potential articles in a list. Clearly the point is not to list every hotel in the world. If the criteria for inclusion are vague, they can be refined as the article develops. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been starting a few today like Rainmaker Hotel and Hotel El-Aurassi which appeared notable because of book coverage. The intention is to start a handful of the most notable hotels from each country of the world to try to cover it evenly. Like Hotel Plaza Grande, Quito etc... Google book search it.. The list is certainly manageable given that most hotels are not notable and do not have adequate coverage in many books.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BigDom (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Rempel

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

And they just keep 'a-comin. Yet another unelected candidate (Canadian again, naturellement) with no properly sourced indication of notability for anything that would get her past WP:POLITICIAN. As always, she'll certainly be entitled to an article if she wins (which, given that she's a Conservative running in Alberta, she probably will), but she's still not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, recreate if she wins. Hairhorn (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since there is nothing for her in WP:POLITICIAN or WP:PROF, I think the only claim to fame is the "Canada's Top 100 Most Powerful Women" listing. But that's just one thing; we need more than one for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, at least until May 2nd (she might even be "not notable" after that even!) Thomas Dzubin (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chrissy Murderbot

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

Queried speedy delete (by email sent to me) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to meet the notability guidelines for musical performers. Article is also an unreferenced BLP. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 13:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polymers and biohazard bags

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

Contested PROD. User essay, not an encyclopedia article. Strikerforce (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly organised, conversational tone, no cites. Would require fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. The Interior (Talk) 04:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be a Biohazard remediation article, not least so that we can merge this content to it. Anarchangel (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lillian Szpak

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

Small-town city councillor and unelected MP candidate (Canadian again, how'd you guess?) with no properly sourced indication of notability for anything that would pass WP:POLITICIAN. She can certainly come back if she wins, but she's not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, recreate if she wins. Hairhorn (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Vandenbeld

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

Yet another in the eternal line of unelected candidates in the current Canadian federal election, who has no properly sourced indication of notability for anything besides being an unelected candidate (which, per WP:POLITICIAN, is not a valid claim of notability.) She can certainly come back if he wins, but she's not entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign tool in the meantime. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There do not appear to be adequate sources that are both about the subject and independent of it. VQuakr (talk) 06:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If she ever does become a Member of Parliament or is elected to a notable office only then would an article would be neccessary. We can't have articles on every candidate in every riding it is unneccessary. Aaaccc (talk), 7 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle monocle

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

Non-notable journal Corvus cornix_talk 04:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find secondary sources to confirm notability, borderline {{db-corp}} candidate, depending on how you define "organization", given the utter lack of text even claiming why this journal is important or noteworthy. --Jayron32 04:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication that is meets any notability guideline. VQuakr (talk) 05:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. --Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not seeing coverage to indicate notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Martino

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

non notable musician WuhWuzDat 04:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the musician. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. That is, at any rate do not delete; any outstanding issues can be fixed editorially via merging and moving if this is still deemed necessary. Sandstein 06:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British America

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

This article constitutes a content fork from British North America (or vice versa) ~~Colonial history of the United States, Thirteen Colonies, and/or British colonization of the Americas.~~ It has been tagged as unsourced since November 2007. I had redirected to Colonial history of the United States (where Colonial America redirects), but this was reverted. The British America article even notes that Colonial America is another term for it (though that, too, is unsourced). There are no sources to indicate why this is a topic distinct from and notable apart from British North America ~~British colonization of the Americas.~~ As a list, this is also redundant to several others. I would agree with a redirect as an alternative to deletion. Novaseminary (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British America

1607–1783

History

• Established

1607

• Disestablished

1783

Preceded by

Succeeded by

	New Netherland
	New France
	Spanish Florida

British North America
United States
Spanish Florida
British West Indies

Keep its needs work but should not be deleted - its more of a list. We have New France (1534-1763) and we have "British America" (1607 – 1783) that includes the Thirteen Colonies (1607- 1733) as well as many others areas in Canada, Caribbean and Jamaica (clearly demonstrated by the map on the page) Colonial history of the United States covers 1604 - 1776 and only the USA territory (as there is separate article for all the territories as seen on the page). Then we have British North America that covers from 1783 – 1907 that generally only includes Canada. Not sure if the deletion was done with an understanding of the topics at hand - as its part of Officially named territories that are part of a series of articles here.Moxy (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be fine with converting it to a list that meets WP:SAL, but I am not sure how to get it there, and it would need to be retitled. Otherwise, in its current state, I do not see how it is meant to be different than British colonization of the Americas. Are there any sources that support the use of this as a term covering the British colonies from 1607 – 1783 as claimed in the infobox? If so, that would go along way toward convincing me it is not a content fork. So would a more clear lead paragraph so that readers have a better sense of how this term is distinct from others. Novaseminary (talk) 04:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In gBook searches I have done, it appears that this term is used interchangably with British North America (e.g., here. Maybe that is the fork? Novaseminary (talk) 04:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the Treaty of Paris (1783) (part of the Peace of Paris (1783)) the Thirteen Colonies split and as seen to the right we have new names see also New Netherland. Note: I believe is the second time this has been nominated.Moxy (talk) 04:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has not be nominated before (at least under this article title). If it had been, that discussion would be here. It appears "British America" (as its own distinct term) might be OR, too. Another editor pointed out the exact same thing I did regarding gBook searches (though they beat me to it) on the British North America talk page here. Without RSs that make the distinctions these articles seem to be trying to make, one or both fails WP:N, don't they? Using an infobox, while perhaps useful as an illustration, doesn't establish notability (or non-CFORK-ness) like RSs would. Novaseminary (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are more then welcome to continue with this nomination. See also Talk:British America Moxy (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two books that you added here in this AfD and then removed with this edit support my point. Perhaps that is why you removed them? They use the term "British America" in the same way the WP articles define "British North America", not consistent with the definition used here on British America. So the only RSs yet produced actually seem to support the assertion that "British America" and "British North America" are used interchangeably. And there still have been no RSs put forward that actually make this distinction and support the inclusion of this article separately. Novaseminary (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOSCOPE, and per Moxy, the article needs work not deletion. I have added the article to projects (via the discussion page) to {{WikiProject Canada}} and History of Canada. Unfortunately, History project has not signed up to article alerts!!! The complaint of a lack of sources is not an acceptable reason to delete. The additon of all relevant projects via the discussion page would help to notify projects for the need of reliable sources.

A redirect to Colonial history of the United States is certainly and absolutley not correct. There were there were more than thirteen British colonies and territories in North America as at 1776: Acadia, Newfoundland Colony, Quebec, Grenada, Rupert's Land, etc. Searches of British North America will generally lead British North America Act, 1867. All Canadians will know this as the BNA Act. Follow this link and you will see the importance to Canada. I have more objections to the removal of this article. But for now, these will have to suffice. Argolin (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking on this has evolved as it has become more clear what the problem might be and perhaps why there are no sources. why not redirect to British North America or vice versa? Unless there are sources to support the assertion that they are different, all we have are the sources mentioned above indicating they are the same. Novaseminary (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few books: [71], [72], [73], a film held by National Archives of Canada [74]. CBC Television coproduced with Télévision de Radio-Canada a hugely popular documentary series Canada: A People's History; here's the link to the CBC site [75].

The name "British America" is valid per the above and these: [76], [77], [78]. As for the lack of sources for so long, I believe other projects need to be added via the discussion page. It will allow projects signed up to WolterBot to be aware of the article's lack of sources and hopefully do something about it.

Novaseminary do I need to explain further why a redirect to British North America would be inappropriate? Argolin (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with redirecting British North America to this article. But where in the sources you linked do the sources make a distiction between the two? I can't find it. Do any RSs support a distinction? If not, there should only be one article. I do not care which title holds the article and which holds the redirect. Novaseminary (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After much reading (and noticing its Canadians that support this terminology - including in the old talks) - I see what the problem is - in the USA there seems to be no distinction between this two time periods (as there is simply before and after the revolution). I am not sure y? In Canada as seen at (Former colonies and territories in Canada and here) i guess because of Rupert's Land, Nova Scotia etc... we use this distinction (usually called Colonial America and loosely as here called British America in Canada) but cant here because of the preexisting article that is just on the USA. However calling it "British America" before the Acts of Union 1707 is also wrong as it was the Kingdom of England and Kingdom of Scotland before the act...so not sure how we can solve this if "Colonial America" is only about the USA. Again we run into problems because of American dominates of terms. Perhaps we could move and merge (with redire3cts) British America and British North America into an article called List of British possessions and colonies like with List of French possessions and colonies..........so in this long winded way i agree with "Novaseminary" that the term is not widely used outside Canada and thus may need to be reworded so that its inline with history outside just Canada. Moxy (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the way to go. It certainly addresses my concern. And the intro to the list can explain this all, and still be completely consistent with the MOS for leads of stand-alone lists (WP:LSC). Novaseminary (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not redirect this article to British North America. I have added a hatnote :For the Canadian Constitution, see British North America Act, 1867. The books as referenced above are all from the Library and Archives Canada. So yes, they will mostly focus on Canada and the US: but not exclusively. I plan on citing the article with: Nellis, Eric Guest (2010). An empire of regions : a brief history of colonial British America. Toronto : University of Toronto Press. ISBN 9781442601390.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher ___location (link). In so far as only Canadians defending this article, I have to disagree. The other colonies listed on the article page are not aware of this Afd as noted above.

Oh Moxy you rock! I completly forgot about the Acts of Union 1707 (thus creating the UK). I don't believe the term "British" (in this case British America) is too problematic. On the death of Queen Elizabeth I, the Kingdom went to James I of England aka James VI King of Scotland (as she hated the Grey family: the only other English decendants of the Tudor line). James I tried to bring about a union (of His Kingdoms) during His reign (24 July 1567 – 27 March 1625). The English Parliament was too xenophobic and rejected the idea. However, He was able to establish the Union of the Crowns providing us the term "British" see: Britishness.

I have to completly agree with Moxy in that the US is selectively blind to everything before 1776. Most Canadians know that Newfoundland in 1583 and New France in 1534 is many years before Plymoth rock. A re-write of history is not cool. Moxy, can you correct the picture shown in the article? Quebec was never forced to accept Anglicism. After the Battle of the Plains of Abraham ~~per the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (it's not listed in this Class=Start article), all Catholics~~ Quebec's governor Pierre de Rigaud, the Marquis de Vaudreuil negotiated a conditional surrender allowing all Catholics to keep their faith along with the non-expulsion of the Clergy. [79] These civil rights were finally codified in the Quebec Act. This was a major irritant of some (ie. 13 of them) of the other British Colonies. Argolin (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I follow. In light of what Moxy and I have put forth, do you think any policies or guidelines support your position, or is it based on your personal preference or something else? Novaseminary (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? Again as above, this article was recently added to Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Canada. There are many other former British colonies in the article which have had no such notification of this Afd. Also WP:GEOSCOPE. Did you read the Talk:British America? Argolin (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certain Wikipedia contributors are more interested in uninformed imposition of their parochial reading of esoteric Wikipedia rules than they are in (a) learning or (b) contributing to the expansion of knowledge. For most of the period at issue until 1776, all of the territory in question was "British". Those who question content here would do well to do the hard work of research and finding references before deleting accurate, relevant and informative content that others may have generously donated time to share. Form should not prevail over substance. British North America is merely a derivative of its predecessor: British America. As noted by Moxy (talk), British North America covers from 1783 – 1907 and is regarded by most with knowledge of the history of the British Empire as generally only including Canada.

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

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

The result was merge to Don Mattingly#Personal life. Or if there is a preference to the LA Dodgers minor league players article. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Mattingly

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

Non notable minor leaguer, never played above Class-A and has now been released by his most recent team. Career stats and quote from his dad indicate his baseball career is most likely over. Spanneraol (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought about deletion when I saw the news come over the wire that he was released. He was once considered a top prospect (first round draft pick and all), which overruled my concern that he only had an article because of his famous father (much like my concern with relatives of Jon Papelbon and Hank Blalock), but he's now been traded for a nobody and released. His chances of making the majors are next to nil. If any details are salvageable, they can be merged to Don Mattingly's family section, but Preston is not worthy of a stand alone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Don Mattingly#Personal life, which already addresses Preston Mattingly to some extent. Rlendog (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Los Angeles Dodgers minor league players. He was signed by the Los Angeles Dodgers on April 8. Does not meet WP:WPBB/N for standalone article. —Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —– Muboshgu (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apartheid in Bahrain

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Bahrain

AfDs related to this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, closed as "delete"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, closed as "keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid, closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination), closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination), closed as "speedy keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination), closed procedurally in deference to the ArbCom investigation
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination), closed as "keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination), closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (second nomination), closed as "speedy keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination), closed as "keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid, closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid outside of South Africa - opened 5 Jun 2006, closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (second nomination) opened 29 Mar 2007, closed as "delete"
DRV 6 Apr 2007, closed as "overturn and relist"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) opened 11 Apr 2007, closed as "keep"
ArbCom review opened 12 Aug 2007, closed 26 Oct
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fourth nomination) opened 19 Oct 2007, closed procedurally in deference to the ArbCom investigation
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) opened 8 Jul 2008, closed as "delete"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid, closed as "delete"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy, open
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Saudi Arabia, open

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete. Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy; everything I wrote there is applicable here as well. If anything, this page is even more dubious than the "Palestinian Authority" one, particularly in that all but one of the sources are taken from recent journalistic articles. CJCurrie (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Currie, I hope that you will take another look at the article and consider revising your comment. I believe that this article is well-sourced and notable. Sources include the Christian Science Monitor the Bahrain Centre for Human Rights.I.Casaubon (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pointy POV fiesta. I'd call it an original essay, but that would be giving this drive-by gotcha extravaganza too much credit. Carrite (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A stub article about discrimination against Shiites could possibly be created, but this title needs to be got rid of. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article because the democracy demonstrations in Bahrain have caused a great many human rights activists, such as Nicholas Kristof to look at Bahrain and call it apartheid. This is a system where Shia are forbidden by law to live in certain Sunni neighborhoods, where only Sunnni can join the police and the army, and where the government recruits Sunnis from abroad to help it maintain control over an oppressed minority. The more important point is that Wikipedia articles reflect reality as it is written in reliable sources. This article is well sourced and simply reflects the reality that scholars and commentators around the world look at Bahrain and say apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it necessary to have an article on this topic that's separate from Human rights in Bahrain? GabrielF (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and make a valid argument.I.Casaubon (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointy article creation in the vein as the recently shitcanned Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid. Thin, cobbled together sourcing to advance an agenda. I will note that this sort of thing was once brought to ArbCom, which thankfully didn't need to act as every single one of those old, equally pointy articles was either deleted renamed, or redirected. We seem to be going down the same road. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there may well be discrimination in Bahrain, this article is pretty much entirely synthesis. To justify its inclusion, we'd need to have some reliable sources attesting to the topic being one of general notability, rather than just some people apparently using the word "apartheid". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, the NYTimes' Nicholas Kristof referred[80] to the discrimination in Bahrain as similar to apartheid, but that is the type of analysis and analogizing that you expect from a good editorial, the analogy doesn't then justify a separate wikipedia article. E.g., Racial segregation in the United States cites comparisons to apartheid (as were made since at least the 1960s), but there is no article on Apartheid in the United States.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep "Please see my comments..." No, I won't. If you can't even be bothered to copy-paste, don't nominate articles for deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And if he did that, you would likely complain that "it was just a cut n pasted rationale, come up with something original!". There are 5 criteria listed at Speedy Keep, and I fail to see how this meets any of those. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I might do that. But probably not. The other flaw was a more pressing issue at the time. And still is, as it has not been addressed. The nomination currently lacks any of the reasons to delete in WP:DEL#REASON. The rule in question is SPEEDYKEEP #1, in fact: "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion" And I see that WP:BEFORE lacks any requirement for nominators to provide one, which is quite absurd and incompatible with SPEEDY. Anarchangel (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians have an obligation to apply the rules objectively' I am concerned that the standards, WP:N and WP:RS are being applied differently here than they are to Social apartheid in Brazil or to Israel and the apartheid analogy For example, Roscelese removed a paragraph from this article, but not from very similar articles on Brazil and Israel. To me, the five articles , Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Israel and Palestinian Authority share many similarities. I would like some of the editors voting to delete to explain why an article about Apartheid in Bahrain, where Shia suffer formal, legal restrictions, is to be deleted, while the article about Brazil, where there is no legal inequality, was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin note - The above comment has been pasted to 3 AfDs, I have replied once here, to address this concern. Tarc (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEIGHT is only relevant to article content; the linked explication of how it relates to other rules is a serviceable argument for keeping the article. There is no rule at all about what balance there should be between articles. Anarchangel (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also in # Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Saudi Arabia (links)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam/Shi'a Islam task force/Afd.I.Casaubon (talk) 21:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took the liberty of adding missing information to the list of previous AfD results. I assert that is overall a record of retaining articles about the apartheid-like characteristics of modern states, with one result anomalous enough that consensus could very well change to overturn it: Accusations of Arab Apartheid. Anarchangel (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the rationale I provided at the other "apartheid" pages.--Babank (talk) 06:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bahrain Centre for Human Rights is a leading center for opposition to the "apartheid regime" - their words, not mine, in Bahrain and is a leading source for the information in this article, along with Irshad Manji, Princeton University Press and other reputable sources.I.Casaubon (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as yet another obvious POVFORK and violation of WP:SYNTH. I.Casaubon, the article's creator, really ought to be sanctioned for persisting with this pointless waste of everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what the problem with these misconceived articles is, so there is no excuse for creating more of them. Prioryman (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt It seems like we're getting a new one every few days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is an off-wiki effort to canvass editors here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Projapoti

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

The topic seems real enough, but I don't think it is really notable. I was unable to find any sources that even mention it. E♴(talk) 03:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://www.theindependentbd.com/sports/sports-cricket/18468-pont-to-launch--butterfly-during-cricket-wc.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windiescricketfan (talk • contribs) 04:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/bangladesh-still-waiting-for-butterfly-to-take-wing-2237340.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windiescricketfan (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.daily-sun.com/?view=details&archiev=yes&arch_date=03-02-2011&type=daily_sun_news&pub_no=117&cat_id=1&menu_id=4&news_type_id=1&index=0

Well, those sources mention Butterfly Ball, but not "Projapoti". I think Butterfly Ball looks notable enough, given those sources, so why don't we move the page to Butterfly Ball? --E♴(talk) 13:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Projapoti means "Butterfly" in Bengali language. Pont and Fountain are coaching the Bangladesh Team, hence the ball has been called the "Projapoti" because the players speak Bangladeshi. The players called it the Projapoti as it is the translation. It does not get a mention in the articles because they are in English, and would not have a Bengali word in the middle of an English article. Articles that do mention it are completely in Bengali, and will be unreadable to a non Bengali speaker. You would not call the Doosra, its English translation; its a "Doosra" due to the language of the player / ___location it was created in. Its Wiki page is titled Doosra, not an English translation. The Projapoti was created in Bangladesh by Pont & Fountain, hence the use of Bengali to name it, so the players all understood when it was being spoken about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windiescricketfan (talk • contribs) 14:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://zh-cn.connect.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=161599487224868&id=156768047695394 --Windiescricketfan (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. My suggestion is to wait till the term (butterfly, not projapati) becomes mainstream before starting off an article. Meanwhile, I am surprised to find that there is an article on Teesra - I thought it is considered more as fake than real. Tintin 08:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - per the above. Teesra is just like an orthodox backspinner, so I too doubt it exists! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy

AfDs related to this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid, closed as "keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender apartheid, closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (5th nomination), closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (6th nomination), closed as "speedy keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (7th nomination), closed procedurally in deference to the ArbCom investigation
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (8th nomination)...
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (Fourth nomination), closed as "keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (fifth nomination), closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (second nomination), closed as "speedy keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid (4th nomination), closed as "keep"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Israeli apartheid, closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid outside of South Africa - opened 5 Jun 2006, closed as "no consensus"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (second nomination) opened 29 Mar 2007, closed as "delete"
DRV 6 Apr 2007, closed as "overturn and relist"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (third nomination) opened 11 Apr 2007, closed as "keep"
ArbCom review opened 12 Aug 2007, closed 26 Oct
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fourth nomination) opened 19 Oct 2007, closed procedurally in deference to the ArbCom investigation
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination) opened 8 Jul 2008, closed as "delete"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid, closed as "delete"
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Saudi Arabia, open
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apartheid in Bahrain, open

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This article seems to have been created as an extension of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accusations of Arab Apartheid, listed in the "related afds" box to the right. It has many of the same flaws as that article (now deleted), in that it's both a coatrack and a synthesis of a small number of secondary sources. For this reason, the page should be deleted. CJCurrie (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article, like Social apartheid in Brazil and like Israel and the apartheid analogy consists of a term, apartheid created in South Africa and now applied to a situation of formal legal and informal social discrimination being applied by academic and media commentators to a situation in another country. I see little difference between the two situations, or, indeed, between the two articles beyond the number of sources, but this article even as it now stands has more than sufficient sources to meet WP:N.I.Casaubon (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Further comment I should provide some context for the benefit of editors who are unfamiliar with this situation. This article is the latest development in the "apartheid" debates, which have a fairly long history on Wikipedia. These debates are basically centred around the page Israel and the apartheid analogy, which was created (under a different name) in 2006. There were several attempts to delete this page during the first two years of its history; I believe that many of these efforts were politically motivated, at least on the part of some participants. This notwithstanding, the page remained on the project and a consensus eventually developed that the subject was/is encyclopedic.
- Let me be very clear on this point: when I say that Israel and the apartheid analogy deals with a subject of encyclopedic merit, I am neither endorsing the analogy nor suggesting that the reality or non-reality of "Israeli apartheid" should be the standard by which the page's suitability is judged. Rather, the page has encyclopedic merit because there has been an extensive public debate on the subject. There are numerous volumes of academic literature on the subject, former Israeli cabinet ministers such as Yossi Sarid have endorsed the analogy, and Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace not Apartheid brought the debate into a much wider sphere of discourse. Today, it's unlikely that any serious contributor to Wikipedia would dispute the suitability of a page on this topic, whatever issues they may have with its current form.
- The same cannot be said for the page under discussion. Again, I must emphasize this point: when I say that Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy is not a subject of encyclopedic merit, I am neither rejecting the analogy nor suggesting that the reality or non-reality of "Palestinian apartheid" should be the standard by the page's suitability is judged. In evaluating this page, the only important question is whether or not there has been a sustained public discourse on "the Palestinian authority and the apartheid analogy," at least some of which must emanate from scholarly sources. The answer, quite plainly, is that no such discourse exists. Instead, the page "Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy" is simply a hodgepodge of recent journalism (some of which doesn't even reference the analogy at all as regards the Palestinian Authority, some of which which makes only passing reference, and some of which is taken from extremist sources).
- If a significant public discourse about "the Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy" does emerge at some point in the future, this page could be recreated. For now, however, there can be no justification for keeping it on the project. CJCurrie (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clear example of WP:NeenerNeener over the Israel and the Apartheid Analogy article. Pointy original research. The difference between the systemic application of Israeli state power and the policies of therag-tag Palestinian authority seems obvious. This article is akin to something like Racism of American negro slaves attempting to be foisted to "make up" for an article on American slavery. Carrite (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the article is not actually about the apartheid analogy in any way, and the sources are truly laughable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reality. The reality is that a lot of responsible people including Khaled Abu Toameh, Victor Davis Hanson, David Bedein and Alan Dershowitz describe the manner in which the Palestinian Authority treats certain disfavored groups as apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 13:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poor sourcing, trivial mentions in blogs that are about as pointy about name-dropping the a-bomb as the article creator is. An editor who should be taken before WP:AE at this point. honestly. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there may well be discrimination, this article is pretty much entirely synthesis. To justify its inclusion, we'd need to have some reliable sources attesting to the topic being one of general notability, rather than just some people apparently using the word "apartheid" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article reads like a piece of propaganda. I see no easy fix without having to write literally the entire article all over again. Likeminas (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians have an obligation to apply the rules objectively' I am concerned that the standards, WP:N and WP:RS are being applied differently here than they are to Social apartheid in Brazil or to Israel and the apartheid analogy For example, Roscelese removed a paragraph from this article, but not from very simlilar articles on Brazil and Israel. To me, the five articles , Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Israel and Palestinian Authority share many similarities. I would like some of the editors voting to delete to explain why an article about Palestinian Authority and the apartheid analogy, where Ahmadi suffer formal, legal restrictions, is to be deleted, while the article about Brazil, where there is no legal inequality, was kept Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Brazilian apartheid.I.Casaubon (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin note - The above comment has been pasted to 3 AfDs, I have replied once here, to address this concern. Tarc (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like filling in your argument for you. What is your concern? Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psst...see that part of my post that's a different color, the one that says "here" ? Click it. Tarc (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right. Temporary blue colorblindness? However, I have since seen the argument and answered it on another page....No, I won't make you surf. It is easy enough to copy/paste. "WP:WEIGHT is only relevant to article content; the linked explication of how it relates to other rules is a serviceable argument for keeping the article. There is no rule at all about what balance there should be between articles." Anarchangel (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list of previous results has an awful lot of Keep votes on it. I venture to say that the result to Delete Accusations of Arab Apartheid looks a little shakier for it. I took the liberty of filling in missing information. Anarchangel (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another exercise in WP:POINT obviously aimed at the Israel and the apartheid analogy article. The difference is that this article is sourced entirely to op-eds. Clearly fails WP:V, WP:NOTE. Gatoclass (talk) 01:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Didn't we just go through this last week? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:COATRACK is an essay. For the sake of argument, it also has not been shown. What POV is being hung here? WP:SYNTHESIS has not been shown. What two arguments in sources are being combined to make one argument in the article? As usual (true, dat), this is a policy regarding article content, not article subjects. Please see WP:DELETION#REASON. Just once. It won't hurt, I promise. If you insist on not doing so, I can sum it up for you; Non-notability: RS, V, N; Redundancy: FORK; Disruption: (COPYVIO, SPAM, VANDAL). Nothing about PoV. That's because PoV can be written out of any piece of prose. Anarchangel (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll repeat my argument from the Arab apartheid AfD: Israel and the apartheid analogy is a very bad article. It's unreadable and inaccurate and very likely to stay that way. The topic, however, does have a reasonable claim to notability. There's no such notability here. GabrielF (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An amalgamation of quotes does not a notable subject make.--Babank (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as yet another obvious POVFORK and violation of WP:SYNTH. I.Casaubon, the article's creator, really ought to be sanctioned for persisting with this pointless waste of everyone's time. He knows perfectly well what the problem with these misconceived articles is, so there is no excuse for creating more of them. Prioryman (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- User:I.CasaubonI.Casaubon (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- User:I.CasaubonI.Casaubon (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is an off-wiki effort to canvass editors here. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that anyone involved in this afd or the underlying article is involved in the blog you link to? If not, you may want to modify your misleading comment. You cannot besmirch fellow editors with "canvassing" accusations because some dude decided to publish something on a blog. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask, BC, feel guilty? All Malik posted was a simple "here is a website that is soliciting votes" warning. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mix FM (Ottawa)

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

Procedural nomination; this is a bit of a tricky situation here, so I thought it best to bring it here to discuss how we handle the matter. The issue is that back in 2009, a teenager in Ottawa ran a pirate radio station for a few weeks before getting shut down. The incident received a flurry of press coverage at the time, so an article was written, although it did face some concerns as to whether editors were committing that classic fallacy of confusing news coverage with genuine and lasting notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CKLI-FM). Now, however, the kid is actually in criminal trial for some of his behaviour at the time — and under Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act, even media that covered the pirate radio story last year are no longer allowed to identify him by name and the articles we used as sources last year have mostly had to be taken offline.

Now, I know that strictly speaking Wikipedia isn't bound by the letter of Canadian law. However, we do have a principle of respecting local law whenever reasonably possible, WP:BLPNAME does allow us to redact names in cases where "public interest" doesn't clearly outweigh the privacy rights of a person who isn't really a public figure, we've lost most of our viable sources, simply taking his name out of the article but otherwise keeping the content about the station itself would require us to completely delete the old version and start over again from scratch without those dead sources, and now that over a year has passed since the original incident I have a much stronger feeling that it can never really be anything more than a WP:BLP1E. It's just a passing news story about a kid who did something a bit (or a lot) stupid, but never really had any documentable long-term impact on anything — and I'm not sure I see the value in keeping it for trivial posterity that doesn't really serve a genuinely encyclopedic purpose. Procedural nomination, no !vote. Bearcat (talk) 02:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the article cannot be written with in-depth details, then it cannot be maintained in Wikipedia, because it does not fit the principle of what it takes to be an encyclopedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a tough one; on one hand the station caused plenty of havoc when it was on the air, but on the other it was only on the air for two-three months and hasn't even been on the air except for intermittent UStreaming since then, and because of the age of the subject there has to be a respect of Canadian law in identifying the subject. However based solely on the time period of notability I'm more inclined to delete based on lack of lasting notability a year later rather than on the trial itself. Nate • (chatter) 04:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of law, we do not have to respect Canadian law on the matter of identification. Wikimedia projects are governed under US law (Florida, in fact), and we have the First Amendment. Notability is not temporary, if he was notable, then he remains notable, even if there exists a censorship law which has removed references available online, sources do not have to be online if they exist on microfilm somewhere in a newspaper archive. I can't pass judgement on the actual notability but I felt it important to point out. HominidMachinae (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not obligated to respect Canadian law, no; I acknowledged that right up front. But we do have a principle that we should respect non-US law if there isn't a compelling public interest to be served by flouting it — for instance, if the government of Japan were trying to censor what the media can report about Fukushima, there'd be a compelling reason to disregard their law: people could die if we didn't. But in this case, the most compelling reason to disregard Canadian law is "because we can" — and that's just not that compelling, because it isn't serving any public interest besides cheap voyeurism. And while it's true that notability isn't temporary, it's also true that when a news story is fresh and current we can be deceived into thinking it has more notability than it really does. So for some articles it is necessary to revisit them a year or two later to re-evaluate whether they're really as notable as we thought at the time. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E and NOTNEWS are the reasons I reserved judgement on the article itself, I see points both ways HominidMachinae (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be redone if need be without his name, however I think this is more than just a trivial article. There were legitimate concerns raised and also the history of radio stations is important. Alebowgm (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the latest court case, this subject has gone well beyond BLP1E/NOTNEWS and the story (and its notability) obviously isn't going away. The drawn-out nature of this situation has made this an unusual milestone in Canadian pirate radio, and speculation that the notability is going to disappear fails WP:CRYSTAL, As for the supposed loss of sources, current stories on the case can legally (in Canadian terms) reference much of the station history without specifically identifying the party involved; in any case, offline sources have traditionally not been considered a show-stopper per WP:SOURCEACCESS (WP:V). Also consider Wikipedia:General disclaimer#Jurisdiction and legality of content. Deletion is an excessive (non-)solution to a solvable problem here, though we may have to tread a bit carefully with the content. Dl2000 (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it appears to have non-temporary notability because of the rare strong enforcement of Canadian unlicensed radio law. (I am not an expert in Canadian radio law, so if this is actually more common than I make it sound like, feel free to mention it.) In spite of Canadan laws about minors, the number of sources here seems to meet WP:GNG to me; I don't know how many are blogs, but I see a several mainstream WP:RS: about 6 (1 not yet recovered in archives) Ottawa Citizen after disregarding duplicate refs to the same articles; 1 CBC News; 1 CTV News. For those that consider Quebecor Media a reliable source, we also have 1 "QMI" Agency via canoe.ca; 1 London Free Press; and 1 for the tabloid Ottawa Sun. If it turns out to be trivial in retrospect, it can be nominated again later. But one has to determine it now one way or the other based on what we already know. From what little I know of Canadian radio history, this seems to have already passed a threshold that will make it notable in future long-term coverage of Canadian radio, rather than depending on likely future events (i.e. WP:CRYSTAL) --Closeapple (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in addition to my keep vote above: If suppressing sources (that name the child) would cause the article to dip below WP:V threshold for notability, then the sources should be left in, at least to the extent necessary to meet the same Wikipedia guidelines the article would have met otherwise. The same goes for any other local speech laws that end up having a domino effect on applying Wikipedia guidelines. It is one thing to give courtesy deference to local privacy laws in an article about that place, when it doesn't endanger content's ability to meet Wikipedia guidelines; it is another, and quite unacceptable, to allow local laws to insert alterations in the application of Wikipedia policy (WP:Verifiability/WP:Reliable sources/WP:Notability) to its own content, and as a result, for example, effect the deletion of the subject itself from Wikipedia when it would not have happened otherwise. In short: Canadian law should not be allowed to push a Wikipedia article into failing WP:GNG or any other Wikipedia policy. --Closeapple (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Closeapple (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per user Dl2000 good reasoning.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. We already have all the sources, and if they can't be attained online, there's always Google, archive.org and microfilm. And considering the fact that Wikipedia is US-based on US servers, Canadian law should not overreach their borders. -- azumanga (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G10) by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Orick

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

Much of the info is BLP violating and a hoax. The only true thing is the existence of this person. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BLP violation and possible attack page. EricSerge (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete immediately, as a violation of our policies regarding biographies of living people. This is an attack page on a non-notable 19 year old by a single purpose account who should be blocked. Perhaps someone thinks that this is amusing but it's not. Cullen328 (talk) 03:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Union Pacific Train Robbery

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

Sounds like a hoax, no sources. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant hoax. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you explain THIS SOURCE? Pray tell... Carrite (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With all due respect to the other editors, this is not a hoax. A Google Books search under "Big Springs Robbery" produces much in-depth coverage. Searching under the article name produces false positives, as the Union Pacific was robbed more than once. Though legends have accumulated about these train robberies of the Old West, this one is notable. Weaknesses in the current article should be addressed through the normal editing process, rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An abundance of reliable sources can be obtained with a Google Books search with "Big Springs" in quotes, as well as the following search terms outside of quotes: train robbery 1877. Cullen328 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but I suggest renaming it to something more in keeping with contemporty reports.--Dmol (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shoulda stopped at "no sources" without the ugly accusation of someone else of perpetrating a hoax. Fortunately, sources were added after the nomination. There are more. [81] [82] and [83] and [84]. Usually, it's a good idea to make sure before someone else of perpetrating a hoax or writing "blatant hoax". We have our share of hoaxes around here, to be sure, but the nominators can usually back it up with more than "sounds like a hoax". Mandsford 23:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Noteworthy historical event. Clearly not a hoax per the sources cited above. This is a rather unfortunate display of Biting the Newcomers. It's little wonder why new editors are so hard to come by. A good-faith first effort, tag for Wikification and style. Keep, improve. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After this AfD closes, presumably as a keep, article title needs to be changed for greater specificity: Union Pacific robbery of 1877 or some such... Carrite (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or Union Pacific Big Springs robbery, since reliable sources of the time do call it the Big Springs Robbery. --NellieBly (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as obvious notable event with multiple good sources. Even a highly unlikely story can be true, but there's nothing highly unlikely about a train robbery in 19th century America. There are more things in heaven and earth, fellow editors, than are dreamt of in any of our philosophies. --NellieBly (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per NellieBly.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 03:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatoş Tanzer

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

Blatant self-promotion. No real evidence of notability. No good references. Mention of many articles written still does not seem to provide notability. Speedy deletion request was removed by original contributor against policy. Dmol (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:SELF, WP:PROMOTION and WP:NOTBLOG, this article fails things that should be avoided in an article and also does not meet enough notability to sustain its maintenance. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any significant coverage to establish the notability of Ms. Tanzer. Deyyaz ^{[ Talk | Contribs ]} 02:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's begin by assuming good faith of the original author here, please. We have a woman who has been a physician and scientist in Turkey for nearly 45 years - I think that she is well past the point where she needs to engage in "blatant self-promotion". WP:SELF does not apply at all to this article, as that discusses how we should refer to Wikipedia on Wikipedia. As for WP:NOTBLOG, this article has no resemblance whatsoever to a blog. A Google Scholar search shows that she is the author or co-author of many scientific papers. I will leave it to others better qualified than I to determine whether she meets WP:ACADEMIC, as I am not an academic myself. We may well conclude that she does not meet our notability standards, but let's not treat this eminent woman with disrespect. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A little checking actually shows that this is indeed most likely a vanity page. It was created by the single-purpose account "Proffatos" (likely Professor Fatos), whose entire edit history shows exclusive service of this article. It's a mistake to assume someone is above self-promotion just because they have some accomplishments and have been active in their field for many years. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Delete. WoS query "Author=(tanzer f*) Refined by: Institutions=(CUMHURIYET UNIV OR HACETTEPE UNIV) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" does show 30 papers, but the citations are 60, 7, 7, 7, 6, 5 for an h-index of 5. This is quite short of our usual pass criteria for WP:PROF #1. Probably could have said week keep if she were to have been the corresponding author on that first paper, but the WoS data show that she is not the corresponder on that one, nor on many of the other publications. Given that there are no biographical sources, article should be stripped to a stub if kept because it's currently almost all WP:OR. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. GS gives cites of 65, 16, 10, 4, much the same as WoS. Not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Staples

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

Potentially non-notable minor league baseball player and manager. Just what does a minor league manager need to do to merit an article? This one led his teams to three straight league championship victories. However, as a whole he didn't manage that many games. As a player, he hit only .264. What do you think? Should Ken Staples stay or go? Alex (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But only if relevant third-party sources can be found and added. Google News archive has quite a few hits on him, especially in the 50's and the 90's (including the New York Times), but because the entirety of said articles were pay-per-view I have not added them to the article. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep .. he was fairly successful as a manager and sources are probably out there. Spanneraol (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing that would qualify as notable. There were mentions of him on Google news [85] and [86], but nothing that would add to notability. Worth a prominent mention in St. Cloud Rox, the Class A team that he managed, but that's about it. Mandsford 14:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, a redirect to the section of the team article discussing him would seem appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Canuso

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

No evidence of notability. The only sources cited are Canuso's own web site and IMDb. Likewise web searches have failed to produce significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral actor with mostly really minor roles ("Italian Waiter", "Barman at Spa Hotel", etc) but there is one recurring role on a TV series that IMDB counts as 25 episodes. That's more than nothing to be sure, but we can't keep a BLP without reliable sources, and the article has a lot of trivia as well. Count this as a delete if no sources show up by end of the AFD period and a keep if sources are found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely some minor film roles, but some are named characters.[87] His TV work includes more named roles, and his work as Mateo in 25 episodes of Benidorm (TV series) has a bit of coverage from 2005 to the present.[88] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5 minutes of searching GNews throws up a few reasonable, if weak, sources which I have now added. His Benidorm role was a major character in a top UK comedy series, it would seem intuitive that there is every likelihood of improvement to sources in the future and in these situations there is no particular reason to limit such improvement to 7 days of AfD rather than using the more welcoming standard improvement notices. Fæ (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know what Fæ means by reasonable, if weak, sources, but all I can see is weak sources. Nothing in them shows notability. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been on several major UK TV programmes, appeared in several films. He has also had lots of media attention in the UK and appearing on Chat shows doing interviews ect. He is notable. IJA (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was going to say "weak keep", as he seems to have been in a few roles worthy of note, although as it stands this article reads quite badly, as if it was written by a fan or somebody connected to him. Having said that, if he has fans, then presumably he's sortof worthy of inclusion? Don't mind either way, really. That's probably not very helpful for the closing admin - sorry. Bob talk 00:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting "if he has fans, then presumably he's sortof worthy of inclusion" would be a dramatic change in Wikipedia's standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that comment wasn't really meant to be taken very seriously, although I'd always understood that the general notability criteria for actors was that if they'd had several named roles (as opposed to "man walking dog") or been in a regular part in a production then they are worthy for inclusion. This actor has had a regular part in a popular television series plus other named roles, so meets the criteria for inclusion. Bob talk 15:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 21:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Letlive

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

Non-notable band. Although signed to Epitaph Records, they have not yet released their first album through that label, and currently only have plans to re-release an album release earlier on Tragic Hero Records. No citations can be found indicating that they have received any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:UPANDCOMING, and WP:GNG. It may be too early to have an article on this band. While their new CD has a name, there is no reliable source clarifying the songs or tracks that made the cut with the new studio. I'm not sure if they have made a national tour, or have made multiple recordings. We can't have an article on every up-and-coming band. If someone could find two or more good sources, then that would prove general notability. Get back to me if you find anything. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found this site that has a track listing and tour dates in UK. Is that enough? Bearian (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - two more sources (both on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT): Sputnik staff album review (Fake History 4.5/5)[89] & Rock Sound magazine (UK) group feature story ("Letlive are the most exciting band in the world").[90] -Ojorojo (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Album's just been re-released on Epitaph with bonus tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.139.78 (talk) 23:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While they may be "un-notable" in some places, the band has had significant coverage in UK media, especially in Metal Hammer Magazine [91]. Also, if you listen to Metal Hammer's Podcast on iTunes, you can hear a lot of discussion about the band. Them being on Epitaph shows how significant they are, and should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.220.14 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BAND requires that a band not only be signed to a major label, but that they have released 2 or more albums on a major label (not necessarily the same major label). The re-release of this band's first album on a second label doesn't really count as having released 2 or more albums, regardless of whether Epitaph Records is considered major or not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:BAND lists 12 criteria, any one of which may establish notability. While the band may not meet #5 (two or more albums on a major label), they meet #1 (multiple reliable sources) and #4 (coverage of international tour) (all sources on WP:ALBUM/REVSIT): Rock Sound[92][93][94], Sputnikmusic [95], Alternative Press [96], Allmusic [97][98]. -Ojorojo (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~None of those are reliable sources.~~ Bearian (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I'd have to disagree with Bearian on that. As Ojorojo has pointed out, all of the sources are listed on WP:WikiProject Album as reliable sources, at least as far as critical reception is concerned. The criterion this particular Wikiproject uses is that of professionalism: the cited sites are all staffed by at least semi-professional journalists and all have an editorial staff. In the music business these days, online journalism is likely to be more relevant than print journalism. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, O.K. Change to keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill4Time

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

Non-notable company. Reliability of most cited sources doesn't look convincing and some pages have only passing mentions of the company. KFP (contact | edits) 00:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another web-based time tracking and billing software. References are to lists of similar products, letting you know how crowded the field is. -50 notability points for those words which no one must speak aloud. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page has been edited to include more reliable sources: one from the American Bar Association [99], and another from LexisNexis [100]. --Marjoian (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have a subject-specific consensus on software packages. So I looked at the sources to see if the software has been noticed beyond routine indiscriminate kinds of attention that any software gets (WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE), or whether there has been significant WP:GNG coverage not excluded by the notability guideline. There are 7 cites to review in the article:

Lexisnexis - user asks columnist to write about billing software, columnist writes and gives mention to 3 packages described as "A few of the more well known online billing products". Not really showing any significant attention beyond routine for niche software. [101]
American Bar - a comparison table of features, not an article. Very likely indiscriminate, as such bodies when listing possible software for member comparison tend to avoid showing a prteference, the norm is to list all software and let the reader take it from there. [102]
15 online billing tools - indiscriminate coverage of software in field. [103]
App database - indiscriminate site, covers/reviews most/all apps. [104]
Oregon state bar - similar to Lexisnexis and American Bar - article on legal software, which lists a section "What’s Available for Lawyers", no real evidence of notice beyond "one of several listed legal softwares". [105]
Computer Shopper - unreliable source for product reviews/notice. [106]
Mac Apps - another apps listing site with "sampling of some of the apps available online". Indiscriminate again. [107]

The problem with almost all of these is that when you look carefully, there is no evidence of significant notice and coverage in the sense we mean it. For example, the attention given in editorials is "one of many". By way of example, there are no awards, no "top <N> packages", no real evidence of significant notice (much less notice focusing on the topic itself), really nothing at all to show that it is noticed beyond routine coverage as "one of the packages available for people who want to do online legal billing". 3 of them are in effect software sales sites (1 unreliable), 3 are "list of some software available" posts, and 1 is an indiscriminate comparison table of features. Also bear in mind WP:SPIP. It would get a mention in List of legal software but so far I'm not seeing evidence of actual notice beyond that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep.~~ The fact that Bill4Time is included with other similar software refects the unbiased angle of the writer. It is true that "15 Online Billing Tools"[108] and "Computer Shopper"[109] are not reliable enough sources (and those should be removed), but the fact that it's listed and explained in ABA,[110] LexisNexis,[111] the Oregon State Bar[112] and the WebCPA [113] should argue for it's notablility. It is more than mentioned in passing or in a simple list, but rather explained and reviewed. The disclaimer mentioned in these articles wherein the author only showcases *some* software companies, gives acknowledgement of the current growth rate of technology development. None of them claim to provide a comprehensive list because the list is never updated once it is published. Marjoian (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction for the sake of clarity in reference to "the list is never updated once it is published." Some lists, such as the one from the ABA, is indeed updated periodically, but it also states the time of its last revision to also acknowledge the existing growth of technology development. Marjoian (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2 views stated by same user - struck out the "keep" part. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leaning to inclusion in this case. The software company seems to have a modest, yet significant impact on the cloud/web based software world. It is part of a new group of software products whose notability guidelines should be viewed through a more forgiving lens. I vote to give the article more time to reinforce notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjonish (talk • contribs) 07:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Bjonish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of our inclusion criterion is that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". Far from being "new", online time billing software (remote accessible or otherwise) is a mature market that has been round many years and this specific product has been round at least 5 (the cite you added is from 2008, the company and product has existed since 2006 [114] and there are hints on Google that the product existed before then [115]). Whether new or not, if the needed coverage does not exist for an article like this, then we don't keep the article on the (uncertain) hope that it does in future.

Also worth considering, if it has had a "significant impact" (modest or otherwise) in the market or the world, then this is demonstrated by independent significant coverage, but evidence (so far as any exists) is extremely weak. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per FT2's excellent analysis. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tenrehte Technologies, Inc.

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

Recently-founded company with no evidence of notability. Powers ^T 01:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although recently founded, this company does have a number of notable achievements and this article will be expanded to include these items as time permits. And while many are listed in press releases from the company, a simple Google search notes these company accomplishments. I apologize to LtPowers since I my attempts to include this company in the Rochester, New York article appear to have upset this editor.

That said, based on this companies achievements to date, I believe this company is historically more important than other companies in Rochester New York that already have active articles. Mrbutchdog —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'd be happy to keep this article if you can find any sources that satisfy our notability standards. Powers ^T 12:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my reading of the WP:NCORP, the references currently added for the company meet these standards as "Notable". As time permits, I will add more as necessary. In addition, I believe these references cite events that are more notable than the references noted in one of your Rochester, New York article "companies" Rohrbach Brewing Company BTW, I am a frequent customer of Rohrbachs and truly enjoy their establishments. I'm only sharing this as an example for standards comparison. Please let me know what you think. Butch (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources make a decent case that PicoWatt might be a notable product — note that the articles are generally about the product, not about the company. I'd really like to see some sources that talk about the founding of the company and its (admittedly brief) history; it's that sort of thing that indicates notability. Powers ^T 22:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't totally agree with your reference review - I found some of the articles to include short video's where-in the company, its (admittedly brief) history, and it's plans are discussed. That said, the articles that originally caught my attention as "notable" did discuss this company; unfortunately they were in news print and I will make an effort to see if I can find copies on line. Butch (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~: Does reliable coverage of a product that hasn't been sold yet fit notability standards? I'm on the fence but swaying towards keep. ccwaters (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not yet own one of their products, however as noted in one of the references, the company has built and sold units in small quantities to select partners. Butch (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmm... why is the listed address of the company in a residential neighbourhood? ccwaters (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  
  As noted in some of the references, this is a start-up company - employees work out of their homes and all manufacturing is outsourced to contract manufacturers. Butch (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tenrehte recognizes that maintaining a healthy, vibrant environment is vital for sustainable growth supporting future generations. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, this sentence will be removed. Butch (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I have redirected the album articles as there is no indication that they meet WP:NALBUMS and the track-lists they contain are already in the band article. JohnCD (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbs' Angel of Death

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hobbs' Angel of Death

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

fails WP:BAND. 3 gnews hits [116]. also nominating all album articles for this band as they fail WP:NALBUMS:

LibStar (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the band page. Has an entry in McFarlane, Ian (1999). Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop. Allen & Unwin. ISBN 1-86448-768-2. If the band article remains just redirect the album articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep band's article per duffbeerforme. Move any relevant album info to that article before redirect of the albums' articles. Band also has an Allmusic entry here and, with McFarlane entry (archived online here), makes it notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per reference provided above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of the Turkey – Kurdistan Workers' Party conflict

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

This appears to me to be a WP:POVFORK of Kurdistan Workers' Party. It contains a lot of POV material, clear OR, highly questionable and mostly unsourced claims, and the primary article already exists. Given how POV it is, I'm hesitant to recommend that any of it be merged; the other article appears to contain sufficient information. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear WP:POVFORK and blatant original research. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even discounting socks, consensus is that this does not meet notability guidelines. JohnCD (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Portoghese

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

This person does not appear to meet the notability guidelines at WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Coverage in the article so far is a mixture of primary sources, a trival mention at MSN and a link to a list of awards that does not mention the subject. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see, or find, "Significant coverage in independent reliable sources" Chzz ► 14:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Press material / awards subject added.— Filmcanada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The individual in question exists but is Non-notable. Google hits do not yield any significance Johnclean184 (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Agree with Chzz ► — Filmcanada (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Filmcanada was obviously created for the purposes of 'promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy.' TangSing (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Donkor

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

Article created by vandal Zombie433, so his club career could be fictitious. Lack of confirmation that he appeared in fully-professional league. Oleola (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I clicked on the Google news link above and found several articles about him. Since I admit no knowledge of the football world, others will have to assess whether he is fully professional. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Ghana Premier League is fully professional according to this list, but one of the references is wrong. If it can't be proved in a reliable source that he played in the league then the article should be deleted. We can't assume that he made a league appearance for Kessben. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. We have one source which confirms he moved from Kessben to CAPS United, but nothing to prove he actually played in a FPL. Giant Snowman 17:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless it can be verified that he actually played in Ghana, he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is not enough coverage to keep this article under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Gledhill

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Shire Reeve (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Shire Reeve (talk) 14:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appear to be a good number of sources out there on this individual. Before passing judgment, can anyone show notability? HeartSWild (talk) 14:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not yet meet the required level of notability as set out in WP:BIO, WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Other than this article from the Mormon Times I can't find significant coverage from independent sources. She has won several Pearl Awards, but I can't tell if that's notable outside of BYU. She seems to almost pass notability criteria, but I can't find enough to quite tip the scales. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BigDom (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dartmouth College student groups

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable directory listing, this is simply a listing a groups not notable enough to have their own pages. Has grown even more bloated since the first no consensus AFD. Tagged for notability for 3 years. Hairhorn (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What makes this any less notable than the List of Yale University student organizations. I believe that each of these groups may not be notable on their own; however, as a whole I believe they have notability.Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this could possibly be broken down and turned in to a list of Dartmouth student organizations. Some of the more notable organizations could receive a short phrase describing the organization.Ryan Vesey (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced the Yale list should be there either, per Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. And as far as I can tell, "cumulative notability" isn't recognized around here. Hairhorn (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - needs independent sources to show some sort of external notability of the Darthmouth student organizations as a whole. Otherwise it's a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Either way, needs cleanup of external links. Same applies to List of Yale University student organizations.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Substantial content, needs sourcing. Packing minor groups this way strikes me as an effective way to provide useful information about organizations of marginal independent notability. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to point out before, a lot of non-notable entities don't "add up" to make one notable one. Hairhorn (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if this were called a "List"? In any event, there are in-links for 6 Wikipedia articles here, it's not like everything is trivial. This is an article of substance and a highly useful subpage of Dartmouth College. Carrite (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Such compilation pages are a useful breakout from the main article and provide a sensible home for societies that, individually, would not be notable. Sure it needs way better sourcing but that is an editorial matter. What is of more concern to me are the pages on individual societies that don't demonstrate notability: Dartmouth College Marching Band, Dartmouth Outing Club, Sphinx (senior society) etc Bring those here and, in their present state, I would support their deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful compilation.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might seem odd, but being "useful" has never been enough to make it into an encyclopedia. Hairhorn (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close Discussion as either keep or no consensus. It is clear that there are fairly unanimous keeps other than one "weak delete" from an IP address. Other than that, the only person pushing for delete is Hairhorn. I also am beginning to wonder what his/her reasonings for desiring this page to be deleted are. The page has 1434 views in the past 30 days; this is clearly enough to show that there is great interest in the page as well. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about me. Feel free to check my edit history if you have any doubts about my motivation. Also, "lots of traffic" isn't in itself reason to keep a page, nor is open debate "pushing" deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 02:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.L.C primary logic controller

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

I think this is supposed to be related to Programmable logic controller. It might be deletable as duplicating an existing topic, but I thought it better to AfD rather than speedy because it would give the creator an opportunity to clarify and move the page to a better name. -- Selket ^Talk 18:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef, and the title isn't even a viable redirect, further it is mispelt (P.L.C. is missing the final period) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Van Son

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

Unsourced biography of a living person, very likely autobiography by Billyjones12 (talk · contribs). I don't see notability per WP:CREATIVE. bender235 (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would advise the nominator to start assuming good faith and stop making unfounded assumptions about who the author of an article may be. If you won't take my advice then take our beloved co-founder's. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could've written "Billyjones12 is a single-purpose account who might be in a conflict of interest", but actually I prefer to call a spade a spade. --bender235 (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just comment on the article rather than itsw author? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did both. --bender235 (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually am not the person that I am writing about. He is actually very known travel blogger and writer in the travel industry. He gets quite a bit of traffic on his site and even writes for well respected sites like Britannica. You can look up Gary Arndt for example which is another travel blogger on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjones12 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable in the slightest. Not referenced. Bjmullan (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to establish how this person is notable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing coverage necessary to reach the general notability guideline. The Britannica blog thing sounds pretty nice, and it's verifiable, but it doesn't appear to have enough eyeballs to have generated reliable secondary coverage. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fen (band)

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

non notable unsigned band WuhWuzDat 16:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm suprised - Fen are getting great reviews in the UK metal music press (both Terrorizer and Metal Hammer magazines), and their CDs are available on the CODE666 record label (so in record stores/online stores) so I thought that this met the guidelines?

If it helps I've just added some links to their releases, and linked a couple of wikipedia pages that mentioned them. Hope this helps!

Weak keep. I reckon this is pretty borderline. I am unfamiliar with many of the websites on which reviews have been posted so I cannot be sure of their reliability, but coverage in Metal Hammer and Terrorizer, probably the two biggest metal magazines in the UK, is a good sign. I do not know how extensive this coverage is so I will not go above a weak keep. On a completely irrelevant note I had a listen to their music and they're actually pretty good! Article could do with some formatting and stylistic alterations though. Postrock1 (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with the new links. –SJ + 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for reconsidering! To give you an idea of the level of coverage, Metal Hammer for March 2011 had a whole page feature (page 110) with the strapline "Expansive Brits redefine the black metal landscape". The album review of Epoch was in the February 2011 issue page 119 where it had 2/5 of the page. The April 2011 edition of Metal Hammer reviewed their split release with De Arma giving it 8/10 (page 120). Hope that helps. Willzuk (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have just added links to the record labels to the page as well - and added the record label Nordvis on which they have a split release Willzuk (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I go through the criteria on the page WP: Band - and it says that a band may be notable if it meets one of the criteria - i've listed three in hope that this helps!
Criteria 1: (subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself). - They have been featured in Metal Hammer and Terrorizer - there have been interviews/album reviews/live reviews - some of the issue numbers are listed on the page. In the UK these are the big magazines for metal, they were covered in those magazines last year and this year have made regular appearances (at least something in most issues)! (they've probably been in other music magazines but I only read these two - there are loads of reviews online and I linked some to the page)
Criteria 4: Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. They've played shows with other notable bands on tours and festivals that have been covered in Terrorizer. Such shows are mentioned on the page
Criteria 5: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. They have two albums out under Code666 - a label that if you look at the list of bands has other bands featured on Wikipedia such as Negura Bunget and Aghora & The Prophecy.

I hope that helps - the ease at which you can buy there CDs in the stores (HMV, Fopp - the big music stores in the UK) or online from almost any retailer I hope counts in their favour? Willzuk (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Info Further press coverage in the April 2011 Terrorizer magazine just out - large picture of the band (page 49) as part of the "Post Black Metal Report" - also featured large 7 paragraphs on the band, which is in part an interview with The Watcher. A Waning Solace (from Epoch) features in the "10 Essential Anthems" listed as part of the report. Terrorizer magazine is widely availble in UK newsagents and in this issue Fen are on pages 49 and 50. This shows that they are getting regular coverage in the established UK music press. Hope this helps! Willzuk (talk) 16:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added to the page another reference for appearance (review) in Terrorizer magazine (Feb 2011) showing that they are regularly appearing in widely available published works. Willzuk (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Loads of reviews are now linked to in the article to prove notability here - the list is becoming about as long as the article itself, and I think they should be trimmed. Metal Hammer and Terrorizer reviews are good enough for me; recommend keeping and accordingly removing links to some of the less notable reviews. Kansan (talk) 01:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had a glance at Terrorizer and there is indeed more coverage as indicated above by Willzuk. I therefore revise my vote from weak keep to keep, this band now safely passes our general notability guidelines. doomgaze (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuneyoshi Yamano

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

He is an amateur radio operator. Set a Guinness record for furthest radio signal contact in 1984. Been in leadership positions in amateur radio associations in Japan. In the Category:Amateur radio people, a random sample of 20 people found astronauts, noble prize winners, actors, business people but none with just amateur radio as their nobility. Bgwhite (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As far as amateur radio operators go, I think he's got a good claim of notability. Satisfies WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Weak Keep ~~/ hmm...~~ ~~(Changed my mind; if sources for these claims cannot be found by closing of this AfD, count my vote as Delete)~~(Kusunose found new sources; changed my mind again). Is it inconsistent to have a Category:Amateur radio people with 96 people in it, and then not have articles on the most notable people in amateur radio (hereafter known as Hams, from Ham radio)? Or are people who are in only amateur radio only notable because of their secondary life activity, the category is only there for amusement, and we should have no articles about Hams at all, other than Amateur radio operator? The nomination is already missing the first part of the logical equation. If, WP policy is to be, as I believe it should be, the former, then the nomination's only pro-deletion rationale (amongst two good rationales for Keeping) is also invalid. I note that there are 96 articles in Category:Amateur radio people.

I did not expect to find articles that broke Bgwhite's mould of 'Hams notable for something else', but I persevered, and a search for "god of ham radio" on Google led to Hiram Percy Maxim, whose WP article leads with, "co-founder of the American Radio Relay League" Now you may recognize the name Maxim as being the same as the Maxim in Maxim gun and you'd be partly right; the inventor of that device was Hiram's father. So it is no surprise to hear that Hiram's other invention, a modification to the infamous weapon, became known as the Maxim Silencer (notice that it has no article) and Hiram became known as its inventor, well, I'd venture, mostly because of being easily linked via his famous father's name to the invention of the first self-powered machine gun. Anarchangel (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Sounds like you know about HAM radio. What exactly had Mr. Yamano done in HAM radio that makes him notable? It sounds like your argument is that HAM operator should be notable on their own terms, thus Mr. Yamano should have an article. I'm sure there are notable HAM people. But, what has he done as a HAM operator that makes him notable?

The "WINDS" web site lists nothing about him. Can't find that he has been granted the patent. Articles have been deleted for only having a Guinness record. Bgwhite (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for a moment while I get the words you put in my mouth out, and I will take your questions in order:

I don't. "he contributed much to the amateur radio’s developments"; ("much" and "the" should be removed and "developments" should be made singular, but otherwise I agree with that statement). My argument is that unless one assumes that Ham radio operators are not notable, he should not be excluded from consideration, as the nominator has done. I am glad you agree with me on that point. Specifically, his place in the leadership of Ham associations, and his co-invention of wireless hardware.

I don't take the Guinness record very seriously, but it does go to notability.

I admit to being very disappointed with sourcing for the claims, though. I even found the English version of the MacWorld 2002 event page, and it does not mention him. http://www.idg.co.jp/expo/mw/en/index.html . Also could find nothing at all about the Institute for Satellite Communication, except for in Austria, when the article places it in Vanuatu. If sources for these claims cannot be found by closing of this AfD, count my vote as Delete.Anarchangel (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the new work done on sourcing by Kusunose, below. Anarchangel (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his WR does not seem notable at all, and besides that he has nothing that may be considered actually notable. An amateur radio operator cannot possibly be notable. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated the link to Japanese Patent Office in the article and verified he is named as one of ten inventors for the patent. And while the English version of the MacWorld 2002 event page does not mention him, the referenced Japanese page does. I have also updated "WINDS" link that lists a company named Yamano (presumably related to him) as a joint experiment conductor for the Vanuatu experiment. --Kusunose 15:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I withdraw my conditional vote. I am quite happy to leave the Guiness record out (no one seems to have liked it much anyway) and include this article on the strength of the other achievements alone. I would hope that this would be the furthest extent of the borderline for articles on Ham radio operators, though. Anarchangel (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Well-enough verified, marginal inherent notability. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect, however you will have to ask me or another admin to do it as I am salting this title due to this being the third time this has been deleted. Content may be userfied upon request if anyone wishes to do a merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute for the Development of Enhanced Perceptual Awareness

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

Updater25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Film company. Fails GNG because of little secondary coverage (even if there's plenty of self-promotion going on). Christopher Connor (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I found several good news articles online about them with a few clicks of my mouse. I didn't check on how deep the coverage was, but it appears to be newsworthy anyway. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Click the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD. It gets results. This one seems notable. [117] Dream Focus 15:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that appears to be a press release from the organisation itself (there are a lot of those). Christopher Connor (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (to Michael Bay). News WP:GOOGLEHITS appear to amount to no more than PR releases and/or mere mentions. Both sources cited in the article appear to consider the topic as a mere appendage to Michael Bay (mentioning it merely as "Michael Bay's The Institute"/"Michael Bay's commercial production house The Institute"). No indication that it meets WP:ORG. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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