Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 31

< 30 January	1 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geography of the BattleTech universe

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

Non-notable, detailed in-universe material. Only sources cited are from the original game source material itself. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion or evidence of real-world notability. No encyclopedic content worth merging. --EEMIV (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a plot-only description of a fictional work, it has no references independent of the subject from reliable third-party sources, it does not meet the general notability guideline or the criteria of appropriate topics for lists and it's an unneeded content fork. Jfgslo (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Instead of a delete, why not just put a redirect to BattleTech? That way its easier for someone to transwiki the information elsewhere, should anyone decide to adopt the long abandoned Battetech.wikia.com or port it over to a different wiki. Dream Focus 10:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have transwikied this article, and its full history, to http://battletech.wikia.com/wiki/Geography_of_the_BattleTech_universe where anyone interested can continue editing it. Dream Focus 18:58, 3 February 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, tending towards keep. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states by Gini coefficient of income inequality

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

Delete. Theoretically interesting, but otherwise useless list of Gini coefficients of states. Only .1 separates most socialist state from most capitalist (?) state. They aren't the states you'd expect. DC is worst. Alaska and Wyoming are among the "best." But so what? This stand-alone list is of no obvious use to anyone. Nor does it claim to be!It is well-meaning, I suppose, but to what intent? Wikipedia is WP:NOT#STATS. Student7 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a person interested in economics. It certainly isn't raw economic data as the person above states for deletion. It meets every criteria for a list. Also note that the nominator is also voting for deletion, a double dip, just like the economy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the two users above: (1) Please refrain from striking through the comments of other users [1]. (2) If you are a nominator of an article, the proper form is to say "Delete, as nominator" so as to avoid confusion. At first glance, it appeared that the nom was withdrawing the nomination, which is not the case. Mandsford 14:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate or you can !vote, but you can't double dip. And I don't have the right to delete the !vote, so we have a strikethough for the double dipping. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must really stop censoring other editors remarks. I am not censoring yours. You imagine this is a "vote." It is not. Please read the germane policy. The first word merely summarizes what is in the remainder of the sentence. And this is not "two users." This is one editor that is doing this. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge into Gini coefficient. This is a table, not an article, and I can't imagine becoming even a stub anytime soon. If this were the subject of treatises and other secondary sources, I'd favor inclusion as a separate article. But as it is, while interesting, does not make an article. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an article, it is a list. We don't as a rule merge data into large articles, we break it out into a standalone list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Consider Rename to List of U.S. states by Gini coefficient The list tracks an encyclopedic topic backed by appropriate sources and a search of "Gini coefficient United States" in Google News Archive turns up hundreds of references that could be used to expand the article further. The parent article covers the subject on a global basis and would be less appropriate to include subnational data in that article. The title for this list should be renamed to correspond to the title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But the article fails to expand it. It is merely a list. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not polemical and relates to an established concept of economic science. Merger to Gini coefficient, suggested above, is a highly unsatisfactory outcome — extremely America-centric. Carrite (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Merging might be inappropriate seeing that the state figures are so similar anyway. The national figure should suffice. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a properly sourced list of interesting data. −Woodstone (talk) 07:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Interesting how? It has no WP:RELY commentary to place that into perspective.
Keep Gini coefficient is a standard measure of income inequality; the nomination seems to be challenging whether it is meaningful to compare the states at all. If it is meaningful to compare countries then it is meaningful to compare states, provinces, counties, metropolitan areas, or whatever. The article could be improved by providing standard errors. --Mathstat (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs)10:29 pm, 2 February 2011, last Wednesday (3 days ago) (UTC−8)
Delete It's interesting is not a valid criteria for keeping. Passes WP:LISTCRUFT. ArcAngel (talk) ) 03:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually very few of the 11 points listed in WP:LISTCRUFT#meaning apply to this list. −Woodstone (talk) 09:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the linked page: "If a Wikipedia editor refers to a list as listcruft, it indicates that the editor believes one or more of the following" (emphasis mine) --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 01:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK let me rephrase: only a few (if any) might possibly be construed to apply. So the point for removal is weak. −Woodstone (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1. WP:LISTCRUFT is not policy. 2. Notwithstanding that, WP:LISTCRUFT provides criteria for what is not cruft: that "list of X" is valid if X is also valid, i.e. exists as an article. Both U.S. state and Gini coefficient (and income disparity for that matter) exist. 3. List of countries by income equality exists and is likewise valid. So are lists of U.S. states by other criteria e.g. List of U.S. states by population density. 4. While "Gini coefficient of income equality" is redundant and perhaps limiting, bad naming is not grounds for deletion. 5. I am not a Cyberman. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:00, 7 February 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) 00:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sedita's Guide to Making It in Hollywood: 3 Steps to Success, 3 Steps to Failure

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

WP:PROMO, fails WP:Notability (books) - references and quotes provided are largely about book's author rather than about the book, and author is not notable enough as an author that his notability is automatically inherited by all works. Nat Gertler (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely fails WP:N. tedder (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the mass of references splashed about, the only one that represents independent coverage in a reliable source is the TV Guide interview. I can find no other sources writing about this book. This is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Plus, the entire article is spamalicious. -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 2 February 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) 11:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Paddy the Pelican

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

Non-notable cartoon TV show E. Fokker (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be notable for being such a bad cartoon. It was released on DVD as part of a collection called "Worst Cartoons Ever." Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about this cartoon series to establish notability. Inclusion in a DVD compilation by itself is insufficient to establish this as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found some interesting links:
- [2] - Video of movie
- [3] & [4] - IMDB listings (not much there)
- [5] - DVD index
- [6] & [7] - reviews
- [8] & [9] - reviews from a blacklisted site? (came up when I tried to add to talk page). I broke the links by replacing suite101 with zzz.

Now, reviewing all of these links doesn't show you much. I am not saying that it should. However, we are talking about a film series that pre-dates the internet by 40 years. That these films are still being discussed today tells you something. Wikipedia:Notability_(films) clearly states "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:", of which it meets "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release." and "The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." Give the age of this film, I was surprised to find as much as I did online. Before people start bashing me for WP:RS, the policy states blogs should not used for living persons because they are considered opinions. Reviews are opinions, and you are not going to find professional reviewers online reviewing a film from 60 years ago without going to hard copy. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 2 February 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) 00:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Rakitić

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

Procedural AfD. Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he has not competed in a professional league match. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A page in continous production ConorODhr (talk) 22:066, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete - per nom. He clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - certainly fails notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as fails WP:NFOOTBALLPaste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plays for a club having only seven (red-linked bar this one) players listed in their Wikipedia article and a 500 capacity ground. His first club, by the way, has nothing to do with THE Juventus (who are an Italian club, not Swiss) except for the look of the home strip. Having a brother who is notable is irrelevant. Having said this, I congratulate him on his recovery and wish him well in his career. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 5 February 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 under speedy deletion criteria A7. l'aquatique[talk] 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clement Esebamen

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:Politician. Article created from promotional purposes as subject is a candidate in the 2011 Irish general election, however said candidacy does not make him notable. Probable self authored vanity piece. Snappy (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging db-promo: may or may not be notable, but needs fundamental rewrite. EEng (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 - not one whiff of a claim of significance. Thparkth (talk) 01:18, 1 February 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) 00:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ChinesePython

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

No evidence of notability. Project seems to be dead so future coverage is unlikely. T. Canens (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage. Christopher Monsanto (talk) 01:32, 5 February 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) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Objekat 101

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

One source was a dead link. I tried multiple spellings but there isn't anything citable. Marcus Qwertyus 21:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Blatant hoax. Bosnia? Really? "Black Eagle" links are to a Russian MBT prototype. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My experience has shown that admins will usually not delete articles like these unless there is a really absurdly blatant reason to delete. Marcus Qwertyus 22:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "images of a known Russian MBT prototype being claimed as a Bosnian-designed-and-developed tank" would be a pretty good reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could easily be a placeholder image for an object 101 based on the Black Eagle chassis. Marcus Qwertyus 22:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverifiable. It may be a hoax or maybe not. But there are no sources available to verify anything including this thing's existence or proposed existence. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unverifiable. I tried finding any mention of it. No sources have been able to show it's proposed existence. Image appears to be standard blueprint of russian MBT.MOLEY (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails the general notability guideline. Its is also unverifiable. Anotherclown (talk) 05:15, 5 February 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 (G3) by LadyofShalott. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orgi69 (cocktail)

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

No sources provided, none found. Likely hoax: in any case, certainly not notable. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Turi

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

Non-notable astrologer with little in the way of reliable sourcing, has been the subject of some pretty bad BLP violations. Corvus cornix_talk 21:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as attack page. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note - I reverted back to the pre attack content - the subject appears to have written a few books by looks as is only of limited note and would take a lot of improving to be any real value. Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources, written like an ad, fails WP:NPOV. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable external sourcing (and Google seems to indicate few reliable predictions either :) ) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possibly self-authored WP:RS-free vanity page from WP:NN ~~woo peddler~~ protagonist of alternative thought. Plutonium27 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 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 bondage equipment. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bondage mitten

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

Does not appear to be independently notable. No references demonstrate this to me. Merrill Stubing (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bondage equipment. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Kenilworth Terrace. Merge and redirect to Bondage equipment. -- The Anome (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per imagws which proves its existence, factual article. Notable in the "bondage world" I guess.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 26 January 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) 01:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference Lots of GBooks hits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge per kenilworth Someone65 (talk) 07:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the refs pointed to by the GBooks seem to be passing mentions of "mittens used for bondage." At best, those sources would support a dicdef article only. Currently the article is only a transwiki from Wipipedia, so no information would truly be lost in a Delete. But If someone were to prove me wrong and pull off a WP:HEY then I would be all for keep.-- RoninBK _{T C} 08:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. RoninBK _{T C} 08:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bondage equipment. Not enough coverage to support an article on this topic alone. SnottyWong ^spout 17:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bondage equipment, with possibilities. The article fails WP:V. Unfortunately, the Google Books results aren't even sufficient for a dictionary definition. I spent several minutes trying to locate other sources, but couldn't easily find anything that met WP:RS. The contents will be in the page history, in case it turns out to be helpful to an editor building an article in the future. --Pnm (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of bondage equipment. No sources and no indication of significant coverage in independent sources. WP:ITEXISTS is explicitly WP:NOT a good reason for an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:36, 29 January 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, -- Cirt (talk) 21:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete; the issue of merging can be taken up on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jash

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

A dictionary definition of a Kurdish word, with very confusing citations. This might belong on Wiktionary in some form, but it doesn't appear suitable for an encyclopedia article. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not a dictionary entry, it's a short article. There are two different sentences describing the useage and history of the term. The article is cited very reliably, even including page numbers of the books referenced, so it's hard to see what's confusing. No policy-based rationale for deletion given. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't an 'article'. It is a dictionary definition, with two examples of the usage of the term, separated by 1300+ years. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary of the Kurdish language. The two examples are interesting and should be included in articles on Kurdish history. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge the two examples to articles on Kurds or, as mentioned above, Kurdish history. The dictionary definition can then be deleted.
Delete As someone who has studied the Battle of Badr extensively, the attempt to link Kurdish women to the battle smells fishy to me. I have no problem with the word Jash having it's own page, but the persistence of the OA to have it linked to a historical unrelated battle is confusing.Thebutterfly (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment was made by an abusive sockpuppeteer and should be ignored. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an entirely inappropriate comment to make. For one, the editor has not been confirmed as a sockpuppeter at SPI or using Checkuser. The thread open at ANI is simply your accusation and discussion on thie article Jash, without any further commentary to logged-out edits. To make such an accusation outside the proper forum, and to imply that it has been confirmed, is entirely incivil, even though you might be correct. In any case, until/unless Thebutterfly is actually banned for sockpuppetry, his/her contribution to this discussion is entirely valid and should not be ignored by any admin worth his/her salt. bahamut0013^words _deeds 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who actually takes the time to look at the very clear evidence I presented would come to the same conclusion I came to, that he's blatantly logging in and then back out to sneak his edits in and give the appearance of multiple unrelated users. The lack of following the bureaucracy of SPI (which is mostly just a behavioral evaluation, something I'm quite capable of myself) means absolutely nothing in the face of obvious evidence. Speaking of "incivil", how about him calling me an "Islamophobe" without provocation? Take your "incivil" and cram it, Bahamut. If someone can call me an Islamophobe with impunity then I can do the same. If you don't like that, then block me. Be sure to leave him unblocked, though. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which again, isn't relevant to this AfD. I'm not an admin, so I won't do any blocking, but if I were, I'd give you some time away to cool down based on the fact that you were insulting me for warning you to cool down. Tit for tat doesn't fly on Wikipedia, and him insulting you doesn't justify a response like you gave in any civilized forum. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is DIRECTLY RELATED. Abusive sockpuppets are not allowed to participate in AfDs, especially when they're POV pushing sockpuppets. Do you have anything useful to add to this discussion? If not please stop playing Civility Police because all you're doing is inflaming the situation and proving to me that there are different rules for different people. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not related. Until/unless he is blocked for sockpuppetry, he is not barred from any sort of participation. And my contribution is to get you to stop "inflaming the situation"; You shouldn't be taking it personal that I need to remind you of the rules, just take a chill pill and think about this objectively. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really this dense or are you deliberately trolling me? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burpelson, WP:CIVIL applies to you as much as it does to everybody. Bahamut is being civil. You are not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where were you and the rest of the civility police when an abusive sock was calling me an Islamophobe? I was ready to let this "civil" nonsense be done but here we are again, with another drive-by commentor who feels the need to share his opinion without knowing the facts. Not only was my report at AN/I ignored, but instead of looking into the socking and warning the person who personally attacked me, my article was sent to AfD without any legitimate rationale for deletion. At this moment I am feeling attacked and hounded because very little of what has happened over the past few days has followed any kind of objective logic. And since AfD is pretty much always a simple numbers vote (in spite of the rules which say otherwise), this perfectly well-sourced and appropriate article will be deleted, while people hound me for calling a WP:SPADE a spade after I was personally attacked by said spade. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The venues for your grievances are not here. I've directed you where to go for your sockpuppet concerns, so you should be submitting an investigation instead of calling me names and other methods of disrespect. This isn't a case of you calling a spade, this is a case of you being a dick because you got reprimanded for being incivil. If you feel attacked, that's your choice, and doesn't much excuse your hyperdefensive responses. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, are a First Class moron. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of personal grievances, Thebutterfly's remarks are inappropriate here imho. False content – unless the whole article is a hoax – should be addressed on the article's talk page. —Tamfang (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have edited the entry so as to remove any similarity with a dictionary entry. I would argue that deletion votes based on this premise are no longer valid. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so then I will "vote" to delete based on WP:OR since it has not been established that there is such a thing as a "Jash" which is a Kurdish disloyal person distinct from a disloyal person of any other nationality. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it's not original research and multiple reliable sources presented in the article prove this. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite - the term of "jash" is just their word for quislings (collaborators with the enemy), and is used not only in relation to the former pro-Saddam militias (200,000 during the Gulf War, like in the National Defense Battalions (Qiyadet Jahafel al-Difa al-Watani) and formerly also the Fursan Salah ad-Din irregulars and the 100,000 mercenary tribal gunmen "loyal" to Baghdad, in 1991 they were actually most of the rebels and not the peshmerga who were really only 15,000 or so before the defection) but also to the current pro-Ankara and pro-Tehran militias (there are over 50,000 such militiamen in Turkey currently). HUNDREDS of books use this term. When you people say things like it has not been established that there is such a thing as a "Jash", I wonder what kind of research are you doing, because just every book about Kurds uses it and it entered the the English language as a common term. The jash ("donkeys") in the Baath-speak were fursan ("knights"). It should be kept AND REWRITTEN ENTIRELY, and seriously it's like saying "peshmerga belong to the Kurdish dictionary and not Wikipedia", it's just stupid. The jash is an umbrella term for the opposite of peshmerga, and usually they were more numerous too. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these groups should be discussed in articles on the periods and events of Kurdish history or even in distinct articles for each group. No need to lump them together just because a word exists. I am fairly sure that WP does not have articles for American traitor and Russian traitor. Why should it for Kurdish traitor just because there is a word for that? P.S. I think the Kurds are cool and support their struggles for freedom and a better life. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it has them for quisling and hanjian, which are both equivalent terms. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other equivalent terms, like quisling, which have articles are Hanjian and Fifth column. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktonary and delete - no reason this needs to have an article vis-a-vis a definition. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a dictionary entry. It's exactly the same as quisling and Hanjian, both of which are equivalent terms. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it the word for "traitor" that is notable or it being in the Kurdish language? Otherwise WP should have an article on every word in every language. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be implying that words that have a cultural significance in other languages are not encyclopedic. Silver seren^C 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if Kitfoxxe is implying that, but I'll say it. That language X has its own word for concept Z is not interesting in itself, even if that word "has a cultural significance" (whatever that means). If there is anything substantial to say about Kurdish collaboration, rather than about the word, that's material for an article. —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As was stated above and linked to, there are other articles of the same type. Silver seren^C 03:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete them too, then. —Tamfang (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think peshmerga is also a Kurdish "word for concept Z is not interesting in itself" and should be merged with freedom fighter or whatever? Do you think, I don't know, samurai should be merged with knight, kamikaze with suicide attack, "because Wikipedia is not a Japanese dictionary"? I must say i just don't quite get you people. Also I'm not saying the article is good, it's bad, it should be rewritten. As I said, there are hundreds of books in English available with info on this subject. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the difference between word and substance, between an article about the peshmerga or the samurai and an article about the word peshmerga or samurai or knight? If from the article Samurai you removed everything about vocabulary, and renamed it Knight (Japan), a substantial article would remain; if you did that to Jash, you'd have a very short paragraph. If you want me to believe that your new article has potential, don't start by concentrating on a word. —Tamfang (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Do you know how many jash formations were there (and some remain), in several countries, over generations, their complicated history (like the mass defection in Iraq), and you think you would write about them all in a very short paragraph? Incredible! Please show me, because obviously you know so much about the subject. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't - that's why, if so many formations existed, you should add them to the article so we can learn about them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we can do a bunch of additional work only to have it be deleted anyway because its only a "dictionary entry"? No thanks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you overcame your pessimism far enough to improve the article significantly. —Tamfang (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added three of the references the IP editor linked to [10]. The text of the article is mostly the same. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't distinguish between the Jash, the word jash, and an article about them — argh, I have no constructive advice for you. —Tamfang (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We allow articles on words that have a cultural significance in their home culture, see quisling and hanjian. I have also seen from searches that there are an extensive amount of sources that can be used to improve this article. Silver seren^C 03:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into some appropriate article such as Collaborationism. —Tamfang (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how do you want to merge it into Collaborationism? Did you see Collaborationism#See also there? Like, Chinilpa? Hanjian? Hello? It must be just some exlusive anti-Kurdish bias here on Wikipedia, I see no other explaination. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of bias aren't constructive, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument to avoid. If the article can be reliably and verifiably sourced as a notable subject, then it should be kept; if it can't, it shouldn't be, regardless of what else does, or does not, have its own article. - - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's suybject is verifiable, multiply-reliably-sourced and, therefore, notable. That fact that it is short and/or poorly written and/or incomplete is not a legitimate deletion rationale. Yet multiple people are repeating the same rationale. If it needs to be improved, improve it. If it needs to be rewritten, then help improve the encyclopedia by working on it. Wikipedia has no deadline and an article that satisfies WP:N and WP:V with multiple reliable sources that is neutral in tone is not deletable, unless we're going to just pitch all the guidelines out the window with it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid these days that "verifiable" and "multiple RSes" don't equal "notable" anymore. They should, IMHO, but the consensus seems to be that WP:GNG trumps WP:V, to the point of absurdity on many occasions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about the absurd part, but I think this actually satisfies GNG. The main elements of GNG are significant coverage (meaning more than trivial passing mentions) and in multiple, reliable, third party sources. "Multiple" has always been a point of contention, but I read it as a literal definition meaning "more than one". There's some argument to be made for an unsourced article failing WP:GNG, but that can usually be resolved guideline-wise simply by proving that multiple reliable non-trivial sources exist. Maybe my understanding is out of date or something. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Jash into some appropriate article such as Collaborationism and/or an aprpriate artical on Kurdistan.Wipsenade (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to merge, say, francs-tireurs into "some appropriate article such as guerrilla warfare and/or an aprpriate artical on France", too? Or what about hiwis, for example? (Yes, I know people everywhere care 1000x more about WWII than about Kurds.) --94.246.150.68 (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument that should be made pro or against deletion Prove that this subject is notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excpet that anyone who looks at the article can see it satisfies all three of these guidelines. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 23:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, yes sir. I prove that this subject is notable, verifiable, and reliably sourced." About 443 books. What now? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 08:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My anti-Kurdish bias is as strong as it ever was, but since I last wrote here Burpelson has upgraded the article in question from a dicdef to a legitimate stub. —Tamfang (talk) 10:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All I did was add three of the references the IP editor pointed us towards, while the text itself is the same. There are about 440 more references helpfully provided by the IP. Articles can't be deleted for lack of WP:N if 443 reliable sources covering the subject exist, even if they're not necessarily added to the article. I still can't grasp how people are determining what is a dicdef and what is an article stub, and that is not me being obstinate, that is me expressing a genuine lack of understanding how the deletion rationales, dependent on the view that this is just a dicdef, were reached. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 6 February 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) 11:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Enhancing Activity and Participation among Persons with Arthritis

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

Actual notability not established. We don't currently include articles on research institutes unless independently notable. JFW | T@lk 20:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Center is the only arthritis research center funded by NIDRR and is expected to shape the future of arthritis research. I am article creator. Stuwhite23 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cind.amuse 03:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that actual notability is not yet established, but it is a new center which was funded specifically to lead the field in arthritis research and shape public policy, thus will become notable. The article provides valuable insight into the intentions of the major funder of arthritis rehabilitation (NIDRR) in the USA - which implies notability. I could, however, move the article to userspace until independent sources are available. Stuwhite23 (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nice fancy name but nothing in gnews [11]. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Stuwhite23. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Stuwhite23 has conceded that notability has not yet been established. And its importance is based on it being "expected to shape the future of arthritis research" which has yet to happen. Simply agreeing with him doesn't advance a very strong argument for kweeping this article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:47, 5 February 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) 00:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav C. Pandey

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

Self publishing blogger. Fails WP:AUTHOR Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I prodded this, but it was removed with no improvement. I could find no 3rd party sources that discussed the subject. Delete as failing WP:CREATIVE. Tassedethe (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just vanity, no sources, no one cares. EEng (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 2 February 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 Roseanne episodes. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Into That Good Night (Roseanne)

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

Non-notable unreferenced television episode. Subject already covered in List of Roseanne episodes. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom and per WP:EPISODE, not likely that this is the kind of work that will be repeatedly undone by a rabid fanboy/girl. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the LoE at this point, as its plot summary has the combined length of the LoE's desciption, and there's really nothing else besides the plot (WP:NOT#PLOT). However, this ep is the series finale and may have some coverage out there (presumed WP:NOTABILITY), so I do not mind restoration of this article if and only if someone makes a half-decent article out it with sourced + non-trivial production info and reception that goes beyond the LoE space. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:56, 2 February 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) 00:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Eight Characters of Comedy

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

Fails WP:NBOOK, appears to be self-published (publisher has only published this book and another by same author[12]). No RS sources, Google search came up lacking. The Interior (Talk) 19:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- apparent WP:PROMO from a user whose only edits appear to be promoting the work of this author and seemingly his own WP:AUTOBIO. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plenty of cites, none are reliable. Note the publisher doesn't even have a web page, let alone mentions, which lends further doubt. tedder (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 2 February 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) 00:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nekron 99

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

No references to prove, from the removed prod, "article meets notability criteria 7 (significant pioneers in a specific genre in NYC) and 9 (quarter finalist in MTV's competition was the first ever independent music video contest aired nationally." When I searched Google for this evidence, only their last.fm page appeared. The article has also copied directly from their last.fm page. To make a long story short, it violates WP:V and WP:C. Bluefist ^talk 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources. The article does indicate there is an article in Giant Robot magazine issue #15. [13], and [14] would confirm they exist but I don't see the amount of coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Qworty (talk) 02:42, 3 February 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 speedily deleted (G12) by Sphilbrick. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Kunes

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

non notable musician WuhWuzDat 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first glance, subject does not appear notable. NickCT (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ With all due respect, we should look deeper than a "first glance". WP:MUSICBIO states that a musician is notable if a member of 2 or more notable ensembles. Jimmy Kunes was a member of both Savoy Brown and Cactus (band). Both are notable and Savoy Brown in particular was a mainstay of late 60s hard rock. All that being said, the article is a shambles and needs quite a bit of work. I'll get to work on it. Cullen328 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my "Keep" based on the discovery of copyvio by Phil Bridger. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up, and add more sources. Krashlandon ^(talk) 21:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like hoax Someone65 (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyright violation of the myspace page referenced in the article. If I had been able to find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, or that his membership of those notable bands was anything more than the sad attempts that we see by groups of aging session musicians to claim that they are continuations of notable bands from the 60s and 70s, I would have rewritten this to avoid copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 6 February 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) 11:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Ellis-Leach

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

I find no supporting sources on GNews or GBooks, it seems unlikely that the significant impact required for WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NACTOR will be demonstrable. Child supporting actors who do not go on to have a significant acting career are rarely encyclopaedic-ally notable. PROD removed so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the fact that he is the regular drummer for Sophie Ellis-Bextor to that article. Most of this article is unverified, but that fact is backed up here. I know we don't normally do redirects just because a person is related to someone famous, but as he's associated with famous sister's musical career it just scrapes a mention. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see the point of a merge. He's a session musician, and not part of a recongnised band. -- Whpq (talk) 15:22, 1 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dupe

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

Non-notable artist. Could find almost no third party non-trivial coverage about him or his work. Damiens.rf 17:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At the time of nomination, the article has 2 sources that cover Tony Dupe. His work as a producer has attracted notice as shown by [15], [16], and [17]. And there is much more results from a Google News search I've not listed. In assessing notability through sources, we need to take into account the amount and significance of the coverage. Although Dupe is not the primary subject of much of the articles int he search result, they are not simply passing mentions; in particular, they single out his production work as a key element of a creative product. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article and he now is cleary notable from coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs that have been added now prove the subject's notability. Jenks24 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JD Foster

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

Promotion for a non-notable musician. Damiens.rf 17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since "worked with [list of notable musicians]" isn't clarified. He easily could've just played one single song with them. Either way, CSD A7 seems to apply. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. Krashlandon ^(talk) 21:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 2 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Husinec

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

Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY: has not yet played in a professional match. Prod contested by creator. Borkificator (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY. Of course, recreation would be permissible when/if he gets a call-up to the professional first team or a national team cap. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The article asserts its own non-notability under WP:NSPORT, and he also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. "He is yet to be capped by the Croatian National Team" - I would think that applies to the majority of the Croatian population. Peridon (talk) 12:22, 5 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krishnarajendra Road

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

Non notable road of Bangalore. Fails WP:GNG. Has no reliable sources. PROD was infact endorsed by another editor. —Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ——Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 17:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like another ordinary city street. Dough 48 72 20:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 02:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm surprised at the quick knee-jerk reactions to the nom in this one. A quick look at g-maps shows this is quite a major thoroughfare, with multiple historic and cultural landmarks on it no less, through Bangalore, a metro-city with a population of over 7,000,000. An article of major thoroughfare of an equivalently large city in the US or UK would never even go up for AfD regardless if sources had yet to be placed in the article. No need to start systemic bias with this one. Just a few of the landmarks on this street are Bangalore Fort, Tipu Sultan's Summer Palace and the Ventkataramanaswamy Temple.[18] I'd only suggest renaming Krishina Rajendra Road as it's spelled in g-maps. --Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is a resident of Bangalore. If a resident of NYC or London or Johannesburg nominated a street for deletion in their towns I would support deletion then too. --Admr Boltz 01:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if a resident of NYC or London nominated the articles Lexington Avenue (Manhattan), First Avenue (Manhattan), Tottenham Court Road or Strand, London for deletion, you'd support them? Okee dookee. --Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have listed several notable roads. They all have references (except for 1st Avenue) that support their notability. --Admr Boltz 05:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even Anil Kumble circle shows up on google maps. The well known Chinnaswamy stadium (where all cricket matches hosted in Bangalore) are played is situated there. The ancient Bible Society of India is also present right adjacent to Anil Kumble Circle. Parade Grounds where all Republic Day and Independence Day celebrations are held has one end of its boundary at Anil Kumble circle. It is also the point where the Bangalore Metro goes underground from a 7 km elevated section. Despite all these, based on a PROD, the article was deleted as it was not notable at all. —Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 3 February 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) 18:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the Pelchat

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

PROD contested by author - concern was "Fails WP:NSONG. In fact, I can find no Google hits on the song title at all - but not CSD:A9 as there is a plausible musician article at C.O.C." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Author has changed the artist to B.O.B, and there is a plausible match at B.o.B. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no refs Someone65 (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the sole ghit for the title, and I can find nothing using combinations of the artistes' names with Pelchat. Apart from http://www.thefullwiki.org/Dominic_Pelchat and two deletions of articles here, I can find nothing about Dominic Pelchat as a boxer, so I think maybe he didn't make it all that big anyway. Peridon (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above as obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and merge to Eurofighter Typhoon variants. Carrying out redirect presently, the merger can be handled editorially. lifebaka++ 00:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Navalised Eurofighter

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

A lengthy article that is mostly speculation, is WP:ESSAY-ish, and contains WP:OR-smelling commentary about possible cancellation of the F-35 and about a proposed variant of Eurofighter that has been discussed, rejected, and is just an "idea" now. Now, aircraft that are just "on the drawing board" are notable, but a minor variant of an existing type should be covered in the type's article (Eurofighter Typhoon) or existing subarticle (Eurofighter Typhoon variants) instead of writing an entirely new article - which was sourced in part to discussion-board debates, and is heavy in WP:CRYSTAL and weasel words ("A Navalised Eurofighter, F-18 E/F Super Hornet or the French Rafale remain the most likely fallback canidiates..."). There's very little here, honestly, that belongs on Wikipedia, and what little there is can be covered in the existing articles mentioned above. The editor gets an E for Effort (and if I may indulge my own personal WP:POV, kudos for supporting an alternative to the horror that is Dave-B!), but alas I don't think this is an article Wikipedia needs at this time. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per branger Someone65 (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little is worth saving (probably not much more than to state that there was a bit of support for this idea) to Eurofighter Typhoon variants and redirect there (it might not be a very common search term, but it does seem possible and redirects are cheap). Totally agree with the nom, though: fraught with OR, CRYSTAL, and poor sources. bahamut0013^words _deeds 17:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly outlined by bushranger, might be worth a paragraph in the Typhoon article as a proposal but doesnt need this article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Merge or Keep Merge the good stuff in to Eurofighter Typhoon variants or Keep. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge, without prejudice to recreation in a better format. Some interesting points made here, but Wikipedia is for summing up facts about things written in other sources, rather than putting your own take on things. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I see 20 references there, so at least that content should be merged into the main article. De728631 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those references are either not reliable sources, or have nothing to do with Typhoon. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, on a second look you're right. There are an awful lot of blogs among the sources. De728631 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - non-existent variant of an existing aircraft, not notable enough for a separate article. - Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that it is notable enough for its own article providing there are enough good references in the article. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Eurofighter Typhoon variants per Bahamut001. Totally agree with nom about WP:CRYSTAL. Scanty evidence that the variant is actually being considered. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disagree concerning WP:CRYSTAL and there is lots of evidence (when doing a Google search) that several countries have considered the navalised typhoon, notably the UK, India, and Italy. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Certainly does not warrant a page on its own!!!!!!188.65.183.52 (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy comments by Independent2011 & responses (— Independent2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It is surprising to see this article pounced on within hours of it being finalised on Monday, and flagged up for deletion.

Before any decision is made on deleting this article, the above individuals should declare any interest or involvement in the UK or US Defence community.

At the end of the day F-35 is the Worlds largest (some say $380bn) weapons programme, and it would suit the UK & US defence industry & governments just fine if all mention of Navalised EUROFIGHTER (as a credible alternative to the UK's buy of F-35 aircraft) is brushed under the carpet, out of sight of the UK taxpayer, as it has been in recent years.

Navalised EUROFIGHTER was and remains a credible alternative to F-35. This is fact (not opinion). It was studied in detail by the UK MOD in detail. Again, fact not opinion. The costs & timescales of the F-35 programme have ballooned since the UK signed up to it in Jan 2001. Fact, not fiction.

In fact, if you go through this article sentence-by-sentence, line-by-line, you will find that the vast majority is what is said is pure fact. The rest is balanced and fair comment. If anyone has doubts on this, they should contact the UK Secretary of State for Defence for confirmation, before dismissing it as 'speculation' or requesting its deletion.

PS == As regards "reliable" and "unreliable" sources, if there have been identical points/facts raised by several different authors on on-line discussions 4 or 5 years ago, and they corroborate each other, and haven't been challenged as false or misleading by others, it is fair to presume they are "reliable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 (talk • contribs)

...There is no cabal. We're not in the defense industry, we're Wikipedians. Frankly I find that accusation hilarious, considering that in the nom I specifically described the F-35B as horrific - which it is, I would love to see 'Dave' bite the dust. But I don't let my WP:POV color my opinions of a Wikipedia articke.

As for the references, thre's four "Letters to the Editor" used as sources. Letters to the editor are of questionable reliability at best. And there were four references to discussion-board threads in the original article which have been removed. Your statement that there have been identical points/facts raised by several different authors on on-line discussions 4 or 5 years ago, and they corroborate each other, and haven't been challenged as false or misleading by others, it is fair to presume they are "reliable". doesn't hold water - comments on an on-line discussion board, regardless of corroboration or challenging (or lack thereof in the latter case), are never reliable sources.

As for you will find that the vast majority is what is said is pure fact - Pure fact can still be WP:SYNTH if facts are strung together to form an opninion not in the sources. Not saying that's been done here, although the comparisions to F-35 and the Super Bug look like it, but your statement that The rest is balanced and fair comment. - you've just out-and-out stated that the article contains WP:OR. Wikipedia is NOT a place for "balanced and fair comment". Verifiability, not truth, is the standard for inclusion; also Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. "Comment[ary]" is explicity something not to be included in Wikipedia. ...and, all the above aside, the article is still WP:CRYSTAL and has no reason to be an article on its own as opposed to a sub-section of Eurofighter Typhoon variants. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Independent2011: You are way off-base here, please see WP:AGF. The vast majority of commenters here are Wikiproject Aircraft members of longstanding. The question being debated is not the WP:The Truth but the subject's notability as a separate article.- Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure. I'm not a WikiProject Aircraft member but I am a pilot (PPL). Have amended my vote from 'Merge' to 'Merge or Keep'. I don't think it is fair to claim WP:CRYSTAL or WP:OR because all the article is talking about is a variant that has been discussed at length in the past. Referring to past discussions isn't "looking in to the future with a crystal ball" and any references that refer to past discussions are fair references. I think that the main issue here is that there is a lot of content in this article that is not referenced (although there are quite a few references). If the content could be backed up thoroughly with good quality references then there is no reason why the "Navalised Eurofighter" can't be an article on its own. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 20:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is the majority of the article gives the air of a "this is why we need Navalised Eurofighter" essay. I've added a paragraph to the Variants article about the navalised version; there's no reason it can't just be there - that's what that article is for. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is one possible reason. If there is too much well-referenced content in Navalised Eurofighter then there will have to be a stand-alone article (and an abridged version of that would be housed within the Variants article. There are no shortage of references out there for the navalised typhoon and there is more than enough for a stand-alone article. Have added a few references a few minutes ago just as an example of what is available. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 00:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see somebody taking the bull by the horns in a rescue attempt. :) The article does look better, but needs a lot more work to be a viable article. But it's a good start. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tagged for rescue to encourage others to help with the improvements. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Bushranger's nomination makes a lot of sense. A minor variant of an existing type does not require its own article. A discussion about this minor variant can fit nicely at Eurofighter Typhoon and/or Eurofighter Typhoon variants. SnottyWong ^confabulate 18:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect not notable enough for a separate article. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Interesting that a naval Typhoon was considered at stages, however this is already covered at the QE class & Eurofighter Typhoon articles. It's disturbing the amount of "letters to the editor" are used as reliable sources! Mark83 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do all conspiracy theories warrant mention?? Most do not as this page doesn't.188.65.183.52 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further lengthy comments by Independent2011

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Gentlemen (and Ladies ?). Please try and welcome 'outsiders'/newcomer daring to place a new article on WIKIPEDIA. After all, WIKIPEDIA is meant to be reasonably free & open, not an exclusive club. And it is the easiest thing in the World to use Wikipedias "rules" and associated formal terminology to justify deletion of a worthwhile Wikipedia article.

Better though that we all work together to resolve the differences, to take out anything that you think is causing you particular concern/upset. With this in mind I would propose the following amendments:

HISTORY

- 2nd para: Delete from 2nd sentence 'In the United Kingdom...' onwards.

RENEWED CALLS TO NAVALISE EUROFIGHTER IN PLACE OF F-35 (2010-2011)

1st Para - delete sentence beginning: 'Separately, in January 2011 it emerged that the UK plans to dispose of its initial 53 (Tranche I) EUROFIGHTERs....'
Delete 3rd para 'Were F-18 able to operate from...'.
Delete last para beginning 'However, the following factors arguably tend to swing the argument....' and the 5 bullets that lie under it.

If you do this, what is left is (in my opinion) statement of fact and non-controversial. If you can then help by adding references to support what is left (which you can no doubt do, being aviation experts/enthusiasts) we will probably end up with a half-decent article.

I strongly feel though that this should stay as a standalone article, as:

there is pitifully little in the way of authorative on-line info on Navalised EUROFIGHTER, and I think it deserves a position of reasonable prominence.
the issues relating to Navalised EUROFIGHTER are fundamentally different/separate from those of land-based EUROFIGHTER.
it is a discrete subject matter that bridges between EUROFIGHTER and the QUEEN ELIZABETH Carriers.

I offer up the above in a spirit of good faith - I trust you will receive it likewise. Thank you.

Comment Have carried out amendments as recommended by Independent above (with one exception that was well referenced that I abridged). Thank you for doing that Independent. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Independent2011 It looks like the result of this AfD will be a merge in to "Eurofighter variants". That's no bad thing. As more information is added to the Navalised Eurofighter section, in Eurofighter variants, it will ultimately have to be spun off as an independent article on its own because "Eurofighter variants" will become too bulky and most of the content will be Navalised Eurofighter oriented. You've contributed a useful article either way. They will also direct searches for "Navalised Eurofighter" automatically to "Eurofighter variants". Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. Anotherclown (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 'Nipsonanomhmata'. I notice that the references justifying the statement that (post-2010 SDR) there have been renewed calls for Navalised EUROFIGHTER to be reconsidered have been deleted. I suggest that at least one of these is reinstated (e.g. the 9th Nov 2010 'SCOTSMAN' article on Lord Hesketh's resignation). Having gone to all this effort (as a newcomer) to make a constructive contribution to WIKIPEDIA, and address your concerns, I sincerely hope that the "Delete - per nomination" request is rejected ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Have reinstated the reference in a suitable place that was deleted by another editor because it was not in the right place. All future editing discussions to be held on the relevant talkpage (for now it's the Navalised Eurofighter talkpage). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 12:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

If you go to the 'Global Defence' web site (http://geneva-globaldefence.blogspot.com/2011/02/navalised-version-of-typhoon-to-be.html) you will see that Navalised EUROFIGHTER seems to be very much alive as an option, at least for the Indian Navy, and is being actively plugged at 'Aero India 2011'. I therefore suggest it might be worth adding this web page as a reference.

This web page also includes a very nice artist's impression of Navalised EUROFIGHTER flying past a carrier (tail hook down !). I'm not sure how to get the necessary permission, but it might be worth trying to get this picture included in the WIKPEDIA entry ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please sign your post, thanks. The source is a blog and not a reliable source so it cant be used. MilborneOne 13:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I would say in response is that 'India Defence Review' is saying the same thing (http://www.indiandefencereview.com/defence-industry/BAE-Systems-supports-the-Typhoon-bid-for-MMRCA.html), and I would argue that that is a reliable source. The art work from 'Global Defence' web site in any event should be of interest. INDEPENDENT 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Independent2011 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the [Citation Needed] for the last sentence of the article's 'History' section. The correct citation is the letter published in the 'Glasgow Herald' newspaper on 26th Jan 2011 (http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/herald-letters/letters-wednesday-26-january-2011-1.1081904), which lays down the key arguments referred to. Before anyone rolls out the argument that the letter is not a reliable source, I would point out that it was written by a competent marine industry professional, and was subject to full scrutiny editorial control by the HERALD (phone them and ask them!), and as such meets WIKIPEDIA requirements for a reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources).

I would also make the following observations:

1) Look at the recent Wikipedia United Kingdom Deletion Nominations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/United_Kingdom) and you will see that Navalised EUROFIGHTER is lumped in for deletion alongside 'Giblets F.C', 'List of bus routes in Downham Market', and 'Leeds Labour Students'. Absolutely nonsensical that what is arguably the UK's main fallback to F-35 (and a key contender for Indian requirements) is being "buried" in this way.

2) Look at the recent Aircraft Articles added to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_articles_(Aircraft) ) and you will see that a whole raft of non-descript aircraft of yesteryear have been added, many of dubious & arguably un-noteworthy relevance to mainstream aviation history, many with woefully inadequate/incomplete references. Why then does the the one new aircraft article of key relevance to the 21st Century (i.e. Navalised EUROFIGHTER), incidentally an article written by a WIKIPEDIA "outsider", the one new article that the UK and US defence communities might not welcome, become the target for such hostility ? Why do experienced WIKIPEDIANS jump in with negative responses to my constructively-intended contributions, suggestions & amendents within minutes of them being posted. I have gone out of my way to help arrive at an informative, impartial & well-referenced article that is acceptable to you all, but still detect distinct air of "not welcome in our club".

Sorry guys, if the 'Farman F.1020', 'Walraven 2', 'Chotia Weedhopper' and 'Istra Ezhik ("Hedgehog")' deserve their own articles, then so does Navalised EUROFIGHTER, and as far as I'm concerned you undermine your credibility if you claim otherwise. Independent2011 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a completely spurious argument, you are just showing your lack of familiarity with aviation as a subject. For instance the Chotia Weedhopper has been in production for decades and over 13,000 aircraft flown; it is one of the most produced aircraft of all time. The Navalized Eurofighter is a proposed concept, with none ordered or flying. - Ahunt (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invididual aircraft types are presumed notable and (if referencable) deserve their own pages under Wikipedia's notability standards. Individual aircrft variants are not presumed notable and deserve to be covered under the parent type's page, unless there is sufficent information to allow for their own article (see General Dynamics F-111C, for instance). The Navalised Eurofighter has not flown, has had no hardware cut, and is very much still in the "back of a napkin" stage. At this stage in the project, the appropriate venue for coverage on the type is Eurofighter Typhoon variants#Navalised Eurofighter. Once "Sea Typhoon" (Cyclone?) is in operational service, then it can be considered for expansion to its own article. It has nothing to do with being "not welcome in our club", and nothing to do with not liking the type ((see also WP:TINC); it has everything to do with following established Wikipedia procedures and established notability standards. The old-days types are notable enough for their own articles (also, things are not intristically more notable just because they are new); Navalised Eurofighter is not. But, as noted, that does not mean it isn't notable enough for coverage at all - it is. As a variant of Typhoon, on the Typhoon variants page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what you "WIKIPEDIANS" have so far choosen to "merge" into 'Eurofighter Variants' (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon_variants) is a tiny proportion of what is included in the Navalised EUROFIGHTER article - swathes of perfectly valid text and references deleted. From my point of view it looks like that "merge" effectively involves deleting my perfectly valid contribution, replace it with weasel words, and tuck it away down the bottom of what is already a very long article (with a minor heading no less), beneath a list of minor RAF Eurofighter versions, where it won't get noticed. In the process the fact that Navalised EUROFIGHTER remains an serious fallback option to the UK's F-35 requirements, that it was studied in detail by the UK MOD and is still being touted as a solution to UK & Indian requirements is being utterly disguised.

You argue that "concept" aircraft such as Navalised EUROFIGHTER don't deserve their own page. Why then does 'HOTOL' (the abortive 1980s British space aircraft - arguably "pie-in-the-sky") get its own page ? By your line of argument it should just be dismissed as a one-line "could-have-been" on the 'British space programme' page ! Independent2011 (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because HOTOL was an independent project, whereas Sea Typhoon is just a variant. During the development of Sea Harrier, had Wikipedia existed then, it too would have been "tucked away" in the Hawker Siddeley Harrier article. As for the amount here vs on the variants page, that's because the majority of the content here seemed to be "ifs" regarding the carriers, Dave-B/C and the Super Bug, as opposed to content about the Sea Typhoon itself. But, if you're concerned about the amount of coverage on Eurofighter Typhoon variants, why not add some there? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 9 February 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. Consensus seems fairly clear. I note Mandsford's argument, and it's true, we do allow for original research in articles on fictional works, but this is usually limited to plot summaries (having said that, I managed to write an article with a referenced plot section, but that's rather difficult). Ironholds (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional businesses in Coronation Street

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

Not encyclopedic, no out of universe content or reliable references, and not particularly notable to non-fans of Coronation Street. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 16:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR Someone65 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It can't be OR because all the information has been broadcast widely. Nothing original there. Coronation Street is a British national institution. Millions of people have been watching it for decades (I know, it's a sad world, but it is what it is). Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article just needs work in accordance with our editing policy as it does not yet include Gamma Garments, for example. Note that some of the institutions actually exist and you may, for example, drink beer in the Rover's Return - see Thinking northern. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could some of the content not be incorporated into Weatherfield rather than having it's own article? Most of these fictional locations are not notable, even in-universe. The only ones you could possibly have more than a couple of sentences about are the Rovers Return Inn, which has it's own article anyway, the Corner Shop and The Kabin. The rest is just fancruft. All plot, no content - more at home on a fan site like [Corriepedia]. Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 13:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's no secret that entertainment and sports articles are held to a much lower standard than those of a more cerebral nature. Although Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, the reality is that it is a non-profit business that relies upon the continued participation of contributors. In more recent years, we have, thank heaven, cut back on pages about individual TV episodes and obscure TV characters and struck a better balance between reality and fiction but I don't have a problem with this one. Original research in a TV article rather than extensive footnotes? That's nothing new. Mandsford 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this is a very long running and popular show, I suspect the level of detail here is unsustainable. I don't see any reason why this can't be trimmed and merged (with Weatherfield, per Ooh, Fruity, and likely another article or two) into a List of Fictional Locations article. Deleting it entirely, however, seems unproductive. Jclemens (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks references independent of the subject from reliable third-party sources and the topic does not meet the general notability guideline or the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. The article is written with an in-universe perspective, it's a plot-only description of a fictional work and an unnecessary content fork. The article doesn't even have reliable sources, not even primary sources. I don't see a valid reason to keep or merge the content in any way. Jfgslo (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable topic. The only entry with adequate real-world notability is the Rovers Return Inn, which exists as an individual article. While limited production details may be available on a few other entries such as The Kabin, this could be covered appropriately in Weatherfield. Frickative 17:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it This page is updated regualarly, i think we could look for some more sources but apart from that! its just been expanded to include a small write-up about what business were on corrie and the business units sectiona aswell, Please keep it!! OVERALL I THINK THAT THE PAGE PROVIDES INTRESTING INFORMATION AND SHOULD BE KEPT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintyyyy 2010 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Apoliges for not signing last comment was about to re-edited it but there was a conflicting edit! So i do beleive that theres 4 votes to keep, 3 to delete! Mintyyyy 2010 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Jfgslo said it better than I could. The article is just an excessive listing of plot details with no out-of-universe material that shows how the topic has made an impact in the real world. Them From Space 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:LC items 1, 6, 8, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 8 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Šitum

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

Non-notable per WP:NFOOTY: has not yet played in a professional match. Prod contested by creator. Borkificator (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Borkificator (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no refs Someone65 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player has not yet accomplished anything of note. When (if) he plays and sufficient coverage is available to began a decent article, please re-create. Jogurney (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Until Situm plays a professional match, he does not meet the footbal notability benchmark. The Interior (Talk) 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon.. Peridon (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm of the same opinion as those above, not surprisingly! Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 00:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - player has now played in a friendly match for Dinamo Zagreb (see article). ConorODhr (talk) 22:42, 6th February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.81.86 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Telugu-language films

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

The article is intended to show a fixed ranking of the top ten earning Telugu films of all time by box office collection. Unfortunately there are no reliable sources that will be able to provide this. In the specific example of Arundhati, two sources are provided but neither match the claimed gross figure in rupees due to one source relating to a transient early box office estimate and the other showing a ranking in US dollars for a particular year's income but not an all-time income and the conversion to rupees will be problematic. The ranking of different years, say, comparing 1996 income with a film from 2009 is virtually meaningless financially or statistically and is misleading when compared to the lead criteria. It may be possible to copy a snap shot list of films by box-office income but this would not be maintainable from year to year and would fail the WP:SYNTH and WP:IINFO guidelines. This is a complex issue relating to what is considered of an encyclopaedic nature on Wikipedia and may determine the future of several similar articles (as listed in the See also section), so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom —Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 16:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I propose a deletion for List of highest-grossing English-language films for the same reason that such lists can be considered non notable or un-maintainable for non-English (Telugu language) films. Sure, the Telugu list is quite short... and perhaps proper sourcing could be added by Indian Wikipedians... but such information can be eventually sourced for any such list, no matter the country. And sure, while such films might be notable for Telugu films, we can either grant a notability to a short sourced list of films notable in Telugo, or we may as well grant that Wikipedia has no need for such improvable list in any language. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC) Yup, aint' gonna happen. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck with that nomination, I look forward to reading it. You may not be aware of the long debates about sourcing of box-office income even for the top films such as Enthiran. Unfortunately the issue is more complex for Indian film compared to the UK/USA film markets as there is no consistent credible reporting of box-office figures and so figures quoted in articles tend to be speculative estimates or confused with corporate revenue statistics rather than specific ticket sales. Fæ (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Was not aware, but agree. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The issue isn't notability of the films, but credibility of the sources involved. There is no clear or consistent methodology in the Indian media when it comes to reporting revenue and gross numbers for films. The film industries by design keep this opaque and the numbers are often planted my the production houses in the media to bolster their projects. Tax dodging, front companies, multiple business models for film distribution all come together to make the actual number "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". Even whether a particular film was a "hit" or a "flop" is never agreed upon. I have seen countless arguments between fanboys regarding which film was a hit and which isn't and unfortunately, thats also the case with our media. This isn't something new. Reading magazines/newspapers from the 1950s, i find the same thing - one magazine puts a random namber as "vasool" and claims a film is a box office hit while some other magazine says it is a flop. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasoning of Sodabottle. If actual accurate sources simply do not exist, then the article fails policy WP:V. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I would strongly disagree with a general proposition that there's something inherently non-encyclopedic about a "List of highest-grossing Fooian films". The obsessive attention that such lists have gotten for decades in journals like Variety speak to the notability of the subject. I also don't agree that the lists' notability is inherently defeated by problems with inflation or currency fluctuation: that's also something that Variety has been coping with for decades, and while it may go to the ultimate uses of the list it does not make them less notable. However, if it is in fact the case that verifiable sources don't exist for India's film industry, then I would have to agree that the lists don't survive WP:V. Thus, though I respectfully disagree with parts of the original nomination, I join in Sodabottle's reasoning.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: No sources available even for the current movies. WorLD8115 (TalK) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom EelamStyleZ (talk) 00:40, 4 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Braun

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

Christian vegetarianism activist. Fails WP:GNG. Only references in article are to do with sexual assault allegedly committed by subject.. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor activist. The article was almost certainly created by the subject, who also created a number of articles on his even less notable friends and organizations. Then those who were making the sexual assault charges adding their allegations. Anyway, the subject does not meet GNG. Will Beback talk 21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 2 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last Achahboun Conjecture

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

Contested prod. No evidence of notability or that any reliable source uses this name. As stated, this "conjecture" is trivially equivalent to the Goldbach conjecture (assuming a and b are meant to be primes). Looks like an attempt at self-publicity. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no refs Someone65 (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I stand by what I wrote when I prodded this: "This is a trivial restatement of Goldbach's conjecture for 2n, and there is no justification for giving it this new name. As an open wiki, the single source given fails WP:RS." —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says that it is a "new conjecture", which makes me think it is original research. Ozob (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As David Eppstein points out, it's just an obfuscated version of Goldbach's conjecture. This kind of thing is one of the reasons why we have the no OR policy.--RDBury (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to be saying every positive integer is half-way between two primes (which may be equal). At most this would apply to integers exceeding 1. I couldn't understand what it said until I read the "open problem garden" item. So David Epstein is right: It's just a rephrasing of Goldbach's conjecture. We already have that article. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:35, 5 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cymatic Theology

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

This article was previously deleted after deletion debate here. There were concerns at the time with accuracy and notability. I share those concerns, at least about notability. The term “cymatic theology” currently hits 27 results on Google. Every single one of them is Wikipedia related, including the mirror at Wikia. I have no hits at all in Google news. No hits in Google books. No hits in Google scholar. It seems therefore at best to be a very narrowly utilized Wikipedia:Neologism, and that is likely to remain unchanged even if the predicted article appears by “Mark Pretorious” in June 2011. The term is non-notable. The author of the term, Dr Mark Pretorius (to whom the single-purpose account creator is evidently closely related), certainly seems to exist. He has some publications ([19]). If he meets WP:ACADEMIC, then it may be appropriate to reference his theory in an article on him. In that case, a redirect might be appropriate. But we currently do not have an article on Dr Mark Pretorius, and I do not know if he meets ACADEMIC. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be most pleased to write a redirect for him, if it is required. I have also placed a comment on your other page, regarding your concerns. I stated there that a major website is currently being built by a number of scholars on this wwwcymatictheology.com. It should be ready in about two weeks.

Cosmikos (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: by "your other page", I presume you mean your talk page, where I left you a note about our conflict of interest guideline. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Cosmikos (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per cosmikos Someone65 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.
Delete: a broadly used term to explain research being conducted, especially by Dr Mark Pretorius, on sound, light and creation... The central tenet of cymatic theology, is that God used sound (harmonic tones) to bring the universe and creation into existence. This would appear to be one man's theory, not widely used or discussed by anyone but the author at this time, and as such original research. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern is that this may be original research, therefore not suitable for a wiki page. The page does not refer to any work being original. What the page does infer is that Pretorius has used the term Cymatic Theology to explain what is regarded as revised research, to include aspects of God using sound to create, just as the Hindus refer to OM (see wiki) as the creative sound God used. The following references definitely show that this is not original research, but slightly revised, to include subsequent information. The following articles are just a few examples of the research in this area (there are dozens). It includes two good pages on sound and creation from wiki pages. http://www.5thray.com/tunes.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Om http://convozine.com/conversations/6023 http://www.ratemyink.com/?action=ssp&pid=103589 Extensive work has been done on this by John Stuart Reid and the Cymascope http://cymascope.com/cyma_research/history.html Dr Pretorius is in constant contact with John on this, and he has recently reviewed one of Pretorius’s articles on this. Cosmikos (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that it isn't notable. None of these links, reliable or otherwise, refer to "Cymatic Theology". See Wikipedia:Notability. The article you have created says it is a "broadly used term"; where are the sources to substantiate that this is a "broadly used term"? (The fact that there may be sources to verify notability later constitutes an original research issue. As that latter policy points out, we are a tertiary source; we exist to summarize what published secondary sources say about subjects.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps it is simple semantics. I will change it to "It is used to generally explain areas of research being conducted...", Rather than "A broadly used term". Would that suffice? Cosmikos (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, because the core issue here remains that we need previously published secondary sources discussing "Cymatic Theology" as such to retain an article on it. Every article on Wikipedia should have sufficient reliable, independent sources to verify that the subject meets the relevant notability inclusion guidelines. In this case, the guideline is Wikipedia:Notability. If "cymatic theology" is not in itself significantly covered in independent sources, we may not be able to sustain an article on it. If Dr. Pretorius publishes his work and it generates significant discussions from others, then the subject can easily meet the notability threshold. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as I stated, there is a major collaboration of scholars working on a website for cymatic theology. This includes contributions from John Stewart Reid (an English acoustics engineer, scientist and inventor of the cymascope), Erik Larsons (a joint American inventor of the cymascope) and others, who are taking the science of cymatics and cymatic theology to new levels of study with what is called a cymascsope (it is referred to in the cymatics wiki). I have asked that the first page of the website be permanently made available to the public so that you may see that there are independent scholars contributing and writing on this particular area of research www.cymatictheology.com. It is where my writings on the wiki have also been lifted from.

Many thank for your guidance on this.

Cosmikos (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that that page doesn't confirm anything about independent scholars. :/ We have no means of verifying who maintains it or why or what affiliation they may have with Dr. Pretorius. It is, for Wikipedia's purposes, a "self-published source" —a website of uncertain authority. (Reliable sources are defined at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). Please review Wikipedia:N#General notability guideline which may help clarify matters. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. Unfortunately I cannot contribute anymore information, so I will thus leave it in your capable hands. If the page needs to be deleted, then so be it. Thank you for at least taking the time to correspond with me on the subject, and I wish you well.

Cosmikos (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of sources. I advise User:Cosmikos to read WP:CRYSTAL. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if they are going to be publishing a website soon, it won't confer notability and it won't pass WP:RS. Moonriddengirl has made a perfectly detailed deletion rationale, making it unnecessary to provide blue links to all the other reasons why this article fails. Kudpung (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go and have a look before passing a comment. It will perhaps soften your outlook. This is what she said (If "cymatic theology" is not in itself significantly covered in independent sources, we may not be able to sustain an article on it.). The website content is written by independent sources.

Cosmikos (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Of the nine references at present in the article, six do not mention "Cymatic Theology", nor indeed "Cymatic" anything else. The other three are not reliable independent sources. As an indication of how relevant some of the references are, this is a page giving an elementary account of the physics of sound waves, apparently aimed at school children. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that God used sound to create the universe, which is what we are told "Cymatic Theology" is. I have checked on Google, and there seems to be some progress since Moonriddengirl did so. She found zero non-wikipedia-related hits. I found a grand total of three, all of them hosted on either cymatictheology.com or www.satsonline.org, the web site of SA Theological Seminary, which employs Mark Pretorius, who according to the article is the main person conducting "research" into "Cymatic Theology". Consequently neither the article's references nor web searches produce any reliable independent sources at all. The concept is not remotely notable, and the article, which was created by a single purpose account, is almost certainly intended as promotion. This is the fourth time the article has been created by the same user, and the second time that editors' time has been taken up on a deletion discussion. It is time to put an end to this. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 4 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlord (epic poem)

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

Unremarkable epic poem (fails WP:GNG) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are given. It sounds rather remarkable to me, however that is not a WP policy. Borock (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Praise by Ted Hughes gets it over the notability hurdle. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC) _{(Striked to make the change clear) SmartSE (talk) 13:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Delete Changing my earlier "Keep" based on discussion at WP:RSN which appears to establish that the Hughes reference is not reliably sourced but is self-pub of Haggers. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hagger's self-identified personal assistant has now amended the article to say it was written on the urging of Ezra Pound, possibly making it even more notable. If there were reliable secondary sources for either of these two claims, I might agree. I have removed those claims from the article and started a discussion about them on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - If the two paragraphs and two references about Ted Hughes and Ezra Pound which DS keeps deleting go missing from the article, they can be found on the talk page, which explains that they are allowable under WP:ABOUTSELF. These paragraphs/references have an important bearing on the discussion in this AfD and should not be censored by the nominator. Sanrac1959 (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The applicable standard here would be WP:BK, which has a very specific set of notability standards for a literary work such as a book [20]:

A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

-This work is not the subject of significant, non-trivial third party coverage. The only reference to this work that I can find on Google News is a trivial mention in passing in the Daily Telegraph article, which is about Hagger's estate, not about him or his works. There is no independent mention of this work in Google Scholar, and a trivial reference on Google Books in the 1997 Notes and Queries. None of these involve any critical commentary whatsoever. I do not have access to the East Anglia Daily Times archives, but from the title alone I'm going to guess that it, like the Telegraph article, is principally about the estate not the poem. Regardless of what that lone source may or may not contain, it would not meet this standard.

2. The book has won a major literary award.

- No.

3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.

- No.

4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.

- No.

5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.

- No. Hagger may or may not be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, but he is definitely not an author of exceptional significance whose life and work is the commonly the subject of study in literature classes.

This work may or may not be remarkable, but it fails on every requirement of Wikipedia's Notability standards, and it is not even a close question. Fladrif (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That the work was allegedly inspired by Pound is irrelevant to its notability. That is was praised in private correspondence between Hughes and the author, is insufficient to establish notabilty, notwithstanding the later publication of Hughes' collected letters or the inclusion of the correspondence in an appendix to this work. That this one admittedly prominent writer thought well of the work is still only singular, not multiple coverage and not enought to establish notabiliy. Fladrif (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article fulfils Admin Spartaz’s requirement of two decent sources. The two-page spread ‘Overlord of the Manor’ has pictures of two early volumes of Overlord and three columns about the work. It is not exclusively about the estate he once ran. WP:ABOUTSELF holds that self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves so long as they do not involve claims about third parties. In the Hughes reference the subject is Hagger’s Overlord, not Hughes. As the Hughes letters are in the Overlord appendix their presentation there can be seen not as a comment by Hughes about a third party, but as a comment by Hagger regarding himself, quoting an input from Hughes. The reference could be reworded to begin “Hagger received a comment from Ted Hughes” etc.” The involvement of Pound and Hughes does impact on the notability of the work. This work is not unknown, for example an American actor gave a public reading of passages in London in 2010. Sanrac1959 (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Spartaz does not get to override clear Wikipedia policy. Two sources does not satisfy the clear requirements of WP:BK to establish notability. WP:ABOUTSELF does not permit Hughes private letters to Hagger, and the tortured arguments attempting to shoehorn them into that narrow exception are meritless. The letters are comments by Hughes about another person and another person's work, not about himself or hs own work. Hagger cannot sponsor the material himself because the essence is that he is saying "another person made this comment about or my work". That is clearly outside the exception. Fladrif (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Fladrif's rationale after also trying to find sources myself. The !keeps by Borock and Jonathanwallace do not appear to be based on policy - simply having mentions somewhere is not sufficient and unverifiable claims of what inspired the poem are irrelevant to a discussion here as everything must be based on sources. Our notability requirements for books are pretty high, for a reason, since there are so many publications. I'm not seeing anything in gbooks, gnews or gscholar to suggest that anyone has taken particular note of this work, as is required for it to be included. SmartSE (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BK is being sensibly applied here by Fladrif. Ezra Pound and Ted Hughes are red herrings. It seems these claims are not actually verifiable, ultimately tracing back only to the author. --WTFITS (talk) 02:34, 7 February 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) 11:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore Airlines Flight 380

AfDs for this article:

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

The article, which is about the inaugural flight of the Airbus A380, fails WP:NOTNEWS and is really ultimately trivia. All of the important information in this article has already been included and discussed at the A380 article. Would be a WP:PROD candidate except that it passed a previous AFD in 2008. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 13:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing more than trivia. The subject is worth mentioning in the Airbus A380 article, but is already included there now. - Ahunt (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - save that which is already included in A380 article, there is nothing of note. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think there's an article about the inagural airline flight of the Boeing 707, the Boeing 747, or the BAC 1-11, no need to have one about the Airbus 380. It's the biggest airliner now, but there have been "biggest" before and there'll probably be bigger in the future. No prejustice against preserving as a redirect to Airbus A380#Entry into service. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Not sufficiently notable for a stand alone article. Merge a summary of the cited text with refs to Airbus A380 and redirect there. -fnlayson (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NOTNEWS states "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The maiden commercial flight of the largest aircraft in history is an historic event and not "routine" or anything like "announcements, sports, or celebrities."--Oakshade (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And when the the maiden commercial flight of an aircraft larger than the A380 (Boeing Pelican?) takes place, what then - do we delete this article then? Notability is not temporary. But this is a clear case of where the claim for notability/historicness is temporary. We don't have an article on the first commercial flight of the 747, as I noted. Or for that of the de Havilland Comet, for that matter, which is indisputably permanently historic as the first operational commercial flight of a jet airliner. If the maiden commercial flight of the A380 is notable and deserves an article, so to do those of the 747 and Comet; otherwise it's blatant WP:POV. I don't think, however, we have anybody saying we need articles on the first commercial flights of those types, which raises the question of why the A380 deserves one when they don't - a question that can't be answered other than with, "it doesn't". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we had other articles about the maiden flights of those aircraft, I'd support their existence. They probably don't since Wikipedia didn't exist then and significant coverage has not been current. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to promote Recentism. -fnlayson (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But these are historic flights which that essay (not guideline) doesn't apply to.--Oakshade (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all equally historic, they all deserve articles regardless of when they occured - or they all don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Utterly ridiculous, there is no enduring notability for the literal flight from Singapore to Sydney. Airbus A380#Entry into service covers the not-news event to the extent that it needs to be covered. Tarc (talk)
Delete event already covered in both Airbus A380 and Singapore Airlines not really notable for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say merge, but it would appear the relevant info is already in the articles I would have suggested merging to. Mjroots (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there hasn't been a first commercial flight of an airliner that has received more media coverage than, perhaps, the first Pan Am 747 flight. All proceeds of this flight go to charities, which could be an article in itself. Sp33dyphil ^(Talk) ^{(Contributions)}^{(I love Wikipedia!)} 22:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What could be an article in itself? List of charities given to by Singapore Airlines Flight 380 ? This is getting more and more tragically comic by the moment. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sp33dyphil.—Why so serious? ^{Talk to me} 05:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A launch of a new type of airplane is quite notable, and an article on that type of plane is more than justified. But to claim that the actual Singapore-Australia leg (Flight 380) it itself notable is just...I don't even know what to say, there is simply nothing in the sources to support the flight itself being notable. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In my eyes it is not a notable flight, just as the first flights of the Comet or other major groundbreaking aircraft aren't given their own article, I don't see anything that makes this flight in particular noteworthy; the main article is enough. Kyteto (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect. This is simply not encyclopaedically notable for a stand-alone article - everything about this flight that does have encyclopaedic merit is already in the main article. If it were, we should be including articles on the individual journeys that were the first commercial service for every new type of plane (and train, bus, tram, taxi, ferry, ...) or at least every one of these that was at the time of that journey the something-est (biggest, smallest, heaviest, lightest, fastest, most expensive, least expensive, ...). This example is just as ridiculous. Redirecting the title to Airbus A380#Entry into service would discourage recreation - I don't mind whether the history should be deleted first or not. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:EVENT on every count. Regarding a possible merge, would the Airbus A380 article really benefit from content about the food that was served on the flight? I doubt it. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:45, 2 February 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 Memorial Hermann–Texas Medical Center#Hospitals_and_Institutes. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research

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

Fails notability, and no reliable sources. Just because the senator who was shot is being treated at this hospital does not mean it inherits notability, in fact it may be a privacy issue. Phearson (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Memorial Hermann Healthcare System. It seems to be an integral part of that group and is listed there. Whilst the facility might well pass the notability test if an independent institution (on the the evidence of a Google search it has a national reputation and hospitals generally are treated as notable) I don't think that a separate article is needed or helpful to users. Agree that individual patients should not be identified, especially whilst treated there. AJHingston (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Memorial Hermann - Texas Medical Center#Hospitals and Institutes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Memorial Hermann - Texas Medical Center#Hospitals and Institutes, notability is not inherited for this hospital and it does not need it's own article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the independent article is NN --Guerillero | My Talk 14:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this content-less stub to Memorial Hermann–Texas Medical Center where it is already listed. This looks like a good candidate for a WP:SNOW close to me. Tvoz/talk 07:54, 6 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Peale Bishop

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

Does not pass WP:ACADEMIC. Although he co-founded an institute, I'd still say he is non-notable. Worm 13:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF and two local obituaries (one not available online) are adequate enough to reliably source the article but aren't enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 1 February 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) 11:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common misunderstandings of genetics

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

Title is inherently OR. How common is common? There is no clear criterion for what's a "common misconception" besides "source x says it's common", which is really stretching it. List is inherently WP:SYNTH. See related rationale and discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common misconceptions (3rd nomination). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 12:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep This article was created in 2007 with a lot of work in collaboration from editors with significantly different viewpoints. It is carefully refed and has quite substantial content. Who cares "how common is common" - if a WP:RS or better more than one indicates that it's common then it's common enough. We should also use common sense. (PS I find that I was the original creator of the article, though others did a lot more work on it) NBeale (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move material to various articles. The problem is that the selection of misconceptions for inclusion in the article (I'm sure there are many more which could have been included, but were not) requires evaluation beyond what WP editors are supposed to apply to the subject. If there is some some generally held list of misconceptions, discussed among e.g. historians of science and generally accepted, then that might be the basis for such an article. Otherwise this material needs to be moved to various other articles as parenthetical clarification at appropriate points. The material does seem valuable so I suggest you copy it to your userspace before the article is deleted, as I think it will be. EEng (talk) 15:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have thought it common knowledge, rather than common errors, that we determine what is common--as with other subjective criteria applied by wikipedia--by applying common sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your parallel between common knowledge and common misconception is a false one, because common means different things in those two phrases.

In the phrase common knowledge the word common means "held in common" i.e. essentially universal, so that "it is common knowledge that New York City is in the United States" means that essentially everyone knows it. Whether or not a given piece of information should be treated as common (i.e. universal) knowledge is something editors can usually determine by consensus.

But in the phrase common misconceptions, the word common means frequently found. (In fact, here it really can't mean "almost universal," because certainly there are many people who are not confused about whatever it is.) Thus there's no analogy between common knowledge and common misconception -- we'll need outside sources -- several in substantial agreement -- to tell us which of the many misconceptions are the common ones. And I doubt we'll find that because, Stephen Jay Gould and a few others aside, it's not something to which very much careful attention is given.

EEng (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not closing with a smiley face. ;) --Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, if need be—The topic of misunderstanding evolution is widely documented and notable.—RJH (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics and evolution are quite different, though related, things. And the need for RS for what the "common misconceptions" are is still there. EEng (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My statement applies to genetics as well. Try searching for misunderstandings genetics on Google books.—RJH (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of common misconceptions. I wouldn't object to this page existing except that it's fairly small and only contains four real examples, one of which ("Genes as words") is arguably "common" at all. Give genetics a section on the main misconceptions page instead. ShadowUltra (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments above apply to the general common misconceptions article, as amply demonstrated by its talk page [21]. EEng (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep writing articles always requires judgement about what to include--it is not a mechanical process. We always decide in writing an article what of the available evidence to use, and which of the objections to mention, and how to answer them. This is no different. similar objections have been raised about "Criticism of ..." articles, but even if we included the content in the main article, we would still have to be selective and judge what is important enough to include. This particular article needs some further improvements, however: the way things are stated are in fact too judgmental. DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-sourced. I'm not sure I understand the nomination's rationale. The nom says "'source x says it's common' is really stretching it". Actually, that's exactly how our WP:V policy works. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well-sourced and notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:22, 7 February 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 - G7 by User:Sphilbrick; {non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester united v crawley town 2011

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

Article on a football game which isn't all that notable. Doesn't seem to pass WP:EVENT and the "asting effect" criteria therein. Travelbird (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable event, very short article with no sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already mentioned in the Crawley Town F.C. article, and will form part of the history of that club. AJHingston (talk) 14:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No context/content. Lugnuts (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It has been set to happen but there is no indication that it will be anything other than a fairly run of the mill FA Cup tie. Could potentially be recreated in the highly unlikely event that Crawley Town win but until then not worth keeping. Keresaspa (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL At the moment this is just another tie in the 5th round - nothing notable. Ohandwhyisitwrittenintextspeak.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:55, 1 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Bakr al Jaziri

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

WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:BIO. This person has received some limited attention after the US government named him as a member of some terrorist organizations. Nothing more is known about him, no further sources are available, no info independent from the US government provided info is available. Fram (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is not notable as noted above.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even a BLP1E as he isn't even connected to an event. Just being an alleged terrorist is not notable in itself; recreate if he blows something up. Tarc (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than a few passing mentions (which add nothing to the article) the subject appears to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore seemingly fails the general notability guideline. Anotherclown (talk) 08:23, 5 February 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. A7 Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reynald Daluz

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

Has a minor claim of notability, thus AfDed. But it's still no-where near WP:BIO as I don#t think that the student title really cuts it. Travelbird (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular map

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

Contested PROD. Doesn't really explain the term at all. And although there are some Google hits in various contexts, I can't find any sources for this nebulous definition. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No cognizable subject. EEng (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – rambling essay not supported by reliable sources. Boghog (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note – I suppose the intention of this article is to describe an isomorphism between the universe of possible chemical structures and other classes of objects. Parts of this article are vaguely reminiscent of chemical biology or chemogenomics which themselves are pretty vague concepts, but at least these concepts are backed up by reliable sources. The more general concept of "molecular map" as defined in this article is so broad that has no practical utility and as far as I can tell, has never been described by a reliable third party source. Boghog (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To this chemist, the content of the article is just nonsense. There's not one part of it that is understandable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:21, 3 February 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 a trainwreck. There is so much here that no meaningful consensus can be derived. I am particularly disappointed at the volume of single-purpose submissions which appear to have been solicited off-site.

There appears to be one main argument on each side: on delete that the list is OR and has no well-defined inclusion criteria, and on the keep side that "common misconceptions" is a subject which has been covered in reliable sources and that it would be a loss to the encyclopedia to remove it. Neither side holds a clear weight of numbers, and neither has substantively defeated the other's key arguments; these are the two usual measures upon which, rightly or wrongly, deletion debates are judged.

The way forward is something to discuss at the article talk page. I urge the sides not to entrench themselves in their opinions. We may well end up back here in a few months (and if we do, I would be supportive of semi-protecting the AFD page). It may be that the page ought to be split somewhat to avoid becoming a dumping ground for what someone thinks is a misconception. UK telephone code misconceptions is a stable article about misconceptions. I am sure there are others.

As an aside, I am conscious from my fast-approaching-five years as a sysop that the deletion system has failed badly here. I could just as easily have closed this as delete by fiat, at which time it would be hauled to DRV (as I am half-expecting this closure to be) which would promptly spend another seven days coming to an outcome of either "no consensus, default to keep deleted". Perhaps voting has its merits on occasion? Stifle (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of common misconceptions

AfDs for this article:

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

The current "agreed upon" criteria for inclusion on this list is "must have a source using the exact phrase 'common misconception', and that source or another must demonstrate that this misconception is wrong?" That means that this article is a collection of entirely unrelated things, the only thing that they share being a two word phrase. In order for an informative (non-navigational, non-dab list) to be considered notable, we would have to demonstrate that "common misconception" is a notable topic in and of itself. I believe that to be false, because there is no scholarship or field or analysis of the concept of "common misconception" (unlike an article like Urban myth, which, as a category, has been the subject of serious academic inquiry). This list is non-notable in exactly the same way that hypothetical articles List of things that have been described as cutting edge, Movies that have been called awesome or List of topics that are hard to understand would be non-notable, even though we could create a reasonably lengthy list, each and every item on which would be sourced and would meet the "inclusion criteria." This article does not and cannot have an inclusion criteria which is notable, and, as such, should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

"The current "agreed upon" criteria for inclusion on this list is "must have a source using the exact phrase 'common misconception', and that source or another must demonstrate that this misconception is wrong?""

This is by no ways agreed upon.

Current understanding is that if a belief can be shown to be widespread or prevalent(65% of Americans in this survey believe XXX), and can be referenced as being false, that it merits inclusion. Not quite the same as Movies that have been called awesome. Besides the article is both interesting and informative.AerobicFox (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check the talk page—that is not the current opinion of other editors, both those preferring deletion and those preferring keeping. In fact, I raised that exact point and was told no percentage could qualify for inclusion on the list. Other items have been rejected because they are only "common misconceptions among physicians" or "common misconceptions in France," or because they said they were misconceptions without using the word common. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is relevant what

Notability is not determined by a percentage. There is no guideline that says "A town is notable if it has X ammount of residents" or "This song is notable if it has been played in X% of regions". A request for notability criteria to be determined numerically is impossible and not done anywhere on Wikipedia. If the large prevalence of the belief is notable(an RS says so), and the belief is false, then it warrants inclusion. This is not as impossibly complex as it has been portrayed here.AerobicFox (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What % level = common? Is 25% "common"? How about 10%? or to be declared "common" does it have to be over 50%? Of what population group? Can something that is described as a "common mis-belief among US high school students" count? What about "a common misbelief among Estonian high school students"? Or "a common misbelief among members of the Estonian graduating class of 2010"? Can we include something that was "a common misbelief among the graduating class of 1944?" All in all every criteria I have seen is completely arbitrary and leads to a random indiscriminat POV biased collection of factiods. Active Banana (^bananaphone 00:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~: (Changed my vote to Keep now that tight inclusion criteria have finally been added to the article.) This could be renamed to "List of things that, by chance, have been called common misconceptions, but excluding equivalent things that, also by chance, have been been called popular misunderstandings, well known myths, etc". Its contents cannot be sensibly defined. It will inevitably be pressured by US-centric claims (such as today's one about whether Obama is Kenyan). 65% of Americans is around 3% of the world's populations. That's not very common. Basically, it's rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From looking at the talk page of the article, I don't think one can claim that any inclusion criteria is "agreed upon", but there is certainly a "trend" to use only the excact phrase "common misconception". This is apparently done in order to avoid debates about what constitutes a misconception (as opposed to, e.g. a mispronunciation or "something most people have never even thought about") and what makes it common (is 17% of world population common? Is 45% of all catholics? Is something that is "often heard" common? If not, does "frequently heard" cut it?) There are two possibilities here: 1-Stick with the excact phrase "common misconception" in reliable sources, in which case the nominators arguments are valid. This would also lead to the inclusion of absurd items from narrow fields of science for example, because somewhere, in a very reputable and thus notable source, an expert in the field have described it as a "common misconception". 2-The phrase "common misconception" in itself is not necessary nor sufficient, but it must be demonstrated in each case that this is a a: a widely held belief and b: wrong. In this case the arguments by HiLo48 sound pretty convincing. Copy and paste the list and make it into one of those perpetually circulating e-mails. Dr bab (talk) 09:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Edit: This edit was erroneously labelled as a minor edit. sorry. Dr bab (talk) 09:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the comments above, for many of the entries, the term "common" loses any meaning when WP:WORLDVIEW is considered - something the sources quoted don't need to worry about. --Dweller (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading through the previous deletion nominations, it seems that many of the keep-votes argues along the lines of "It is in a bad state now but it can be fixed by having better inclusion criteria". I think it is pretty clear from the present state of this debate and the article's talk page that better inlcusion criteria have not been defined, and that creating such inclusion criteria is far from straightforward. I therefore urge editors not to make this argument again unless some specific suggestions for new inlcusion criteria are presented, with arguments as to how they will adress the problem of objectively defining "common misconception" in a satisfactory way.Dr bab (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete title is inherently OR. How common is "common"? Is it a common misconception that country music has songs about dogs and trucks, when there are really only about four songs in the genre that are non-ironically about either? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 12:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A book entitled Common Misconceptions could be interesting - I might even buy it - but an encyclopaedia is supposed to deal in facts, not mistakes, no matter how common. I presume that WIkipedia is still an encyclopaedia. Emeraude (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject has been a theme of numerous reference books, among them The Dictionary of Misinformation, More Misinformation, and The Book of General Ignorance.SPNic (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Similarly, The Encyclopedia of Popular Misconceptions, Ferris Johnsen, 1994. Not R (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I, too, see the main problem in defining what is common. Certainly criteria could be established, say, "it is sufficient if the majority of people in one country has this misconception" and mark each entry appropriately (as is currently the case with S-Korean fan-death). But: A) so far this has not worked B) it is arbitrary and will (has) lead to endless disputes C) it is inherently OR and POV. Are there policies that allow for editors deciding by consensus (or even "seniority") what criteria have to be met for inclusion of material in an article? I thought WP was "source-driven" in that respect.

Commenting on above entries by AerobicFox and SPNic:

There is a lot of interesting and informative material that for good reason doesn't make it into WP. 'Gossip' comes to mind. Hopefully interesting and informative is not a valid argument for keeping an article, just as much as boring and hardly useful is not a valid reason for deleting something.

I would debate that the list of common misconceptions is concerned with Misinformation and General Ignorance. Instead, I encourage you to start a list of Misinformation and General Ignorance based on those books. At least it will not have the issue of defining what may go into the article. --Echosmoke (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge material to various other articles (but not separate "Misconceptions about..." articles -- see below). There's no way this can ever be more than an arbitrary subset of a gigantic amount of potential material. Here's a test: an encyclopedia article should be something someone visits to learn something about a topic about which they have at least a vague conception: "Let me check wikipedia to learn more about..." genetics, the history of warfare, whatever. What would someone visiting this article be looking for? "Let me check wikipedia to learn more about the sorts of things many people don't understand." -- ? What would they come away with except a grab bag of examples? The article has no cognizable purpose that I can see which fits into the purpose of Wikipedia. How about Wikibooks? EEng (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but Split into separate articles: "Miconceptions about evolution," "Misconceptions about astronomy," "Misconceptions about law," etc. Each page can have a wider criteria about what constitutes a "misconception" while also eliminating the vague "common" modifier. For example, "Misconceptions about evolution" can have the criteria that a major news or information source has made the mistake. We do have precedent for including major misconceptions about articles when they may help the general population; for example, see Miranda warning#Confusion regarding use, which documents the extensive problem the mainstream media and culture has with accurately portraying Miranda rights. ShadowUltra (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material should be distributed to the articles on the various topics each misconception touches upon, ideally as parenthetical in-lines at appropriate points, and occassionally as a section of the article. No need for separate "Misconceptions about..." articles except in the very unusual case that the main article is so long it needs sub-articles. EEng (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm just concerned that concepts like "Misconceptions about evolution" are so pervasive, common, and widespread that they are culturally relevant enough to have their own article (although in this case Creation-evolution controversy and Evolution as theory and fact cover a significant amount of this information). ShadowUltra (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom and Dr. bab and the dicsussion on the talk page (and perhaps others on this page I didnt read them all) - we are actually looking at a list of things that someone has labeled with the phrase "common misconceptions" - and neither "common" nor "misconception" nor "common misconceptions" has any sort of widely agreed upon definition which can be used objectively to determine inclusion criteria. Objectively determinable criteria is a requirement for a list article. If you move to something other than having been labeled by someone as a "common misconceptions" - say the source called it "widely held belief that isnt true" or "many people falsely believe that" or "often it is incorrectly assumed by X that .." "35% of the people surveyed thought that..." then you are being even more non-objective in which descriptive phraseology is allowed to "count" for inclusion in the article. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because use of the words "common misconception" are POV-based. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can argue (mostly unsuccessfully for those on my side) whether the criteria are specified properly. But, most people use Wikipedia to learn interesting things. This page is interesting, plain and simple. I will certainly feel a loss if I can no longer recommend this page to friends with 20 minutes to kill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattorama12 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep xkcd mentions this article in episode http://xkcd.com/843/. 65.168.84.71 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a keep vote too, but let's please have better reasons than that, okay? ~ CZeke (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course the list is not without problems (e.g. cultural bias), and of course that is no reason to delete it. Hexmaster (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last 3 "keeps" being, of course, classic examples of "Arguments to avoid in deletion debates". EEng (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles must be NPOV; and I see no, and have seen no one offer, any way to have this list exist in any form that is non-culturally biased, so that IS a reason for deletion. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No suggestions? Just add some common misconceptions from other societies. My suggestion is: if you want it to be less Western oriented then add the info yourself as it is not hard to get. You seem to be looking less for suggestions and more for volunteers. AerobicFox (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MORE AND MORE stuff without concern for quality is simply a recipe for disaster. There are insufficient inclusion criteria and no method of actually developing non-POV objective inclusion criteria. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, this article doesn't fit well with Wikipedia policy. But as an American I think it's very interesting and (objectively) well-sourced. Perhaps it should be split by category or culture, but if you ask me this kind of thing is what makes Wikipedia wonderful, not rigid application of policy. Publicly Visible (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think those Keep votes above can be summarised as "Yes, it breaks lots of Wikipedia rules, but I like it." HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not rigid, but thoughtful, applicaiton of policy that leads to the conclusion that this article can't possibly work on Wikipedia, as well expressed by several people above. EEng (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia then ignore it. This article is in my opinion an improvement to Wikipedia WP:IGNORE, thus my argument is well grounded in Wikipedia policy. AerobicFox (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly does this random collection of arbitrarily selected factiods actually improve the encyclopedia? 18:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Keep The nominator's main complaint is that the criteria for inclusion allows unrelated subjects into one article. At best, this is an argument for splitting the article up. Instead of one List of Common Misconceptions, we'll have a List of Common Misconceptions about Evolution, List of Common Misconceptions about Astronomy, etc.. So if the article is deleted, it's only going to result in the creation of 20 different articles. Who knows? Maybe that might be better as it might attract more subject matter experts. But if this was the nominator's intent, then I think that the article talk page would be the appropriate venue for such a discussion, not an AfD. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to reread that. I feel you are rather misrepresenting the nominators statement.

Please define Common misconception. HiLo48 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Common misconception is self-defining. You could just call it though a widespread/prevalent/popular, incorrect belief. Instead of a definition you should be looking for criteria. The criteria is:

-The belief is notable due to it's prevalence

-the belief is false

Is that really too complex?AerobicFox (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re "The belief is notable due to it's prevalence" - Prevalence where? In the whole world? In the USA? In another, much smaller country? Within a particular field of interest? How big a field? Is high school mathematics a big enough field? All of these sorts of issues arise frequently in Edit summaries and on the Talk page. Note that for the recent issue of Obama (not?) being Kenyan it was pointed out that nobody outside the USA even thinks about it, and that even 60% of the USA's population (and that would be an exaggeration) would only be around 3% of the world's population. So, again, what does common mean? HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since no 2 editors, be they in favor of keeping or deleting, agree what qualifies as common misconception the term obviously is not self-defining.

Common is relative. There are many items on this list that can be considered common based on personal experience, whether or not they are common from a purely statistical standpoint. Perhaps changing the title to "List of relatively common misconceptions" would be appropriate, but it is an excellent article. Furthermore, it seems a lot of work has been put into this article for it to be deleted at the whim of semantics.

Keep: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerodev (talk • contribs) 20:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, excellent! Now personal experience is the new method of validation. I am sorry, I can barely keep my sarcasm at bay. Common is indeed relative and as such not objectifiable. If it was an excellent article it would be marked as such, woudn't it? This is not about semantics but about WP:NPOV and WP:NOR --Echosmoke (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So wait, are you honestly saying that all articles that aren't at WP:FA status should be deleted? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll need to get out in the hay paddock again to get enough material to build that straw man properly. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48: You don't seem to like the article much. Unfortunately, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is an argument to avoid in AfD discussions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're starting to get close to personal attack there. No, I don't like it, because it's impossible to effectively define requirements for the article and is a big challenge for serious editors to manage. That's NOT what WP:IDONTLIKEIT is concerned with. Debate the points I have raised please, not my likes and dislikes. HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't believe you've raised any valid reasons for deletion. WP:DEL#REASON lists out valid reasons, such as copyright violations, spam, not reliable sourced, BLP violations, etc. None of these apply to this article. You don't like the inclusion criteria. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, but that's not a valid reason to delete an article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the inclusion criteria is that we don't have any. Not effective ones, anyway. If you think we do, please list them here, taking into account the concerns expressed by several here about the meaning of the word "common". It needs to be very clearly defined. Without an explicit definition, the maintenance load for this article is almost unmanagable. HiLo48 (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48: That's completely false. The inclusion criteria has been established by the consensus of the article's editors for at least the last year and half. Sure, you're free to disagree with consensus, but that's not a valid argument for deletion. Likewise, claiming that the article is too difficult to maintain is not a valid reason for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some valid deletion reasons include that the article fails WP:NOT (as an indiscriminate collection of information), and that it fails WP:N (because there is no notable topic on which it is based), and that any "fix" to the topic will involve WP:OR. To clarify my deletion rationale, which I believe you have unintentionally misunderstood, I'll re-explain. The inclusion criteria for the article is that a reliable sources says the thing is a "common misconception." That fails WP:N, because it's just a list of things that, as someone else said, coincidentally happen to use a particular phrase. By the currently agreed upon inclusion standard, an item which was described in an RS as "a common fallacy" would not be acceptable; neither would "a typical mistake" or "a misconception held by 55% of Germans/Americans/people." Being described by a particular phrase in an RS is not a notable topic--it is just an indiscriminate collection of information. So that says what's wrong with the article write now. But I'm going further and saying that if we "fixed" the problem, we would be engaging in original research, because the phrase "common misconception" is so fundamentally vague and open to interpretation that we could never adequately define it in any way that wouldn't be OR. We'd need to declare a minimum percentage for RS's that use numbers, and we'd need to be able to distinguish what authors "meant" when they used words like "typical" or "common" or "regularly". Doing any of this will inevitably be OR. I am not arguing for the article to be split up. I accept that, as other have pointed out above, some of this information may legitimately belong in other articles; in fact, much of the notable information already is. But any list that somehow collects together such a disparate collection of information with no common thread other than that they have been described with the same two subjective words in at least one RS is not a valid List article on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian: I think you've grossly misinterpreted the inclusion criteria. Nobody, AFAIK, has argued that the inclusion criteria is that simply that a source coincidentally uses a particular phrase "common misconception". Nor is your claim that "a common fallacy" not being acceptable accurate. We're more than mindless robots blindly searching for literal phrases. We focus on meaning. I realize that you don't intend on splitting the article up, but that's exactly what's going to end up happening. Your argument that a list on common misconceptions combining separate topics is not notable as a whole inevitably leads to individual articles which are notable on their own. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep this is a great page. very informative. and it was referenced on xkcd btw :P

Delete When did Wikipedia become a "Top 10" pop culture site? Further, section 4.4.3 lists The China Study as a reference. This is a very questionable study.Baelzar (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is informative and educational, it is also a little bit fun. Hurricanefloyd (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a great and well written article that more people should read. Even if it violates Wikipedia's rules regarding mixed/unrelated content, it stays true to what the title of the article says it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike teh Rabbit (talk • contribs) 08:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 1

Strong Keep, but refactor. The article does, indeed, deal with a notable topic, which has been the subject of numerous popular books, tv programs and even entire websites. The main issue being raised appears to be finding inclusion criteria which doesn't breach WP:OR. I fully agree this is a hurdle all articles need to overcome, but I disagree that it's one this article can't (or even hasn't already). Many of the topics covered have been widely publicized by reliable sources such as peer reviewed papers, notable newspapers like the New York Times, and so forth... all describing the topics quite clearly as common misconceptions and, in some cases, even providing statistics for that claim. The article has recently been subject to an influx of brand new editors due to its fame from xkcd, which, while wonderful for the project, has also meant a great deal of overhead in managing content and introducing newbies to our policies. This sudden wave of interest has made it difficult to hash out much of anything on the talk page, which has quickly filled up with failed proposals, and therefore it's been difficult to discuss and prune existing entries which are improperly sourced or inappropriate for the topic. As interest dies down, it will become easier to whip the article back into shape, and clearer what sorts of entries are really valid.

With that said, I fully support refactoring the article into multiple topic-specific children. This idea has been suggested multiple times (even on this page alone), and it seems to coincide with the precedent already set with other articles: Misconceptions about HIV and AIDS is a prime example. By doing that, we would further alleviate the concerns raised by editors here, by setting a clearer standard which domains the topic would cover, and which sources were appropriate to determine notability. The List of Common Misconceptions article could then be changed to a list of lists, linking to each of the sub articles in each section, and perhaps summarizing the lists by detailing a few well sourced and prevalent entries from each article under a main article link. Changing this article to a dab would also be acceptable, though I would argue much less useful, and avoiding coverage of a notable topic. Jess_talk|_edits 02:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while the precise definition of what should be included in the list is open to debate, this is not a good argument for deletion. The first question should be, "Does this add value to the encyclopedia?" I believe this article does add value, so it should be kept. VQuakr (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With what content? We MUST have precise inclusion criteria or there will be constant argument about what's OK and what's not for the article. Saying it's "open to debate" is the primary point here. HiLo48 (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that is a talk page discussion, not a reason for deletion. VQuakr (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're trying to say with "Does this add value to the encyclopedia?", but it really is a poor inclusion criteria when you think it over. Adds value for whom? For how many does it have to add value to be included? To use an oft quoted example: "The New York phonebook is useful, but it doesn't belong on Wikipedia". Nevertheless, I guess a lot of New Yorkers would think that adding the phonebook to WP would "add value". What about if I added an article with all the contacts in my mobile? That would "add value" to me.

And the inclusion criteria have been debated on the talk page without any success. There was even a preliminary debate there about deletion, so I think the nominator really has done his homework on these accounts. He(she?) did not simply "see an article with a problem and nominate it". Dr bab (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History Lesson

Editors work hard to make article on common misconceptions, to source it well and write it well.

Other editors come along and decide article is difficult to maintain and don't like the inclusion criteria, so they nominate for deletion.

Deletion is struck down.

Editors for deletion go to talk page and demand adequate inclusion criteria, but then shut down every suggestion presented to them without offering a suggestion of their own.

Editors then go back to deletion and show as proof of their actions that there can be no inclusion criteria, so the article that other editors have written and maintained and proposed criteria for should now be deleted because they do not accept the criteria, and they do not want to have to maintain the article to their standards.

We are repeating history, and the wheel goes round and round, and the deletion editors continue bringing up deletion after deletion discussion that will never be resolved while simultaneously arguing a reason to delete is that they spend so much time "maintaining"(nominating for deletion) this article. Deletion is not a substitute for thinking hard.AerobicFox (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a silly argument. If the basis of my criticism is that I cannot conceive of adequate inclusion criteria, how on earth can I be expected suggest any? Oh, and I have never before participated in a deletion discussion for this article. HiLo48 (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice to hear, let's hope none of us participate in a deletion discussion for this article again.

"If the basis of my criticism is that I cannot conceive of adequate inclusion criteria, how on earth can I be expected suggest any?"

You suggest an inadequate criteria which is then discussed and improved upon. Rinse and repeat.AerobicFox (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)For reference, like HiLo48, I was never here for the earlier deletion arguments either. Some articles have quite famously had many AfDs before they were finally deleted. All of this is irrelevant--the process is valid. As for your final point (AF), my point is that any "adequate" criteria we come up with will be a violation of either WP:NOT or WP:OR or both. If my claim is accepted, then we can't say "we just need to keep working on it," because, by definition, "success" in the work will inevitably be a violation of policy still requiring deletion. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I pointed out above, in the previous deletion debates (in which I also did not take part) the main keep argument was that the article could be improved by finding better inclusion criteria and as such should be fixed rather than deleted. No such criteria have been put forward since then, and I cannot sidestep the conclusion that this is because it cannot be done objectively. Some have referred to books and TV-shows about this topic, but such media have the advantage (in this case) of having a single responsible editor which may subjectively decide what goes into the book/show based on his or her opinion of what is a "common misconception" and on what he or she believes will resonate with a pretty defined target audience. As Wikipedia have neither, this type of articles does not belong here. Just because film critics can publish lists of 1001 films to see before you die, Wikipedia can never have a working article along the lines of "list of good movies" because the inclusion criteria can never be made both sensible and objective. If one went with the exact phrase "good movie" as is the case(?) for the article up for deletion, then it is pretty clear that every movie ever produced would likely have to be included on the list as surely someone, somewhere, have given it a good review. Dr bab (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the assumption that you all were the same people. Nonetheless I am still of the view that this is nonproductive, and do not see how after viewing the last deletion discussion you have addressed those points, or why this one would go any differently. I also don't like the editors proposing deletion of this article to have apparently done not much work on it other then discussion at the talk page. I will go ahead and strike since this is irrelevant anyways to the discussion, and will mislead people into believing you are the same group. AerobicFox (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I absolutely agree with Jess' discussion above. Deleting this article will, in my opinion, be a loss to Wikipedia, whether or not it follows the rules/guidelines of Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, it is well written and well documented. I would rather suggest a renaming of the article into something as List of debated misconceptions, such that it is required for each item to have well documented discussions in external articles or similar concerning the subject. However, it already seems similar requirements exists for this article. --mgarde (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By definition, an loss of an article which does not meet guidelines cannot be a loss to Wikipedia. By that argument, anything which someone finds interesting or "useful" should be kept, and a whole variety of policies and precedent show us this is not true. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course it can be a loss. You make the Wikipedia guidelines sound like they are perfect. I'm not stating that it will be a loss to Wikipedia, i'm just expressing that this is my personal opinion (and indirectly that i disagree with the guidelines on this matter), which (i know) may have little interest in a discourse like a deletion discussion should be. However, i do have the right to express my opinion. As i am not part of the us group i do not know how to verify the policies, and have inadequate Wikipedia experience to know about the precedent you speak of. --mgarde (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've had this discussion before and the result was Keep. Trying again in the hope of getting a different result is disruption, per WP:DEL. Hair-splitting arguments over the meaning of common misconception are unimportant as it is possible to nitpick most definitions. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please do not misstate my intent or policy. That discussion was nearly 2 years ago, and consensus can change (especially since many of our policies have become more refined over time). I didn't do this to "get a different result", I did it because I believe that the article is now and always will be a violation of policy/guidelines, in a way that hurts the encyclopedia. I was not a part of that previous discussion, nor were others. By your argument, once an article is "kept," it's kept forever, and that matches neither practice nor policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The result of the previous deletion debate was, to quote the closing admin:

"The result was keep. I've read through the discussion, and from what I've observed, the primary arguments for deletion include WP:IINFO, WP:OR, and the fact that the list is too broad in its scope to be a valid article. Original research and vague scope parameters can be addressed through editing, not deletion. Moreover, the list is not indiscriminate; to quote User:Neurolysis, "we can define common misconceptions by what reliable sources are calling common misconceptions". And there are, indeed, reliable sources to be found. As such, there is no consensus for deletion."

This raises exactly the points that are being discussed, that the "current inclusion criteria" are based on an exact phrase, and that after two deletion debates no-one have been able to come up with a better set of criteria. We are left with the problems raised by the nomination and the first comment by HiLo48.Dr bab (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dr bab: The existing consensus over the inclusion criteria has existed for at least a year and a half. You're free to disagree with consensus over the inclusion criteria, but that's not a valid reason for deletion. Please take such arguments to the article talk page where they belong. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whether to include the item "0.999...=1" was debated over more than 7,000 words on the talk page. That does not, to me, indicate that clear inclusion criteria exists. Issues raised in that debate included the definitions of the words "common" and "misconception". Additionally, the problems of the inclusion criteria were raised on the talk page under the heading Question for the audience--who supports deletion?. If consensus existed on inclusion critera, then nobody in either of those debates were aware of it, and can it then be called consensus? Dr bab (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment/suggestion: If the page is not deleted, may I suggest that the inclusion critera are permanently listed on top of the talk page with links to the appropriate pages in the archive where the nature of these criteria have been discussed? It would make it easy for new contributors to judge whether their proposed item is accepted under these criteria. It would also make it easy for editors who disagree with the criteria to 1-Find out just what the criteria are, and 2-find out whether any objectons they might have with these criteria have already been discussed and dealt with.Dr bab (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I mentioned above, a lot of the discussion on the talk page in recent weeks has been due to an influx of brand new editors, many of whom think "I (don't) like that" is a valid argument in inclusion debates. That a section had "a lot of words" doesn't mean there were valid objections raised, or that consensus did not form. Frankly, the arguments I've seen rehashed on the talk page have all come from the same editors, who have both shot down general agreement that a highly reliable source saying something is a "common misconception" isn't sufficient, and then argued that since there's no such agreement, the article doesn't have valid inclusion criteria. Honestly, I'm not sure how to respond to that... Jess_talk|_edits 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are probably right that the increased traffic have made the situation temporarily even more difficult to manage. Regardless, this only highlights the problems inherent in defining precisely what constitutes a "common misconception". If I understand you correctly, the current criteria is that one(?) reliable source describes X as a "common misconception", with no other qualifiers as to in what group the misconception must be "common". As an example, one of the latest items to be added and sourced is the misinformed belief that DNA is made from protein. I could only access one of the sources listed, but it appears to refer to it being a common misconception among people in Initial Teacher Trainee programs, presumably in the UK. Is it also a common misconception in the population of UK as a whole? If it is only a misconception amongst students in ITT programs (unlikely in this case, I admit, but let's pretend for the sake of argument), is that still sufficient to include it in the article because it was described as a "common misconception" in a reliable source? Dr bab (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The current standard is that a sufficient reliable source be provided, which (as across the rest of the site) sometimes means more than one. But yes, there is currently no standard for what group this applies to, and I don't see any problem with that. The topic is "common misconceptions", not "common misconceptions in demographic X" or even "worldwide misconceptions". It very much is not a list of misconceptions that a given reader is expected to have believed or even heard of, which is why the above arguments of "I haven't heard this one, therefore it's not common" are irrelevant. That appears to be the misapprehension most editors casting delete votes are under, which would indeed make the list an arbitrary collection of information. However, it is not. If a topic has established notability, it deserves inclusion, regardless of the demographic's size. The only argument against this criteria I find compelling is page size issues, but that isn't currently a problem, has nothing to do with AfD, and can be properly handled by splitting the article into topic-specific children. Jess_talk|_edits 18:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: It's garbage. A list of fundamentally unconnected stuff, linked by a few phrases widely used by lazy journalists and writers. There is no serious research cited on the subject of common misconceptions, just a bunch of people claiming that the thing they are writing about is a common misconception, despite them having no expertise on the subject of the list itself. If it's to be kept, it should more accurately be named List of things someone has said are common misconceptions. --hippo43 (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened before, List of pseudosciences was moved to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request to A Quest For Knowledge: ...or to anybody else convinced that we have had 100% clear, reliable, effective inclusion criteria in place for this article for the past 18 months - Please list them here. (I ask because I wasn't an active editor here 18 months ago.) HiLo48 (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria has been to have at least one reliable source stating that something is a common misconception (or words to the effect) along with an explanation as to why it is false. This can be the same source or a second. To be honest, most of the problems with the article deal with entries which aren't reliably sourced or where an editor believes that something is a common misconception but doesn't have a source to support it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm hoping you would have noticed the concerns expressed here over several parts of that. Firstly, "or words to the effect" leaves huge area for debate. Secondly, in English there are no prescribed linguistic requirements for the use of the term common misconception. A good writer on a global topic may use it validly, or a poor writer in a very narrow field may use it sloppily. I think it's silly that we base an article on random individuals' use of an undefined term. Whatever the criteria, why aren't they clearly explained at the head of the article? It would overcome the point you make about unsourced claims. Why is the place where one would expect to look for the definition - Common misconception - simply a link back to this article? We MUST have a clear definition in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And on this very matter, I thank User:Iraneal for the addition he has just made to the article...

Contrary to popular belief (even erroneously repeated by some scholars^[1]^[2]) William Tyndale did not invent or coin the word atonement.

Let's look at that addition. The editor has used the term "contrary to popular belief", rather than "common misconception", and the sources are print documents, rather than something we can look up online. We are not going to easily know what words were actually used in those sources. And is this really a common misconception? Personally, I've never even thought about where the word atonement came from. Have you? Has anybody else here? This is a classic example of what might be common among that religious or linguistic scholars, but irrelevant to the general population. Please tell me how you would apply the current criteria to this addition. (And convince me that your interpretation is obvious, and unlikely to be debated much.) HiLo48 (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The context of this is what matters. If it was a common misconception around the old days then sure. The article should just be clear that this was a common misconception. To better understand whether this should belong it would help to look at William Tyndales article.AerobicFox (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Whatever the criteria, why aren't they clearly explained at the head of the article?" I guess because no one's brought it up before? We can certainly add them somewhere in the article or the talk page or where ever's appropriate. I'd also be open to discussing changing the inclusion criteria to something more strict, such as requiring two reliable sources describing something as a common misconception. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been raised before, but never agreed to, because the criteria themselves have never been clearly agreed upon. However, the point is that it makes the question of 'what counts as a common misconception' a subjective matter for Wikipedia editors - original research, in other words.

Is this a list of common misconceptions among people in general? American people? English-speaking people? People with internet access? Stupid people? Is an example acceptable if it's only a common misconception among a very narrow group of people? These distinctions are hardly ever drawn by the sources themselves. I fail to see a broad range of high quality sources covering the concept of 'common misconceptions' with any rigour. --hippo43 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So come on, those who think we have the inclusion criteria 100% clear. Should this new item be in the article or not, and why? Let's see how much of 100% obvious agreement we have. HiLo48 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although posted in a different section, I believe that 28bytes explained it quite nicely:[22] "As with any article, there be will items that will be obvious to include (because they are heavily covered by many reliable sources), items that will be obvious to exclude (because no RS coverage can be found), and gray areas that will require discussion and consensus on the talk page (things where the significance of the RS coverage is disputed). The fact that it might be hard to come to a consensus on some of the proposed list additions or removals isn't a valid argument for deletion, and it certainly doesn't mean that the topic itself isn't notable." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding AQFK. But I really would like to tease this issue out some more. Can we get specific, so we can work through your claim that the 18 month old inclusion criteria are workable? How would you tackle this addition? Is it in the hard category? Do we include this item, or not? Why, or why not? I really don't feel confident about it either way. I'm genuinely interested in others' views. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as a content dispute which is rarely a valid reason for deletion. Again, valid reasons for deletion are lack of notability, copyright violations, hoaxes, content forks, BLP violations, etc. In any case, if the sources are printed, we have one of three options:

Go to a library or book store and verify it ourselves.
Assume good faith that this editor has done their homework properly.
Ask the editor to scan the relevent pages and upload them somewhere so we can verify them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh...I swore I was going to stop commenting here, but it just makes me so unhappy to see such a blatant misstatement of policy. If an article is OR, as I claim it to be, and there is no underlying content which is not OR which can be saved, it should be deleted. If the article is a violation of WP:NOT, it should be deleted. You and Colonel Warden don't get to ignore 2 of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia simply because you want to keep articles. Now, I readily accept that we don't agree about whether or not this article falls under the prohibitions of NOT or is original research--that is the purpose of this discussion. But it is absolutely imperative that we understand that a valid deletion rationale has been asserted, and the only question is whether or not this article meets that rationale. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy to Assume good faith, but even then we don't have the exact words "common misconception". We have "contrary to popular belief". So, is that the same thing? We need to decide that. And the breadth of the field of interest HAS TO be relevant to our deliberations. The issue of the first use of the word atonement is not a big issue to the bulk of the human race, so it won't be a misconception for most of us, who have never even thought about it. But that's POV and OR on my part, so it's irrelevant whether you agree with me or not, because we shouldn't be doing it. So, how do we decide on this one, in a way that's unarguable, AND follows the rules? HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian: As I already stated,[23] the notability argument is the only one put forth that is anything close to plausible, but it's not really an argument for deletion but for the splitting up of the article into 20 or so separate articles which are notable on their own.

HiLo48: Yes, I would think that "contrary to popular belief" is the same thing as "common misconception". IMHO, we should not be looking for literal phrases. Instead, we should focus on the source's meaning. Yes, this may lead to disputes, but on Wikipedia, there's no such thing as something that is unarguable. The discussion, for example, over whether it's "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" is at 8,000 words and counting. Content disputes happen all over Wikipedia, but are not cause for deletion. Check out WP:LAME for some of the crazy things Wikipedia editors argue about. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The form of a name is a very different issue from whether something should be in an article or not. And you continue to ignore my point (but not mine alone) of the breadth of a field of endeavour, in this case Theology or Linguistics. Can anything "common" in such a field, but unheard of outside it, really be "common" for the purposes of this article? HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's a content issue. It's not a valid reason for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a content issue that only exists because we don't have effective, clear inclusion criteria. There is nothing in the inclusion criteria to guide editors on such matters. It can only be decided via personal opinion at the time. And that's not acceptable. It's a problem we know will occur. It cannot be avoided while the article exists, unless you can do better than your 18 month old criteria. HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, I fear you are misinterpreting what OR is. It does not mean any article which requires editorial discretion as to what items to include or exclude. Indeed, most articles except for very tightly-defined lists are like that. Editorial disputes are waged all the time on articles to determine whether some bit of information is appropriate to include. The contentions that this is original research and that the topic is a non-notable topic are both shown to be quite weak deletion rationales by the abundance of relevant references which are already present in the article. 28bytes (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Alister E. McGrath, Christian literature: an anthology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2001), p. 357
^ Campbell Gillon, Words to Trust (Rowman & Littlefield, 1991), p. 42

Delete An unmanageable grab-bag of trivia; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is quite manageable and many of its items are significant. The admin who closed the last AfD gave a persuasive argument as to why this is not indiscriminate, by quoting a very discriminate sourcing standard. Moreover, there often seems to be confusion about what WP:IINFO actually prohibits. Looking at the page, it lists:

Plot-only description of fictional works.
Lyrics databases.
Excessive listing of statistics.
News reports.
Who's who.
FAQs.
Catalogue.

It seems apparent that WP:IINFO is completely inapplicable in this discussion. --Kiz o r 21:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator seems to be suggesting, against all evidence, that the topic of "common misconceptions" itself has not been covered widely by reliable sources. As Mann Jess points out, books have been written on the subject of common misconceptions for centuries. Of course it's a notable topic, and the article itself already has hundreds of relevant sources. If refinement of the inclusion criteria is needed, let's discuss on the talk page how to improve it. Deletion is wholly inappropriate here. 28bytes (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the talk page, there are numerous numerous discussions about the inclusion criteria for which no reasonable objective inclusion criteria has emereged. If it hasnt emerged in 18 months since the last AFD how much longer do we need to continue have those pointless discussions on the vauge hope that "consensus will eventually lead to an answer"? Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I read through the entire talk page before !voting here. As with any article, there be will items that will be obvious to include (because they are heavily covered by many reliable sources), items that will be obvious to exclude (because no RS coverage can be found), and gray areas that will require discussion and consensus on the talk page (things where the significance of the RS coverage is disputed). The fact that it might be hard to come to a consensus on some of the proposed list additions or removals isn't a valid argument for deletion, and it certainly doesn't mean that the topic itself isn't notable. 28bytes (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that, as we've been discussing above, we do have inclusion criteria which is objective, and it's been adopted by most all the active editors managing the actual content on the page. That criteria seems reasonable to me, and doesn't violate policy. If there are objections, discussing (or refining) it on the talk page seems most appropriate here... rather than jumping to AfD after just a week of increased publicity. The only objections I've seen thus far have been predictive (i.e. The page will eventually be too big, or unmanageable, etc). If you see a real issue which is present now, discussing it first before AfD would be good. Jess_talk|_edits 19:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as throroughly un-encyclopedic. Do we really need a section in WP:NOT for stupid stuff you may have gotten wrong? I think not. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No its not. "What we want to know are your reasons why you think something shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply explain what policies it breaks and how it breaks them, or why you believe it is unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia." - Toddst1 provided the rationale backing the generalized statement. Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What policies does it break and how does it break them? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that you are not willing to fully read the quote: "why you believe it is unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia" which is explained by "Do we really need a section in WP:NOT for stupid stuff you may have gotten wrong? I think not." Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So anything that is "stupid", we shouldn't have an article on? Should we delete the article on Racism because racism is stupid? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that "stupid articles" are an asset to the encyclopedia that we should encourage, well I will just have to disagree with you. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. The use of personal dislike as grounds for deletion on a website visited by hundreds of millions of persons. I have often used that as an example of the things that would destroy the entire Wikipedia. --Kiz o r 21:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, could you tell me your definition of "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" on my talk page? I've been looking into this every so often for quite some time, but have never found a useful definition. So far it seems to resolve into "this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia because this shouldn't be in an encyclopedia," giving a thoroughly empty argument a false semblance of validity. There are quite a lot of encyclopedias out there, with varying scopes and definitions. Moreover, shouldn't we start the removal of unencyclopedic features by removing the "edit" button? Before that thing goes, we'll never fit conventional conceptions. --Kiz o r 21:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep."Yes, it may break lots of Wikipedia rules, but I still really like it.Hazzel (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we can't allow personal dislike to be a factor, I don't see how we can allow personal preference to be a factor. But the situation isn't that bad: the arguments that it breaks The Rules aren't particularly strong. --Kiz o r 22:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Oh dear, what hope does Wikipedia have? If that Keep "vote" (and many others here saying the same thing in a lot more words) is counted to mean anything, we may as well all give up. If editors truly feel that the rules can be overlooked just because they want to, there are no quality standards left. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, give the guy a rest. It's not like he has any better way to make his opinion known, since our thicket-o-Rules is incomprehensible to ~~sane~~ casual readers. --Kiz o r 22:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{EC}WP:ILIKEIT is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Saying that it may break lots of rules is also not a good argument. Please tell us which policies it violates and how. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest For Knowledge - there is really no point in responding to your questions here. I have done so, many times, with what I see as strong responses, and you have simply ignored the responses, starting a new discussion, and saying the opposite of what others have said, with no evidence to back up your claims. I started a discussion above about an addition to the article which was questionable. I note you just abandoned that discussion. Can you please return to it so we can have some structured discussion here? (It was the one about "atonement") HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responded.[24] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 2

Keep It's a useful and interesting article. That the criteria for including items in the list isn't nailed down is not a reason to delete it. Wikipedia doesn't need mathematical levels of precision when it comes to what should be in articles. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you and I disagree on a topic's inclusion, because we don't have precise definitions, what do we do? HiLo48 (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The same thing we do every night, Pinky–try to ~~take over the world!~~seek consensus on the talk page." —Tom Morris (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should explain myself some more. There are thousands of articles–entire academic disciplines–where one has difficulty deciding on inclusion criteria. The number of times I've read a philosophy article where someone has dumped a load of Ayn Rand fandom on the article and won't be swayed by any number of reliable sources that patiently explain that almost nobody takes Rand seriously as a philosopher (I type Plato into the catalogue search for my local academic library and I get thousands of results, I type Ayn Rand in and I get 20 results–and only four of those are in the philosophy section). The number of times I've seen alternative medicine cranks getting in a huff because Wikipedia doesn't consider their conspiracy-theory laden article about Big Pharma posted on Whale.to equivalent to a peer-reviewed article in the Journal of the American Medical Association is ridiculous. In both those situations, we have to seek consensus and follow some very, very rough-and-ready guidelines around notability and reliable sources. Under all policies there are edge cases: but it seems fairly clear to me that something like "you only use 10% of your brain at any one time" counts as a common misconception.

I'm not sure what's so difficult about this. You have to find a reliable source which explains that it is a widely held belief: this can either be explicitly (i.e. an article in, say, a psychology journal that has research showing how widespread a particular belief is) or implicitly (if, say, it was widely believed in a particular society at a particular time that X, some reliable source which demonstrates that pretty clearly–like if you wanted to say that it was widely believed in the decade 2000-2009 in the United States that Tiger Wolf was considered one of the best golf players in the world and you found an article in a golfing magazine which didn't explicitly say it but which an intelligent reader would consider indicative of widespread belief).

Then obviously you need a reliable source to show that the belief is in fact a misconception. That doesn't seem a particularly difficult issue.

Given that there seems a prima facie case here of the sort of lines on which rough–not precise, but you won't get precise as the Ayn Rand or alternative medicine examples show you because Wikipedia can never do such a thing without throwing out WP:IGNORE and turning Wikipedia into a bureaucracy (going against WP:BURO)–guidelines for inclusion can be developed which are sort of roughly in the same vein as the notability guidelines, I don't really see the point of the deletion discussion.

If you expect precise definitions will solve all your problems, that's bonkers. Definitions get you a lot less far than you think. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You have to find a reliable source which explains that it is a widely held belief:; ...Then obviously you need a reliable source to show that the belief is in fact a misconception" is the textbook case of WP:SYN: combining content from two sources to produce a conclusion that is not made in either source. Obviously unacceptable criteria. Active Banana (^bananaphone 17:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is possible to find reliable sources debunking common misconceptions, as well as reliable sources documenting how common they are. Sure, the term "common misconceptions" is nebulous and difficult to define, but so is the term "notable" in Wikipedia's notability policy. Saying the article should be deleted because a "common misconception" is hard to define is like saying Wikipedia should not exist because notability is hard to define. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that we have a definition for notability, but we don't have one for Common misconception. (Do try that link. It's revealing.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You will find quite a few Featured lists that do not have articles for the thing the article is listing. To pick an example at random, Unmade Doctor Who serials and films redirects to featured list List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films. Not having a separate article for common misconceptions doesn't even come close to a valid deletion rationale. 28bytes (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article starts with an unproblematic definition of what it means, and is completable. My main contention can be rephrased as this: it is simply not possible to fix the lead section of this article to something like that, without violating WP:OR. Certainly if someone managed to, then I would have to concede the point... --WTFITS (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the current lead: "This list describes fallacious ideas and beliefs which are documented and widespread as well as the actual facts concerning those ideas, where appropriate." The "fallacious ideas and beliefs", "widespread" and "actual facts" phrases all carry an implied "according to reliable, third-party sources" assumption as should all assertions that appear in Wikipedia. It can be made explicit instead of implied, I suppose, but I don't think that's necessary, and at any rate, that has nothing to do with WP:OR. Quoting from the policy page, "The term 'original research' refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." The editors active on List of common misconceptions have done a very good job keeping items that aren't "already published by reliable sources" out of the article. 28bytes (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no reasonable way to delineate what is a "common misconception" in this open-ended, incomplete and uncompletable list. A perfect example of what a Wikipedia list should NOT be. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!!!! - Wikipedia is running out of space. I mean, have you seen how big it is lately? We can't have popular and factually accurate articles that further advance public knowledge and must tediously groom Wikipedia without regard to the complete lack of logistical impairments for their inclusion! --NickCatal (talk) 03:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False. Wikipedia is not running out of space for text, and will not do so: see WP:NOTPAPER. There will always be interested editors who will not mind "grooming" - some inclusionists, some deletionists - discussion and consensus, and Reliable sources are the guiding WP:FIVEPILLARS. --Lexein (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woosh - this will end in No Consensus soon and if folks are lucky it won't end in a major news outlet up as another example of needless infighting among an overwhelmingly male young tech-savvy mob with members who put arbitrary policies ahead of a goal to populate the world with facts. This is a factually accurate and popular article and as long as it remains as such there is no reason it should be deleted. --NickCatal (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this article is just a random collection of factoids and NOT any sort of actual knowledge. Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel pretty fortunate to have this page to reference and as a gateway to furthering my understanding of each of these concepts. But at the end of the day I don't really genuinely care if this article is deleted, but I want to note how idiotic the arguments that would be used to justify its deletion are. --NickCatal (talk) 07:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that drowning looks nothing like popular conceptions of drowning (which was in this article, the last time I looked) means that several hundred children drown to death every year while in the vicinity of an adult. In a large proportion of these cases, the adult is looking at the child without realizing what's going on. On the other hand, I just spent an evening reading medieval military history with a basic overview of formations, combined arms, and the variations and capabilities of various ranged weapons. This is actual knowledge, quite venerable and well-regarded. It has a slim chance of impacting the rest of my natural life. Watch it when you want to deem something not "actual knowledge." --Kiz o r 20:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.62.137 (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Simply, this is a very popular and much loved article. Deletion would go against the very precepts of Wikipedia's goals towards universal common knowledge as this article is illustrative of the need for truth and understanding at a universally available level. I agree that it needs a more appropriate title and context and thorough editing. Perhaps a more full version may be referenced by itself, or at Uncyclopedia in order that it remain part of the commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbeder (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "This is a popular article" is an Argument to avoid, and is not compelling. Please consider rephrasing your point to avoid it. --Lexein (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this reminds me of lists of "frequently asked questions" with questions that are unlikely to have been frequently asked. Now that is not really a big deal for a random FAQ on a random website, or even in our project/talk pages. But in article space, we are supposed to have higher standards.... Even if the facts themselves are interesting, we should use appropriate standards for labelling their opposites as "common misconceptions". For an illustration of why it is important, consider the fourth item in the list about Columbus - a common misconception about a common misconception! So, it is not always easy to tell whether something is a common misconception, and a reliable source for a fact is not necessarily reliable on the judgement that many people believe the opposite. So, what are appropriate standards? Well, I skimmed through the discussion above about these criteria - it is pointed out the term is nebulous and difficult to substantiate, but I would really like to make the point that it is not even our place to define such a term for our readers. We should use accepted criteria, and in this case, there are none - this is not a field of study. And I disagree with the analogy made a few comments above - "notability", "verifiability", "original research" and so on are our internal terms. We use our definitions internally, and they affect our articles, but we do not export our internal definitions into articles as such: compare original research with WP:OR and so on (of course we have articles on WP itself, so we have notability in Wikipedia, but that's still completely different from notability). --WTFITS (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The article as it stands may not be one of Wikipedia's finest but the subject is unquestionably notable, having been the subject of entire books. Ideally we could find some way to counter people's urge to shovel all sorts of trivial crud into it. But that's not a problem unique to this article -- just look at the number of otherwise-good articles with crappy "in popular culture" sections. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the past 24 hours we've had a number of "Keep" posts of the form OK, it's a crappy article at the moment but I like it and there are other crappy articles in Wikipedia. Do please click on that link to see the problem with that approach. In particular, please look at Wikipedia:Other stuff exists#Deletion of articles HiLo48 (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination itself is essentially a case of "other stuff doesn't exist" (Movies that have been called awesome? Really?) and completely fails to make the case that this is a non-notable topic, so let's not single out the "keep" votes for using weak logic. There's a lot of "I like it" and "I don't like it" on both sides, but some of us are indeed focusing on actual policy-based rationales here. 28bytes (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The better parts of this discussion have nothing to do with notability. It's about problems of definition (What IS a common misconception?), inclusion criteria, and article management. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that article scope definition, inclusion criteria, and article management are critical discussions to be having, but none of those are covered in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, so an AfD isn't the venue for such discussions, in my view. Here, we have to focus on notability, unless one of the other reasons for deletion is suggested. 28bytes (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: I hear you and sympathize to some extent. But we don't delete articles simply because they're crappy. We delete them because there's no possibility that they can ever be good; typically, this is because they are on non-notable topics. Please see WP:AFD which states in big bold letters If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not about notability, but it IS about what I see as the reality that it cannot be fixed. We have no definition. We have unmanageable inclusion criteria. I've given evidence. I raised a very real, very recent example above. Those wanting to keep the article just run away from discussing how we would manage that example. It's too hard. And THAT'S the point. The fact that the Keep fans won't discuss a difficult case shows that it probably can't be fixed. Their avoidance behaviour is just helping to convince me I'm right. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is uncalled for. There's plenty of discussion here but people are under no obligation to discuss exactly what you want to discuss in the exact way you want to discuss it. And deriding those who disagree as "Keep fans" or accusing them of "avoidance behavior" is wholly inappropriate. While such an aggressive approach may be cathartic, it is almost always less persuasive to others than reasoned and respectful discussion. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. I don't really care what you think of my observations, for I'm simply noting a reality. I have been making the point that it's really hard to assess some content for the article. Those who say it's not are actually avoiding commenting on a "hard" example. My conclusion is that the avoidance of discussion tends to prove my point. That you won't concede such a point is irrelevant. The observation is still real. If it really was as easy to decide these things as they claim, those wanting to keep this article would be jumping in and doing so on the "hard" example. But they're not. So, I'm not deriding anyone. I'm observing human behaviour and seeing it support my position. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo48: The fact remains: You haven't been able to articulate a single, valid reason why the article should be deleted. An ordinary content dispute which happens all over Wikipedia is not a valid reason for deletion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's an "ordinary content dispute", prove it by tackling the "hard" example. If you won't tackle it, you are proving my point. HiLo48 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered your question here.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FList_of_common_misconceptions_%283rd_nomination%29&action=historysubmit&diff=411475387&oldid=411473538�] You seem to think that this is a trump card when in fact, it's not even germane to this discussion. Please read WP:DEL#REASON. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking for an answer. I was asking you, or anybody else who claims these issues can be solved by "ordinary" discussion, to prove it. Nebulous claims are just words, not evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone's claimed (or at least not intentionally) that all content disputes can be resolved through ordinary discussion, only that ordinary discussion is the proper avenue for resolving such disputes. WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION outlines the whole process. The fact is that some content disputes can last years or are never resolved. The current content dispute, for example, over "The Beatles" versus "the Beatles" goes back at least ~~6 years[25]~~ 7 years[26] as far as I can tell. This is everyday life here on a Wikipedia. We're all volunteers and no one is forcing you to work on this article if you don't want to. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"if this article could be fixed through normal editing...." and how would that happen, then? Isn't the whole point that we cannot? And if you don't like notability as a reason for deletion, how about "articles that cannot be attributed to reliable sources... original theories and conclusions" (our definition of "common misconception" would be original to us, unless someone cites an external definition with some acceptance), "any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" referring to WP:NOT under which we have, as repeatedly mentioned, "indiscriminate collection". --WTFITS (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's a great list. It's a horrible list to have on Wikipedia, as it's essentially an indiscriminate collection of information. --Carnildo (talk) 07:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IAR if nothing else. I think that this article works towards the goal of Wikipedia to bring valuable knowledge to its users, even if it doesn't match the traditional notions of an appropriate article as defined by our current guidelines. Thus, I think keeping this article makes Wikipedia better regardless of whether it may or may not meet our current standards for an article topic, so I must break out a rare occurrence of IAR. It might be the case that IAR doesn't need to be invoked and that interpretations of policy and/or guidelines would support this being kept, but I don't have the energy to research all that now and considering a finding in the negative wouldn't have changed my mind, IAR it is. If this is deleted, it would be a real shame to see this information go. I would ask that it at least be moved to Wikipedia space for preservation and maintenance there. VegaDark (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(For the sake of discussion, please expand acronyms at least once when making a point.) --Lexein (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I agree here with the application of WP:IAR, Ignore All Rules, as applied specifically to counter the claim of "indiscriminate list". In my opinion, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, lists are possible, and are not all going to be narrow. Here, the list addresses a worthy and narrow-enough category, especially as garnered from established articles, and reliable sources which delineate common misconceptions. This list will be different in different languages. The list MAY require breaking up into specific topic areas, but that's a different discussion. --Lexein (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (updated from merge/delete in round two). The list is difficult to maintain and needs to be regularly and aggressively purged of insufficiently cited material, but this is a useful way of categorizing human knowledge. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a somewhat similar article list of cognitive biases, which is validated by being a part of cognitive science research. Although there is not a single research topic that covers all misconceptions in this article, all of them are scientifically validated and the difference is only a lack of scientific label to gather them.--83.19.119.245 (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But this just goes back to what I was saying - cognitive bias is a well-known term in psychology, so we don't need to come up with our own definition and criteria. "Common misconception" is not any field of study, and it is not our place as Wikipedians to try to define it. --WTFITS (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare the lead sections of this article with that article to see what I mean. --WTFITS (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject of "misconception" is the subject of numerous factual works and is clearly notable. This list can easily be limited to topics of which such sources can document as misconceptions (the factual accuracy of which is normally very easy to prove) and which are held by a substantial part of the population (also often easy to document), thus making the list verifiable. Some of the listed misconceptions are so notable they even have their own article. Just like many other articles and lists, there needs to be a certain amount of editorial choice, perhaps space does not allow for all misconceptions, but that is a weighting we have to do in all broad lists and articles. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I suggest that this is one of the most important content pages on Wikipedia. Wikipedia exists to make knowledge freely available to the world. It therefore follows that although most, if not all, of this content is available somewhere else, important information (such as those this list deals with) should be available in multiple forms. It is known that different people learn best in different ways, arguments that suggest otherwise are clearly biased based on that reader's POV. As has been suggested previously, this list requires more maintenance than most, but that is not an argument for deletion. Frank Westerton Talk Contributions 17:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Correcting "common misconceptions" sounds like a key purpose of education and of good references, such as encyclopedias. The topic of this article, "common misconceptions" is notable, since it has been the topic of extensive coverage in numerous books and encyclopedias, as pointed out above. Clearly there is an ongoing need to remove OR by new editors, keeping the listing to referenced instances, to remove POV entries, and to keep make sure the "misconceptions" really are untrue, and that they are "common" rather than obscure. That is just a typical chore for Wikipedia's corps of volunteer editors. Edison (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've always been bothered by this list since the last AfD, as well as other lists based off of subjective ideas such as "common". Just because a source lists a statement as a common misconception doesn't mean that the misconception is common at all. Whether or not a statement is common is a question that by its very nature cannot be verified. The only way we could do that would be with statistical analysis and I doubt that reliable studies have been made that determine how much of the general population believes in a set of misconceptions. This flaw cannot be treated through regular editing as it rests in the very nature of the article's inclusion criteria. Simply put, none of this material can be properly verified as it is all subjective opinion. Also, per HiLo48's argument about sourcing as well as Qwyrxian's argument about notability. Also, the fact that misconception is a notable topic doesn't make a list of misconceptions an acceptable article. We do not list everything that we have articles on, as not all lists of encyclopedic topics are themselves encyclopedic.Them From Space 19:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with improved rigorous inclusion criteria (and perhaps others)

Required: an existing Wikipedia article about the item topic. Other good quality lists use the criteria that each listed item already have an article, and I agree with this criteria, since these articles, to exist, are required to meet WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline.
Required: one or more reliable source(s) stating "common misconception" or words to that effect in the topic area audience. Examples of audiences include students, people asked on the street,
Required: the linked article (1) should also address the misconception, either in a linkable #section, or at least as a complete sentence, citing the same reference(s) used to establish that it is a common misconception.

Wikipedia is about sources and notability, and much less about the likes and dislikes of editors. We cite sources, and if sources, as a group, gathered together, comprise books, articles and essay about misconceptions, then those sources have established Common Misconceptions as a reasonable, notable topic for a list here.

Wikipedia is also about linking. See WP:MOSLINK. Both lists and categories support the connection of areas of knowledge to supporting information and to other areas of knowledge. This is a fundamental precept of Wikipedia itself. This list ties together an important category of knowledge - things and ideas to avoid, wrong thought paths to avoid going down, with the notable, reliably sourced topics themselves.

In my opinion, it is a defensible position that learning what a thing is not, is as important as learning what a thing is. What Wikipedia Is Not is just as important as what Wikipedia is - both as explained within each policy/guideline/essay, and summarized in one gathering place: WP:NOT.

(revised) It also is possible to have additional clearer inclusion criteria, even if imposed late (now). The above criteria don't have to be the only ones.

--Lexein (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, what should they be? HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edited in italics above) Aside from #1, #2, and #3 above, I'm open. I'm an inclusionist, and though I do think a few of the entries in the article are junk, I'm of the firm belief that clear inclusion criteria can make this a "good" list. --Lexein (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And do you have any suggestions as to what "clear inclusion criteria" might actually be? In the 18 months since the last AfD however many editors that have attempted to do so have simply come up with List of things someone has called "common misperceptions". There are many editors who have serious doubts that any such "clear inclusion criteria" cannot be developed that meet with Wikipedia criteria such as WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:IINFO - but if you actually have one, please present it. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my foundation inclusion criteria #1, #2, #3 above. In my opinion, Reliable sources and General Notability Guideline go a very long way to solving OR, NPOV, and IINFO problems. Again, in my opinion, per 1,2,3, any reliably-sourced statement of common misconception(s) which exists in a reliably-sourced article about a notable topic, merits concise inclusion in this list. That's the clearest way I can say it. The misconception does not need to establish notability enough for its own standalone article, because it piggybacks on the notability of the base topic itself. I think this could become rather short list for a while, if just these three criteria are applied.

Most lists really can be pruned very fairly, purely on WP:GNG and WP:RS grounds. List of indie rock musicians; became alarmingly (to quite a few band fans) short for a while after editors went through and actually verified whether articles existed, having established notability through reliable sources. But after a while, indie rock band articles were written, developed, notability was established, and now that list is almost entirely reliably sourced.

Remember, there is no WP:DEADLINE. I say, see how things work out as other editors dispassionately apply #1, #2, #3 in good faith. I'm an inclusionist with a strong bias toward reliably-sourced material, regardless of editors' feelings about whether lists should exist.

If there's a need for more criteria than 1,2,3, I'd like to hear about that. I don't think that internal organization is a problem: the groupings by overall category are sufficient. If the list grows too large, then it could be split, but I don't think it's there yet.

--Lexein (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And at least half of the essay NODEADLINE supports my position. And even #2, which seems to be the section you are talking about, talks about the article improving over time, something which we have not actually seen in 18 months since the last AfD. Active Banana (^bananaphone 03:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion of items (or moving to talk) which are not RS and don't pass 1,2,3. I do not support deleting the whole list. I've edited 1,2,3 to better match my intentions. No, #2 does not (should not) imply unbounded WP:Eventualism about enforcement. The AfD nom itself should spur action. Are 1,2,3 sufficient inclusion criteria? I think so, sufficiently to start pruning. Thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) certainly doesnt. "stating "common misconception" or words to that effect" is the completely arbitrary "criteria" that cannot be said to meet WP:LIST Active Banana (^bananaphone 05:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the rather long WP:LIST guideline is not "met"? Words to that effect is neither arbitrary, nor a problem, to most English language speakers. As I've stated elsewhere, the English language is rich and diverse - to demand that only two words out of - how many? ~400,000? - can serve to satisfy a criterion is absurd on the face of it. Of course the words "frequent" or "universal" or "usual" can stand in for "common", and of course the words "misapprehension" or "wrongly learned" or "mistaught concept" can stand in for "misconception". I can see the point trying to be made, but that overrestriction is ... distasteful and wikilawyerish. Either the sources are reliable, independent, notable sources, or they're not.

Furthermore, we have, expressed in the Glass misconception references, four different formulations, from two sources, which don't comply with the letter of the requirement for the words "common misconception", but satisfy its intent admirably: "It is well known," and "well known, but wrong" ^(source), and "the belief, held by many", "the persistent belief", and "urban legend" ^(source) --Lexein (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Lexin "What part of the rather long WP:LIST guideline is not "met"": "The contents of an article that is a stand-alone list should be clear. If the title does not already clarify what the list includes, then the list's lead section should do so. Don't leave readers confused over the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing what may be added to the list. " Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. The list's lead hatnote now lists my four main criteria (C.M. item's topic has article, item has WP:RS stating "C.M."(or synonym), C.M. item is in topic article, item is current (not obsolete)). So that part of WP:LISTS is now better met. I welcome refinements to these criteria, as I begin pruning or improving non-complying entries. --Lexein (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My response to that is to no doubt annoy some of the Keepers and ask again how editors would deal with this genuine addition to the article from around 40 hours ago...

"Contrary to popular belief (even erroneously repeated by some scholars) William Tyndale did not invent or coin the word atonement".

It appeared to be well sourced, but to print sources, not something we can check in a hurry. So, is "Contrary to popular belief" in a narrow field like theology the same thing as a "common misconception" for the purposes of this global article? Several of the Keepers said we would just have to work it out by discussion, but they wouldn't (or couldn't?), even though it was a real, current example. With Lexein's new rules, are things any better? HiLo48 (talk) 06:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to keep it in as a common misconception from the 1600s. Even though nobody today thinks of this back when he translated the Bible into English for the first time he was widely believed to have invented many words, this was a common misconception. No longer a common misconception today though. If you disagree then discuss, but please don't delete the article because you do not like the solutions I or anybody else has proposed.AerobicFox (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think a "contrary to popular belief" in the field of theology from the 1600s is the same as a "common misconception" today for the purposes of this global article. If it is, we can stick almost anything that anyone has ever got wrong into the article. We must have a tighter interpretation than that. You see, we disagree, strongly, and I cannot see it changing (unless you change to agree with me, of course ;-) ). HiLo48 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "ye olde" certainly qualifies as distinct from "current" common misconceptions. But worse, that example fails #1 and #3 - it links to a disambiguation page, not an article section containing the same RS'd misconception. And let's be honest, that entry in the list is a scholarly wank - a monkey wrench thrown in to the works - but it brings up a useful criteria #4: Required: Misconceptions should be documented to be held by currently living people, or should be self-categorized as "old" (I also personally feel "and should not be joke entries designed to disrupt the purpose of Wikipedia.") I already welcomed such additional criteria, by the way, rather than arguments as to why 123 are inadequate. And as for this being a global list, it's on the English-language Wikipedia, a language which is understood by a minority of the world's population, so let's keep that in perspective. --Lexein (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 3

keep it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.192.173 (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For your opinion to have weight with the AfD closing editor, please bold "keep", and expand your discussion point, being mindful of Arguments to avoid. --Lexein (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be reliable sources that determine if something is a common misconception - not the editors themselves. Simply rely upon reliable (i.e. able to rely upon) sources to make that determination, end of story. Much of this talk of coming up with clear criteria and exact definitions for inclusion is simply quarrelsome - that is not your burden, it is the burden of reliable sources. We are not robots or search engines here - any language to the *effect* of a common misconception in the sense of "fallacious ideas and beliefs which are documented and widespread" from reliable sources will work quite nicely. Lgstarn (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, tackle my challenge from 06:07 just above. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge was tackled and is defeated. It fails #1 and #3, since it links to a DAB page. If it linked to an actual article, that article would have to mention the common misconception with support by reliable source(s). It fails #4, since it does not assert that it's a current CM. It fails the hypothetical #5, because its sources do not support the generality or audience. I'm just about to add 1-5 to the top of the article (in hidden comments) and in full to Talk. --Lexein (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm not really tackling your challenge in the sense of trying to win some game and/or debate, but here goes, my thoughts as a long-time reader and beneficiary of the article in question: 1) contrary to popular belief clearly means the same thing as a common misconception, but it depends on whether this quote was taken out of context (i.e. if the author meant widespread in a particular academic community or widespread in the general population); 2) one reliable source has documented this, but I would personally (simply as an article reader) like to see other (preferably a minimum of three) sources that say the same thing; 3) this inclusion (and all others) could be greatly improved by requiring reliable sources that document a time and place where this belief is/was widespread. Note that this also answers the should this article just be the USA, Europe, etc. question. For example, I found the S. Korea fan death information fascinating, and would love to see each common misconception backed up with reliable sources stating: a) ___location(s) where this misconception is widely held, b) statistics regarding how common this misconception is, and c) how this misconception has changed and spread over time (perhaps due to the valiant efforts of Wikipedia and the like!). Will I get all that information? Of course not. But it might be a gold standard for inclusions to aim for. No matter what, when you get down to it, I love this article, I've recommended it to friends, and speak highly of Wikipedia for it. While I would love to see it be improved and can understand the frustrations here, I feel it would be a loss for Wikipedia to delete it. Lgstarn (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, how could we make your approach work? Right now, the introduction to the article is pathetic. It first makes the standard apology for a list of "...may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness", then says "This list describes fallacious ideas and beliefs which are documented and widespread as well as the actual facts concerning those ideas, where appropriate." And that's it. Straight into the list after that. So, we have yet another set of words for "common misconception" "Fallacious ideas and beliefs". We have absolutely no guidance for editors, despite those who claim the article has been using effective inclusion criteria for the past 18 months. They were pretty much a secret, as far as I can see. In this discussion we have a lot of words about what could be done, but nothing is actually done. Even you were reluctant to try to apply your proposed criteria to a genuine recent case. I wasn't throwing it up as a game or debate. I genuinely wanted to see someone convince me that their words could work in practice. As I have said several times, the reluctance to try just makes me feel more certain that the ideas WON'T work, because no-one wants to demonstrate that they can. Do you think we could add your inclusion criteria to the start of the article, and aggressively apply them to everything in the list? I suspect it would eliminate most of the existing material, and reduce future additions to almost nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with adding "Locale must be stated" criterion, to aid in grouping by section, but statistics and history of the misconception would belong in a linkable section in the original topic article, not this list (see #3 above). In my opinion. --Lexein (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my reluctance to mean anything at all. It's just that I don't want to invest too much into reiterating the same things over and over. Nothing personal. Anyways, to answer your questions, we could certainly put criteria for inclusion together at the top of the page, or at the top of the talk page. I would not remove most of these conceptions right away - I would add a "citation needed" or "original research" tag, and give them a month or two to be fixed. If they couldn't be - then they could be axed. You didn't say why in particular you think my approach won't work, except for misunderstanding my reluctance to do so. I don't see why it wouldn't, and here is the concrete road map to getting there: 1) keep the article, close the AfD discussion; 2) come up with a consensus criteria for inclusion (difficult, but not impossible by any means - Lexein has some good ideas), and put it on the top of the article or the talk section; 3) either delete the conceptions that don't fit right away and have people add them back, or give them a few weeks with tags as I suggest above; 4) elicit the help of the dedicated editors to enforce the criteria. Note the first step to moving forward with the article is ensuring its survival. Lgstarn (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may feel that YOU have a valid reason to not try applying your ideas in practice, on a real example, but NOBODY has tried. What am I to think? There is no point putting editing guidelines on the Talk pages. A lot of the kind of editors this article attracts NEVER look at Talk pages. One can tell that simply by noting all the rubbish that has been added to the article, and then correctly reverted, while this discussion has been underway. Such editors rarely read instructions at all, wherever they are. I'm still very, very sceptical that a workable solution can be found. It certainly hasn't been demonstrated since the last AfD. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, granting the fact that nobody has tried in the past, all it takes is a handful of bold and dedicated editors to go through the article and clean it up to meet certain, preferably consensus, standards. As I originally said, in my mind, the only real standard is that common misconception be determined by reliable sources, but as shown above each item can individually be improved in so many ways. If this article is adjudicated with keep resolution, let's take some of the complaints raised here and start a discussion on the talk page on how make this incredibly popular article as encyclopedic as it possibly can be. Keep is the first step in that process. Lgstarn (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, if it's so easy to fix, why isn't anyone doing so? (And haven't for the past 18 months.) I really don't understand the lack of action (but a heck of a lot of talk) by the Keepers. HiLo48 (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A year and a half ago, I went through the entire list and I added reliable sources every item that was unsourced. Any item that couldn't be sourced was deleted. I understand that you want the inclusion criteria spelled out explicitly. We can do that, too. I've also proposed on the article talk page that we remove the notice asking readers to add more entries.[27] What else would you like to be fixed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it's easy to fix - but I did come up with a step-by-step road-map for fixing it. That should count for something. And for the final time, step one in my road-map is keeping the article. Why would anyone spend the hours upon hours necessary to fix this article if all of their work is in danger of being deleted? One step at a time. Lgstarn (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Take a look at this wonderful blog post: Wikipedia is the greatest thing ever for an example of how an article like this that is fun and informative can be engaging. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i have learned much from this page, it would be wrong to delete it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.142.183.63 (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to WikiBooks . Being a common misconception is not a reasonable organisational criterion for anything other than entertainment. We are writing an encyclopedia. An article on common misconceptions would be fine, as it's probably a notable subject. A list of common misconceptions will always be random. There are also problems with the definition and the sourcing. People sometimes claim that something is a misconception when they really mean that they want words to be used more narrowly than they are. (Someone once tried to push the "misconception" that herbal tea is tea into the article.) People sometimes claim that a misconception is common or popular in the same way that they claim that Eskimos have thousands of words for "snow": i.e. without any real knowledge, and incorrectly. People who claim something is a common misconception rarely clarify among what group the misconception is common. Examples: "It is a common misconception that Jörg Dieter Frauenfeld was born in Aachen." "According to a common misconception, there is a relationships between psychological measurement scales and statistical procedures such that parametric techniques require the presence of at least interval scale data." If a misconception is common only among citizens of Nepal, is it appropriate for this global encyclopedia? What if it is only popular among South Africans? How about Americans?

Many of the misconceptions proposed for that list are not misconceptions but disagreements about terminology. Some are even true. Others are so absurd that the claims of reliable sources that they are common can only be interpreted as jokes. There is no precedent that forces us to include such an article. This is not the idea for an article, it is the idea for a book. Books of this type have been written, but last time I looked no such book has been written on WikiBooks. Why not start now?

This silly list is taking up the time of a lot of editors. Supposed misconceptions about history, geography, politics, mathematics, medicine, religion etc. are being proposed all the time. Each of them would require an expert for verification, but a general article of that kind can't have experts on everything. The concept simply doesn't work here.

The list is not encyclopedic and does not work in practice. Hans Adler 16:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of entertainment is false. Correction of false beliefs is just as important as the absorption of new knowledge by lesson or experience.

In your non-linked non-specific mockery and sarcasm, you have ignored the suggested 123 (now 12345) inclusion criteria proposed. The list should simply be RS article-based, not random-items based. Suggested inclusion criteria are #1(topic has article), #2(Com. Miscon. has sources), #3 (CM is in section in article), #4 (CM is current or labeled "old"), and #5 (sources support CM's generality, or list its population). These criteria directly disqualify your challenge entries above. Sources rule, sources establish notability, sources and their specificity should govern here. As for Wikibooks, let me be charitable and just say that it's not a viable solution.

--Lexein (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this article is perfect for wikibooks. It has some interesting points in there, and I can see it being an interesting task to work with for editors. Like pointed out elsewhere, it is not a problem in a book where you can have subjective editorial discretion. The inherent subjectivity of the term "common" will be a problem unless the only items that are included are based on specific surveys that can be tied to a specific number. When writers of books and newspapers and other Reliable Sources use the word "common misconception" (or words to that effect), I think they rarely do so based on a rigorous survey of a specified population; rather, they write it as en expression of personal opinion. A college professor for example, may state that belief X is a common misconception among freshmen because he receives a question about it almost every time he teaches a specific class. But what does this really mean? How "common" is it? If one student in an auditorium of 350 students asks a question almost every term, that may be the only people who held the misconception! There is no way of telling, and in casual sources it doesn't really matter: language is impresise but not useless. But when using that text as a reliable source to establish that "X is a common misconception" it starts to matter. Since "common" is inherently based on a subjective appraisal, this keeps me coming back to examples from artistic life: an article about a singer can not state "she is among the greatest singers of her generation" even though we have several RS stating those exact words or words that echo their sentiment. What can be done is to write "she has repeatedly been described as being one of the greatest singers of her generation [1,2,3,4,5]". That is fine for an article, it gives information and (in my opinion) brings flavour. But it would be nonsensical to have a List of the greatest singers of their generation.

If we decide to base the list only on actual statistics, then we need to define "common" as a specific probability. Whatever number would be agreed on (say, more than 50%) as constituting "common", this would be completely arbitrary. And if all populations are included it could lead to the inclusion of a misconception held by 60% of shoemaker apprentices over a misconception held by 40% of adult EU citizens. Does that make sense to anyone? Which is more common?

While I applaud the effort of the suggested Criteria 5 in trying to get rid of the time factor: things change. When is a misconception old or outdated? What if the agreed upon common-treshold is 25% and a misconception is held by 30% of Americans including their president. The president makes reference to the misconception in public, the media leap upon it in glee, and with all the excitement and media coverage, now the misconception is held by hardly anyone. Should we exclude it based on "nobody believes that anymore"?

Have we even adressed "difficult" topics here? It is a common misconception that homeopathy has an effect beyond placebo. It is a common misconception that prayer works. It is a common misconception that the existence of one or more supreme beings is more or less likely than the existence of a tea-pot in orbit around a distant star. It is a common misconception that human beings (and sometimes some animals) pocess "a soul" with a potential eternal existence.

Dr bab (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You bring up questions that get down to philosophical issues with language as a whole. Fortunately, we don't need (or want) original research on this subject: we want reliable sources (i.e. sources you are able to rely upon) that determine whether something is a "common misconception." Quite simply, if several reliable sources (e.g. the New York Times, Washington Post, and three published books) felt it notable enough to report that something is a common misconception, for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, it is. No need for statistics detailing at this exact second how many people hold that point of view, no need for philosophical musings on the word "common", no need for comparing shoemakers versus EU citizens, etc. This article is simply a practical place schoolchildren and others can come to see that, wow, "the great wall of China really isn't visible from the moon[1][2][3][4]" and dispel other commonly held myths. Your "difficult" topics are non-issues. Just how many reliable sources state that it is a common misconception that prayer works or any of the other topics you bring up? A quick search of the 543 results for "common misconception" "prayer works" on Google reveals exactly zero reliable sources that say this. So it seems to me the issue is solved, unless you can find a "difficult" topic that is quoted as a common misconception by reliable sources (in which case it is no longer difficult at all.) Lgstarn (talk) 07:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am a new user, but it appears to me that the assertion that the only thing that the items have in common is a "two word phrase" is a bit simplicitic. That two word phrase is "common misconceptions", which is actually a reasonable and significant concept that links the various concepts together in a list. The debate about the term "common" is not a valid reason for deleting the article, if there are those who don't agree what common means then wouldn't it be better to do some sort of poll or use the RFC process to determine this? Thus, as the only reason for deletion seems to be this aspect of the article, I fear that it is an invalid reason for deletion. - FluffySquid (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move to Wikibooks per Hans Adler and per nom. This is a very interesting article but it is not encyclopedic as there is way too much ambiguity about its criteria for inclusion. --John (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:indiscriminate. Can the closing sysop please take into account that a fair few Keep !votes seem to come from people who appear to be SPAs. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a plot-only description of a fictional work, a lyrics databases, an excessive listing of statistics, a news reports, who's who, a FAQ or a catalog. Can you please explain how WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BEANS, which WP:NOT explicitly points to. The list of examples there is not a list of all possible indiscriminate lists. For example, this part of WP:NOT can be used to delete the hypothetical article List of people under the age of 27 living in California or List of streets in London. This list is a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE because it collects information based on a highly nebulous intersection which is not, in its, a notable topic. Alternatively, rather than pointing to that subtopic, we could point to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations," and arguing that "common misconception" is not an appropriate cross-categorization. Or we could just come back to the more general point, which is that Wikipedia is not here to list everything. I know that a concern raised above is that "unencyclopedic" doesn't have a definition, and, in fact, I agree. In fact, I would argue that, to some degree, what is "encyclopedic" is a matter of consensus. When someone adds a new fact to an article, and someone else finds it to be "unencyclopedic," the issue is hashed out the talk page until consensus is reached. When a whole article exists that some feel is unencyclopedic, we hash it out in an AfD. Like this one. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot like a catalogue to me (point 7 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE). "More than the existence of reliable published information regarding specific items is required for inclusion." --hippo43 (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hippo43: Please don't take sentences out of context. The preceding sentence is "Wikipedia is not a stamp catalogue nor a database of collectables."

Qwyrxian: As has been pointed out by others, this topic has been the subject of numerous popular books, TV programs and even entire websites. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quest, it's pretty clear those are two illustrative examples, and that section doesn't just cover stamps and collectables - the point is that Wikipedia is not a catalogue or database of items which happen to have something in common.

As for books, you've mentioned one - are there really a significant number covering this? --hippo43 (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, at least on the second two: Mythbusters covers lots of information, and they never prove that their subjects are "common misconceptions." Some of there's are, some of there's are just an excuse to blow stuff up. I've seen several shows and thought, "Seriously, there is no reasonable person that really thought that myth is true." Snopes deals primarily with what are called "urban legends," which, in fact, is a legitimate field with scholarly research on it. Furthermore, Snopes responds directly to the questions of individual readers, never verifying that the topic is common. I really am nailing down the point that "common misconception," as an intersection, is not a valid topic. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which is a great point. To the deleters: does the large amount of positive attention this article receives make Wikipedia better or not? Yes/no - circle one. (To wit: if you go to xkcd: http://xkcd.com/843/ and look at the mouse over comment, the time before this article existed is jokingly called "the Before time" and "Hell"). If you circled "yes," the fifth pillar IAR applies and all other discussions are moot. So, in my mind, you first must successfully argue that "no," the attention does not make Wiki better to succeed in arguing for deletion. Lgstarn (talk) 01:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just to be clear, I believe that the positive attention for Wikipedia does, in fact, make Wikipedia better through goodwill and faith that ignorance can be overcome by our "little" collaboratively-edited encyclopedia. Lgstarn (talk) 02:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to strike my comment that in not constructive to finding a consensus Wikipedia is not here to collect click throughs, if that were measurement of an "improvement" to the encyclopedia we should start including free porn, hosting trojan spam adds etc etc. Active Banana (^bananaphone 02:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Active Banana. Wikipedia is made better by having well-written articles on subjects of encyclopedic notabilty/quality/merit. I guarantee you we would increase our number of hits and the goodwill of viewers if we included game walkthroughs, directory information, and BLP rumors, all of which are expressly (and legitimately) forbidden. You can't, for instance, invoke IAR to say "But my new theory on transgalactic cosmic wankerdoodles is the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe, so it clearly improves Wikipedia, despite WP:OR." And that's been my point all along—it's not that this article is "bad" or "uninteresting" or "useless", it's that it's in violation of WP:NOT and/or WP:OR and/or WP:N, and as such, needs to be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that, based on the fact that several independent sources praise this article in particular, the article serves to increase goodwill and faith in Wikipedia as a collaboratively-edited encyclopedia as a whole, which does improve Wikipedia. Porn, trojan ads, and game walk-throughs, on the other hand, while possibly increasing the number of clicks, do not and would not improve goodwill and faith in Wikipedia. Furthermore, if you agree that this article is "good", "interesting" and "useful," IAR should definitely apply. Lgstarn (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is already in the centre of attention and is getting a lot of goodwill. It's the smaller projects that are in need of getting some of it. I propose to move the article to WikiBooks (I assume they will have a use for it), and per WP:IAR leave a cross-project redirect. For many months the article has operated with the compromise that something can be included if and only if a reliable source explicitly calls it a common misconception. That's an extremely bad compromise because most reliable sources don't think twice before saying something like that. It's not a claim, it's an essentially meangingless figure of speech. We can't make a list of things based on whether something has occurred in a figure of speech. Hans Adler 08:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks aside, "common misconception" is not always used only as a meaningless figure of speech. It is sometimes made as an explicit claim by a reliable source. For example, here is an example of a claim of a common misconception from a reliable source: http://traveltips.usatoday.com/description-great-wall-china-13938.html I'm sure you will agree this is perfectly fine under WP:VERIFY. To fix the issue you describe, simply include in the inclusion criteria that "common misconception" must be a claim, not used only as a figure of speech. In addition, let us not base our decision to delete this popular article or move it to another project with far less visibility solely on a "bad compromise" used in the past. Lgstarn (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Some of the entries are mostly entertainment and should be deleted. But there are indeed some persistent misconceptions that can be properly sourced, and form a coherent whole. Tkuvho (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but modify: This is a notable topic and a valuable one to tackle, and though the current form could certainly use work, the question of inclusion criteria doesn't merit deletion. This article, or the idea of it, is valuable to the project, enough to earn some leeway from WP:IAR. As far as cleaning up the present form and/or dealing with the question of inclusion criteria and the accusation of indiscriminate information, I support the idea of breaking it up into articles by topic, and then connecting those articles to the sidebar/main article for the relevant topic. This article could remain as a list of those subtopics. The inclusion criteria seem to have already reached a workable consensus, and should, I believe, be prominently posted in the article(s) or the talk page(s). 24.17.161.178 (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This can be a good article, provided that it adheres to the goal that regular editors have agreed by consensus on the talk page: that entries in it must not be just an indiscriminate collection of misconceptions, but rather must be described in reliable sources as a widely-held misconception. Indefinite semi-protection of the article has helped in that regard, forcing new additions (which were mostly being added by new/anonymous editors) to propose and discuss them on the talk page. Unfortunately there is so much activity regarding new proposals that none of the regulars have time to clean up the cruft that still remains in the article. Furthermore, it seems ridiculous to propose deletion yet a third time when the article has already survived two previous proposals. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See if you can follow me here. This article gets deleted, but is still mentioned in various places all over the net. This leads people to believe such an article exists, when in fact it doesn't. It becomes a common misconception that the article exists. In reaction to this, the article is re-created. Should it list its own existence as a common misconception? And should the article then be linked on List of all pages on Wikipedia that do not link to themselves? The implications of acting rashly here are, frankly, terrifying. ~ CZeke (talk) 06:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Assuming that it can be properly sourced that 1) each item is indeed a misconception; and 2) each misconception is common, this really doesn't seem to fall afoul of any policies. Yes, if this article continues to grow, eventually it will have to be split into sub-articles, and this article might turn into, essentially, a table of contents. That doesn't bother me. Not sure why it bothers anyone else. 75.142.255.237 (talk) 07:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A problem is exactly how to prove that a misconception is "common". What is the definition of common? Is it ok with a journalist's statement based on his or her subjective appraisal that "X is a common misconception"? Or do we need a statistical survey? If so, is 5% common or do we need 25%? Dr bab (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a reliable source asserts that it is "common," that's good enough. Wikipedia has an article on Wonders of the World. There's no particular need to prove that the Statue of Zeus was, as a matter of objective fact, wonderful. 75.142.255.237 (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Yes, it is okay to go with the subjective statement of a journalist from a fact-checking reliable source. If it wasn't, you would undermine all reliable sources as a whole and bring down all of Wikipedia because all language is ultimately subjective. Please see WP:VERIFY which states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. (emphasis is mine) Lgstarn (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is different. The wonders of the world refer to things like the American Society of Civil Engineers' list of wonders which is fine, as it is a reference to that published list, and the article can state that "The American Society of Civil Engineers compiled a list of wonders of the modern world:[10]". The article does not attempt to include every item that has been named by an author or journalist as "a great wonder of the world". I suppose, if a teachers society or something, published a list of "the ten greatest misconceptions in the world" and that list became notable, then an article about that list would be similarly acceptable. How do you propose to keep out what, for a want of a better description, are the "uncommon misconceptions that are described as common by some"? If you don't have a solution to keeping out obscure misconceptions held by fractions of fractions of populations, then the list is indiscriminate.Dr bab (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble seeing any logic in the proposition that if an article is sourced from multiple lists of assertions (such as the American Society of Civil Engineers' list) it's okay, whereas if an article is sourced from individual assertions, it's not. That doesn't seem like a very reasonable bright-line test. As for your question about how Wikipedians should keep out misconceptions that are described by reliable sources as common when some editors believe them to actually be uncommon - well, I guess they'll have to do exactly the same thing they do when they're presented with any reliably-sourced information they don't believe to be true. It happens on pretty much every controversial subject, no? 75.142.255.237 (talk) 08:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was interupted, so I did not have the time to phrase my last response as well as I had hoped. My point is that there is a difference between writing "This is the list of wonders of the world as published by The American Society of Civil Engineers [ref. to TASOCE]:" and publishing "These are the wonders of the world [ref. to TASOCE]:". It is similar to the example I gave above that you can write about a singer that "she has been described as the greatest singer of her generation [1,2,3,4,5]", but you can't write "she is the greatest singer of her generation [1,2,3,4,5]", nor can you create a List of the greatest singer of their generation. Dr bab (talk) 10:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've ever seen an AfD discussion with more votes, sorry, posts, of the form "I like it" or "It's entertaining" or "It's a fun article". With support like that, this article hardly needs enemies. HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention all the WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes. But the biggest problem is that so far, no one's been able to articulate a single, legitimate reason to delete the article. The complaints are full of sound and fury; signifying nothing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments to Keep contain lots of claims of things that can be done to fix the article, but none of those things have ever actually been done. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. You complain about what hasn't been done, but have not discussed/agreed/disagreed with specific proposed improvements, including criteria improvements. The "win" isn't the just deletion of content from Wikipedia - the "win" is in improving Wikipedia by improving articles by being able to reach consensus either way. If you do or do not agree with the proposals, please say so. Are they valid? Necessary? Sufficient? Please be specific. Once you agree or disagree, you begin to participate in forming consensus for or against a particular proposal. By not answering, instead bringing up more complaints, this just stirs the pot and prevents consensus from forming. I don't care if consensus goes with me or against me! Just please do not block it from coalescing. But maybe I'm jumping the gun. I wonder if you simply did not notice that several "keep" people were (perhaps unboldly) politely proposing actual concrete improvements to the list, before boldly making those changes. Well, take a look at the hatnote and lead paragraph now. --Lexein (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by 'ever'? This AfD is only a few days old. No one's been able to articulate any major problem with the article and the minor ones are being discussed.[28] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors (yourself included I think) have spoken of the inclusion criteria allegedly in place for the past 18 months. They are not available to editors adding to the article today. HiLo48 (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we can more explicitly state the inclusion criteria somewhere in the article or the talk page or where ever's appropriate.[29] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done This has been now done. See the hatnote and lead paragraph. --Lexein (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if the question is of 'fixing' something that it is not reasonable to expect the fixing to take place during the AfD-discussion. Demonstrating that fixing is possible should be sufficient to (at least temporarily) halt the deletion process. But my impression is that the people on the delete-side of the argument are of the opinion that the article can not be fixed, because there can never be clear, objective, meaningful inclusion criteria. Dr bab (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You lucky man. --Kiz o r 20:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to closing admin - "Hello, you must be exhausted by now". --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr bab (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC) Facebook likes this".[reply]

Delete I don't envy the admin who has to wade through this. Welcome down to the 37kb mark, hope you're having fun. Anyway, the term "common misconception" cannot help but lead to WP:OR. If not, why is Common misconception a redirect to the list? Common is defined by the audience and this article is therefore a list of trivia. The article is one of my favorite on wikipedia, but it really isn't encyclopedic. Worm 12:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're sticking to reliable sources, no original research is required. But if there are any items on the list that contain original research, can you please point them out so we can fix or remove them from the list? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with any single items, but with the list itself. The information is a list of unrelated trivia. The concept of a "common misconception" is one that indescribable and totally subjective depending on the audience. Therefore, the reliable sources are being subjective and on this point no longer reliable. Worm 12:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the argument that they're unrelated is valid considering that there are reliable sources on the topic in general. As for individual items, consider one that's currently being discussed for inclusion. One of the sources being cited, Geoffrey K. Pullum is Professor of General Linguistics and Head of Linguistics and English Language at the University of Edinburgh [30] and the work being cited is published by the University of Chicago.[31] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that the they are unrelated, but that they are related to an indefinable topic. I know there is a topic and the topic is notable, QI is pretty much based around it. But it's indefinable, a TV show or a book or a website can use their subjective choice on what they want to include. Wikipedia does not have that luxury. That article on Eskimo's words for snow was very interesting by the way, thank you for pointing me to it. Worm 13:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QI is based on misconceptions common among its target audience (predominantly middle class British people). I've watched QI with English-speaking "foreigners" and they're utterly baffled by much of the Anglocentric stuff. This list has many items that are common only to specific audiences, because it does not have the global perspective an encyclopedia should have. The term is, in global reference, utterly meaningless. --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How very provincial, that you assume only people from a particular small island nation are the intended audience. Edison (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no need to have one single agreed criterion for inclusion, so all the deletion opinions based on this idea have little weight. Different criteria can be given separate sections as used by sources. Sections by country or region (Common misconceptions in the USA, Common misconceptions in Western culture) by population group (Common misconceptions towards Christianism, Common misconceptions widespread during the Middle Ages) or topic (Common misconceptions about electromagnetism). By claiming (with sources) *who* holds a misconception at a particular time, the content is made timeless - it will be useful even if the misconcpetion is corrected in the future (for example "during 19st Century there was a widespread misconception amongst doctors that excessive washing of hospital materials was harmful for patients"). This kind of content is encyclopedic and valuable - it can help someone researching about a topic or an era understand how a misconception shaped the beliefs and attitudes of people in that era.

Each section can use a different criterion as is used by scholars in each particular area. This is how all articles in Wikipedia are sourced and NPOV is achieved, after all; why should this list be any different? (This is true for sourced misconceptions. Trivia and unsourced ones should indeed be moved to a Wikibook). Diego Moya (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see and use the talk page for trying to work out examples of criteria and how they would work on real world "common misperceptions" Active Banana (^bananaphone 16:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Break 4

Keep Has a defined criteria for inclusion and the subject of misconceptions has been covered repeatedly in reliable sources, e.g. Bad medicine: misconceptions and misuses revealed, from distance healing to vitamin O, An apple a day: the myths, misconceptions, and truths about the foods we eat, The myth and reality of Judaism: 82 misconceptions set straight, Statistical misconceptions, Misconceptions about the causes of cancer, Misconceptions about the Middle Ages, Bad astronomy: misconceptions and misuses revealed, from astrology to the moon landing 'hoax', Misconceptions of Christianity, Origins of the Specious: Myths and Misconceptions of the English Language, Heavenly errors: misconceptions about the real nature of the universe, Misconceptions in Chemistry: Addressing Perceptions in Chemical Education. I have no objection to the list being split into subtopics (i.e., "Common misconceptions about cancer" or "Common misconceptions about Christianity"). /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikibooks, where this can actually work, and soft redirect. --Yair rand (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject with plenty of reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I haven't read the talk page of the article) As commented by many editors, there are multiple reliable factual works (books, papers, etc) written on the topic of "common misconceptions of X", so it's a valid encyclopedic topic that meets the general notability guideline, both WP:GNG and WP:LISTN (the article is already split in topical sections). Items can be individually addded to lists articles if they are adequately sourced, providing that the inclusion criteria of the list is well-defined, see WP:SALAT in the manual of style. Other editors pointed at already-existing articles that are also lists of misconceptions.

That the article needs a better inclusion criteria is not a valid reason for deletion: from the deletion policy WP:ATD "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.". As Diego Moya points out, every field can have a different criteria for "common misconception", so every topical section might have a different criteria, and those criteria have to come from reliable sources in the field and not from the personal ideas of editors. As Lgstarn points out, we don't have to make any arbitrary criteria to determine if something is "common" or not, we just follow the reliable sources that say if something is common or not; HiLo48's objections can be addressed by simply tightening the requirements on sources.

None of the reasons listed at WP:DEL#REASON have been met, and I don't see any compelling arguments for deletion apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT (mind you, there are also several "!keep" happily arguing WP:ILIKEIT). So, I see a lot of !votes that are based in personal likes and dislikes, and not based in reliable sources or on the encyclopedic value of the topic; the closing admin should take care to give way less weight or no weight at all to those comments. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How sad that anyone could proudly proclaim at the start of a post "(I haven't read the talk page of the article)". What an insult to those who have put huge effort into trying to make this a better article. But, given that fairly tight inclusion criteria have now been added to the start of the article, I am willing to change my position on this matter to...
Keep ...with a view to watching the effect of that addition over the coming weeks. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm not changing my vote yet, and I urge you to re-re-consider. As currently written, the inclusion criteria are insufficient and unhelpful.

A reliable source for a certain fact is generally not a reliable source as to the opposite being a common belief. I believe the source that was cited for the fact the US constitution was not written on hemp paper. But I strongly doubt the source that this is a common misconception. Indeed, the source doesn't really explain that. In fact:
Almost none of the items in the list specify in what way something is a misconception (one exception: X% of americans think Obama is muslim). A bare assertion that something is a "common misconception", or the like, is insufficient. At best. At worst, it is a rhetorical device, which is why:
It is important to be specific. Especially where the topic is controverisal, there are neutrality concerns here.

Perhaps some of the items could be salvaged. For instance "in history classes in US it is usually claimed that people at Columbus' time thought the world was flat and they were just going to sail off the edge [cite]". I'm making that up. I'm not sure that's true or that there is such a source for a fact like that. Indeed, I think very few of the items will be able to meet any sensible threshold for inclusion. Certainly as it stands now, almost none of them do, and it doesn't sound like this situation will change. --WTFITS (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My expectation, like yours, is that very few items will meet the new inclusion criteria. My intention is to apply them firmly. I suspect it will create confrontation. It will be an interesting exercise. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that sounds ominous, doubly so since you just recently said that you "played a little game" with an editor that caused him to sink to personal attacks. Alert, my fellow Keep fans! We are being undermined! AWOOGA! AWOOGA! :P --Kiz o r 09:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, it will be an exercise. But I'm afraid that we cannot add it to list of interesting exercises, unless you have a specific sense in which it will be interesting, and some reliable source to back up your claim, kthxbye. --WTFITS (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just not useful. Many items are simply the author's opinion that it is a misconception or that it is common. QA mechanisms that keep Wikipedia articles generally at a pretty high level of quality seem to break down for this list, with the result that the reader should be warned that they must do a lot of checking before believing any item on the list. Andreclos (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know that a previous user put forth a similar (and intentionally tongue-in-cheek) version of this argument but in all seriousness, couldn't this article be included within the Wikipedia xkcd page in some form or another? I'm very unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Wikipedia rules, so perhaps this route would still be nonviable for (possibly many) good reasons. Regardless, I'd be interested to know what those might be.Ooddiittyy (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:IAR. Having the article there is better for the site than to not have it. The article is factual, informative, and useful. While it may not fit strictly in a category with other articles, it is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia - it provides knowledge to the world. Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space, and this is a good article. Deleting it wold be a loss to Wikipedia. I'd suggest if you don't like maintaining this article, leave it to people who do. Also, not having a clear criteria for inclusion isn't really a reason for deletion - all articles have to have decisions made regarding what to include, that's part of the article creation/maintenance process. --58.96.69.23 (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is part of the Spirit of Wikipedia. All across the Interwebs this article is mentioned, because it is informative, it is funny, it is interesting. It's what makes Wikipedia different from all other Encyclopaediae. This is like a meme, you can't just make it vanish. Please keep it. 201.252.25.203 (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I usually do, I simply can't read all of this former discussion because I don't have time for it right now. I'm voting this based off The Golden Rule. It doesn't necessarily adhere to all Wikipedia policies, but this is an incredibly popular article now. Now, I'm not saying this is the sole reason we should keep it, but rather think of the face it puts on Wikipedia if this article is deleted. It's been shared so much by social and linking sites (mainly StumbleUpon), it will look quite pathetic when it's deleted because "it wasn't encyclopedic and was too hard to maintain". If it is decided to be deleted, I suggest a move to Department of Fun so it will still exist in some form. The^FSAviator ( T • C ) 03:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it means anything, it may very well be the most interesting article on WP anyway

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFSaviator (talk • contribs) 03:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In principle consistent with sourcing policies, this lists represents a useful encyclopedic orientation to the topics covered. As others have noted, turning this into a higher level summary and moving detail into sub-articles may become necessary, but deletion is not called for under existing policy. Exploring complex topics from different vantage points in order to aid the reader's understanding is precisely one of the things a high quality encyclopedia should aim to do.--Eloquence * 10:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, my apologies for not reading the whole previous discussion. While having general criteria might be difficult, there are many examples which are obviously common misconceptions, as the misconception pervades textbooks; some misconceptions are simply old theories which were dismantled. See for instance List_of_common_misconceptions#Physics, or List_of_common_misconceptions#Human_body_and_health. I was taught many of those misconceptions. About concerns on a world-wide point of view, I simply think that scientific (mis)knowledge has a mostly international nature; for instance I'm Italian and have met most misconceptions mentioned in the article. National misconceptions are possible and have been found, but they are no reason to delete the article. Finally, I've seen the creation of inclusion criteria. I suggest that work on them is continued and the article is kept; it is surely possible to find some safe criteria, the only issue is how to make them flexible enough to cope with all articles which should be kept. --Blaisorblade (talk) 12:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and split. I found the article via the comic xkcd. I found the article entertaining and informative. But, if I were seeking to know whether the Romans vomited in vomitoria, I would never think to come here. Likewise, it would be a waste of my time to comment on or correct these items; my time would be better spent on the relevant topic pages. Doc bee (talk) 16:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a really useful article that adds something to the analytical value of Wikipedia. Noble-savage (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has got to be the silliest excuse for an "article" that I have ever come across on Wikipedia. Verifiability is not the issue, appropriateness is. Perhaps its constituent parts can be placed in the relevant articles (if they aren't already), but this idea of "common" misconceptions is inherently POV. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your dislike of the article aside, I don't see how it is inherently POV. Wikipedia:NPOV reads: "neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The items in this article must be misconceptions that have been reported to be widespread according to reliable sources, and as such this article meets WIKI:NPOV. Or am I missing something from your argument? Lgstarn (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that based on what I have noticed is a hang-up with the word "common" in the title, and how it seems to some to imply a value judgment, I have started a discussion on the talk page to rename the article to something along the lines of "List of notable widespread misconceptions." Your thoughts there are most appreciated. Lgstarn (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the word "common" is problematic, in my opinion. "Common" has come to have a coloquial meaning along the lines of "frequently occuring", but this stems from its original meaning which relates to shared perceptions, that is, things we "have in common". While many of the facts are well-sourced in terms of their falseness (e.g., that the Vikings did not really have horns on their helmets) there is no adequate documentation to establish that these are ideas held in common'. I certainly do not mean to imply that every person on the planet need be aware of these misconceptions, but the English Wikipedia has become the de facto encyclopedia for the world, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask whether such notions are commonly held among the Fulani or Hmong or even the "westernized" Japanese. The article is POV because it presumes that Western misconceptions are misconceptions shared by the world. That may be true, but I would like to see the evidence. HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a item in the article about the widespread misconception in South Korea that leaving a fan on at night can cause death, so this need not be (and currently is not) just a list of Western misconceptions. Your point about anything able to be "shared" by the entire world is taken, and I agree if that was the intended meaning of the word "common" it would be in fact inherently biased. However, I believe as http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/common shows, that is only definition 2) of the word "common." Definition 4) is "widespread," which is the intended meaning. As the beginning of the article states, "this list describes fallacious ideas and beliefs which are documented and widespread as well as the actual facts concerning those ideas." Renaming this article to "widespread" makes this distinction explicit. That a misconception is "widespread" -- if it meets WP:NOTE -- is absolutely verifiable and NPOV. Lgstarn (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of thoughts:

First of all, I didn't mean to say that the definition of common meaning "shared" was the only one acceptable, I only meant that its presence in the article title increases my level of discomfort with the whole article. Accordingly, switching it to "widespread" would be better. Still, how do we define "widespread"?
Will we include things that are only contemporaneously "widespread" misconceptions? For example, 80 years ago, it was believed in most of the USA, that circumcizing infant boys would reduce the propensity to masturbate. I daresay that this notion is no longer believed (nor cared about) by large numbers of Americans. Would you include it?
Speaking of circumcision, it is certainly a widespread belief across much of Africa and the Middle East that "circumcizing" a girl will reduce the chances of her committing adultery. I'm fairly sure that less than 50% of the world holds this belief, but it's likely that a supermajority of people in some of these cultures will swear by this practice, for this reason. Would you include this in the article?
And speaking of fan death--interesting that you chose this as an example of the article not being just Western in orientation--but given that fan death has its own article, it would seem to me to be quite unnecessary to list it here.
Which brings me to my last question (for the moment). What is the alleged purpose of this article? To inform? Whom? If someone believes these silly things, they probably won't be looking in an article listing "misconceptions", since they don't think that they are "mis" conceptions. If one does not hold these beliefs, what purpose is served by listing them here? So that we can laugh at the foolishness of others? I just think that anything here can be included in an article, or, if it is truly notable, given its own article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As with all Wikipedia articles, we defer to reliable sources. If reliable sources say that something is a "common misconception" (or some reasonable synonym thereof), then we include it. If not, we don't. It's not about laughing at others, it's just a matter of saying "reliable sources say this", which is (or at least should be) standard operating procedure here. 28bytes (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) As 28bytes said, it is not up to us to define widespread or even common misconception. It is up to reliable sources. Please see WP:note and the above discussion on it. 2) The inclusion criteria for the article currently say only modern misconceptions are to be listed. 3) Sure, the circumcising misconception could reasonably meet the criteria as long as reliable sources back it up. Again, the list is not and need not be only for Western misconceptions. 4) If your criteria is that if something that has its own article doesn't need to be included in a Wikipedia:List, then no lists of notable topics are needed on Wikipedia whatsoever. 5) The purpose of this article, like all lists, is to gather information. Since I'm guessing you missed it above, here is one person who finds the article incredibly useful in helping to educate his students: Wikipedia is the greatest thing ever Lgstarn (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion:I have been trying to come up with satisfactory inclusion criteria, and I have come up with the following suggestion: A misconception is common/noteable if the misconception is printed in a reliable source without reference to it being a misconception, that is, that a reliable source is still spreading the misconception. Then we could have items of the following sort:

According to many American national newspapers [1,2,3], Barack Obama is a muslim, but in actual fact [4,5,6] he is a christian.
Many elementary school textbooks in both the US [1,2,3] and Europe [4,5] put forward the myth that Europeans in general considered the Earth to be flat prior to Colombus' voiage in 1492. Sailors and navigators of the time knew that the Earth was spherical, but (correctly) disagreed with Columbus' estimate of the distance to India, which was approximately 1⁄6th of the actual distance [6,7].

What do you think? Are there ways in which these criteria are not discriminate enough? Are they way too strict? I have also posted this to the talk page, under the "Renaming the article" heading. Dr bab (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Yes, that idea, of providing refs for both the misconception and for its falsity is definitely an improvement. But now by bias is showing, because, despite the efforts of you and others to compromise, I can't help feel that this article is, conceptually, a piece of crap. I just don't see it belonging in an encyclopedia. But I also know that there's not a snowball's chance in Hades of getting it deleted, and I've just outed myself as unyielding in my opinion, so it's time for me to withdraw from the conversation. (This must be why, after four years, this is only the second or third time I've visited AFD. HuskyHuskie (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea of this list. However, I think the current criteria may be too weak. In addition/as replacement to your suggestions I think that the list may only contain entries that have been determined being notable for inclusion in other articles or that provide the basis for other articles. Nageh (talk) 08:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Disclaimer: I've not read any of the above arguments and counter-arguments, but have read the article under discussion). The scope of the list is clearly set out, it is well referenced and it looks like those who are maintaining it are doing a good job. I learnt a few new things reading the list, which shows that it has a useful purpose. Having made my argument for retention, I will not be responding to any counter-arguments in reply to my !vote. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Poorly cobbled-together trivia. The xkcd thing is cute and all, but does not give any added notability to the subject of the list. There's going to be a lot of throwaway IPs, SPA, and "keep its useful!" crap to wade through, though. Tarc (talk) 20:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inclusionism vs. deletionism, I know. Somewhat recently an AfDed article was kept with the argument that "readers may find it useful". As a matter of fact I did find this list useful, thus keep. Nageh (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all respect, Nageh, I don't consider this to be, at its core, an issue of inclusionism vs. deletionism. I think I'm a relatively inclusionist guy. What I object to is the fact that I don't believe it's possible for this to ever evolve into anything more than a random list of inherently disorganized crud, infused with cultural bias and lacking in general utility. In other words, to use a term that is apparently a dirty word, it is not "encyclopedic". I know we're not paper, but neither are we yahoo news. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issues can be resolved quite easily. This list may only contain entries that have been determined being notable for inclusion in other articles or that provide the basis for other articles. Nageh (talk) 08:41, 8 February 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 under criterion 2, disruptive nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colchester, Vermont

Please read WP:NOT and convince me that this article does not violate those points about what Wikipedia is not. In addition, I see not much notability whatsoever with this article. Please vote to delete it. --Brokendowndodgecaravan (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close nominator has not provided a rationale for deletion, rather nom asks us to read their mind and guess what points of violation the nominator thinks the article contravenes. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Sizable towns are always seen as notable. -LtNOWIS (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Maxwell (writer)

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

Fails both the biographical, general notability guidelines. Maxwell has a blog, but I cannot find biographical coverage in independent sources. I haven't found coverage of his writings sufficient to satisfy the authors notability guideline, but even these were to turn up, the article isn't verifiable. -- Lear's Fool 04:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 04:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 04:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 04:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. His books are out from a Christian vanity press, which is an interesting contradiction in terms. Qworty (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable author and books fail standards, as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 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) 11:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seaboard Football League

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

Non-notable football league, fails WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. League was either semi-pro or minor league, both of which fail WP:NSPORTS. No independent reliable sources provided (only enthusiast websites or trivial coverage), fails WP:RS. Paul McDonald (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Paul McDonald (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, where does it state in WP:NSPORTS that semi-pro/minor leagues are not notable........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer WP:NSPORTS is not designed to say what is not notable, but to say what actually is notable. Listing what is not notable is impractical, cumbersome, and not necessary. Neither semi-pro nor minor league football is even mentioned in the guideline. Further, the guideline gives a few specific league examples and also states "any other top-level professional league" -- This is not a top-level professional league. Of course, a league could still pass through the general notability guideline but I don't believe that is the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an example of taking something out of context rather than actually arguing policy. The context of the sentence that's being cited-- "any other top-level professional league" -- is "American football/Canadian football figures are presumed notable if they: Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league." You can't just take the last five words of a sentence and argue that it means something more. Let me explain this as clearly as possible. WP:NSPORTS applies to the notability of individual players in minor and semi-pro leagues. It has nothing to do with the leagues themselves, so that's not a reason for deletion. It's not even a ban on players, merely a statement that they are not considered automatically notable, but that's another story. I recognize that this existed before most Wikipedia users were born, but this was a minor league (not a semi-pro league) in the early 1970s, and was, by Wikipedia standards, more notable than most in terms of the coverage by the press [32] and its inclusion in the book cited in the article. It was the successor to the Atlantic Coast Football League, and, like ACFL teams, it wasn't unusual for NFL training camps to have exhibitions (involving the rookies) against Seaboard League teams "Packer Excels at Quarterback As Jets Top L.I. Chiefs, 29-3", from the New York Times, July 30, 1972. Even with the having existed before the Internet era, the league was notable by Wikipedia standards. Mandsford 14:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- If all that's true then put the references in the article and we can all go home. Fair enough?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The article definitely is in need of improvement, and doesn't really demonstrate the significance of the league. I have the Gill, Brainerd and Maher book to refer to for a little more detail. Mandsford 22:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not remove this. Njbob (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't remove it? Okay, why?--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Personal beefs with the nominator aside, this article has improved to the point where it is no longer a candidate for deletion under any of the stated reasons. NSPORTS does not apply to teams, only GNG does-- multiple independent, reliable sources are present, meaning it meets the GNG. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review of "improvements" I've got some serious questions about these improvements and comments that need to be addressed:

Of the articles I can read online, they all seem to be about an individual rather than about the league. For the offline references, do these suffer the same shortfall or are they truly about the league?
The Miami News article clearly states that one of the teams in the league is a "semi-pro" team and not a minor league team. Which is it, or was it both? Please explain.
The Miami News article further is about one player Joe Klecko and clearly not about the league, which is only mentioned in passing.
What is mentioned about the team was that he had to lie about his name and background just to play. His teammates drank and wore plaster casts (i.e. cheated: players would sometimes do that to use the cast as a weapon to knock out their opponents).
The Reading Eagle article is clearly about "King" Corcoran, a player who barely squeaks by the notability standards: he was a backup QB at Maryland but did manage to play in two games for the Boston Patriots (forerunner to New England Patriots of the NFL). The article covers how he thinks so highly of himself that he boasts, "My name makes the Seaboard League a bona fide minor league." The article does say it is a minor league, but the article is primarily about Corcoran--pointing out that "some of his best times occurred in the pro ranks. The King roomed with Joe Namath..." Seriously, the best thing this guy ever did was room with Joe Namath?
The Hartford franchise joined the league on May 31, 1972 but quit the league by November 23, 1972--less than six months later.

CONCLUSION the sportswriters of the day, the players of the day, and the team managers of the day did not see the league as notable. Why should we?--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question on minor vs. semi-pro, every indication is that the league was clearly professional between 1971 and 1972. You could make a case for it being a semi-pro league in 1973, especially without Klecko being paid, but at the very least it was pro for a majority of its time in existence.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, for my more important issue: considering I think your "conclusion" is complete bunk and spinning for an excuse to make yet another deletion in a campaign to scrub anything that even mentions the phrase "semi-pro," what would it take for you to accept this league is notable? We've presented over a half-dozen news articles expressly describing this league and its actions and you're still not happy. That's more than a lot of the professional leagues on here. What more could you possibly want? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I don't mind making improvements to an article, and I didn't do it to make Paul McDonald happy. You know, Wikipedia has room for many interests. I hate to play the "other crap exists" card, but you really can't demand more from others than what you are willing to deliver in your own work. I see that Paul has an interest in contributing articles about football at Westfield State College, not sure where that is, but the fact that I've never heard of it doesn't mean that I have a need to tear down the biographies he have contributed about its various coaches. When I look at the sourcing and the claims of notability in those articles 1, 2 and 3, I'm surprised at the criticisms he's leveled in his other nominations. Between the misunderstanding of the WP:NSPORTS policy, the history of nominating team, and then league articles; the determination to eliminate, rather than to move information; and the insistence of different rules for others than for oneself, I see this as disruptive and not at all constructive. While all of us should continue to strive for improving Wikipedia, it's not a battleground here. Ultimately, it works out better if you treat others as you would like to be treated. Mandsford 03:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What it would take for me--just a couple of verifiable independent reliable sources about the league. That's all. What has been provided (that I can verify) are about players in the league, and that just isn't the same thing. Barry Sanders played in a kid's league in Wichita. Barry Sanders is notable, but that doesn't make the kid's league notable. If the league is notable, this shouldn't be much of a trick for anyone. Oh, and can you answer my questions about the offline sources that I don't have access to? Are they about the league or players/coaches in the league? --Paul McDonald (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just not true. At least two of the articles expressly discuss the league itself. The rest are used to support them. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Which two articles?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On WP:NSPORTS clearly yes this is a guideline about individuals. However, it also shows that there is a direction and a level at which notability is and is not achieved. While it certainly is not policy, it can also be used to show that there is a line somewhere that notability is achieved. NSPORTS is "inclusive" and not "exclusive" meaning that the subject matter can achieve notability through other means (WP:GNG for one) but I have not seen where this subject has achieved that or any other notability mark.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On Westfield State coaches normally college football head coaches are considered notable and this has been upheld with very few exceptions in many AFD discussions. As a comparison, normally semi-pro/minor leagues are not considered notable and this has been upheld with very few exceptions in AFD discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even at the level of Division III? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. You can check Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coach Navboxes/NCAA Division III the navbox list. Of course, reliable sources still have to be found and that hasn't been done for every program and even then not every coach "makes the cut" but yeah.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a navigation box or a project doesn't have anything to do with a policy on notability. What a project means is that there are people who are people who are interested in a particular aspect of the game of football. That's all. For the most part, the people in that project feel free to write, without the concern that an intolerant person will decide that Wikipedia must be purged of biographies of small college coaches. No offense, but it's been obvious throughout this discussion that you don't yet have an understanding of Wikipedia's policies. The concept of notability is simply whether something merits an article of its own, and, if not, whether there are other existing articles within Wikipedia where the subject can be referred to. On the other hand, I think that your perception is that anything that is not notable in your opinion should be purged from Wikipedia, which is unfortunate. If you're proceeding under the idea that your own work is protected by an inherent notability policy, or that you're exempt from the same expectations you demand of others, I'm afraid you'll find out that Division III college football coaches do not have their own free pass under WP:NSPORT or any other policy. The nominations won't come from me-- I'm a firm believer that Wikipedia should not be a battleground-- and a backlash may come against the work of others rather than your own, but I won't be surprised. Mandsford 17:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than argue, let me just ask: what does any of that have to do with this article? Say for a moment that you are 100% correct and I'm a moron. Fine. You're still left with needing to find some verifiable independent reliable sources for this article. Are there any?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the laugh Seriously, gang! I'm busting my lungs laughin' at the Pittsburg Post-Gazzette article! The player was paid $50 a game and they had to get him a job as an insurance salesman! The reporter calls it "a professional career whose beginnigns were such that he would've had to look up to see the top of a ditch." You don't need me to argue for deletion of this article, your own stuff does the trick for me! I needed a laugh!--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad this debate is almost over. As with other aspects of policy, you might have your own definition of verifiable, independent and reliable sources, but we go by WP:V here. Mandsford 13:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing from this discussion is that the verifiable, independent and reliable sources actually are supposed to be about the subject matter in the article. For example, the aforementioned Post-Gazzette article on the page is indedeed verifiable, independent, and reliable. It just doesn't cover the subject matter--except to use it as a point of how non-notable the subject actually is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Observer-Reporter article, which expressly describes the league's organization? Or the AP wire story that describes the league as it was in 1972 when Hartford departed it? That's two reliable, independent sources on the topic right there. The Post-Gazette article even makes a mention as to it being "well-remembered." Certainly, if it was well-remembered, it was notable enough to BE remembered. If it hadn't been, it wouldn't have been mentioned, would it have? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a closer look at those:

Post-Gazzette article when the author says the league is "well-rememberd" he is using satire. This is evident from phrases like "then things got worse" and he refers to "Chambersburg, Cumberland, and Hagerstown" as "garden spots" in the article. Remember, this is after the player got a 66% pay cut to play in this league, to $50 a game., Heck,William Heffelfinger got $500 a game in 1892-this is some 80 years later!
Observer-Reporter article is offline and I do not have access to it. I've run an online search at the paper and it didn't turn anything up, but it's likely their online archives are incomplete.
AP wire story I'm not sure which one you mean -- it's not clear in the reference section.

This brings be back to the original question: "Of the articles I can read online, they all seem to be about an individual rather than about the league. For the offline references, do these suffer the same shortfall or are they truly about the league?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the AP wire story and this is the Observer-Reporter article. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: V and NOTE provided. Assuming good faith, article stays. I don't think a discussion of what the authors of the references "really meant" serves any purpose. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I was supposed to note that I was invited here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The V and RS concerns have been largely resolved. NSPORTS, as usual, is worse than useless. But going by the precident used in association football, the league itself is probably notable, the teams almost definitely aren't. In the same way that teams in bigger leagues are often considered notable, but their players not. —W F C— 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Truth be told, I'm somewhat baffled by football project members on the one hand hotly asserting that obscure football coaches from teensy collegiate amateur programs are presumptively notable, while on the other hand claiming that entire semi-pro leagues aren't. I am utterly baffled by attempts to hijack the notability criteria of NSPORTS, which in the case of football solely pertain to individuals, and apply it to entire leagues, without any consensus on the subject. Gain a consensus over at NSPORTS for league criteria first. Ravenswing 04:53, 8 February 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 speedily deleted as spam and copyvio. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JCRV

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

Repeatedly created and deleted, last time reffed with copyvio. Not notable; self-promotion. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. User who created has been blocked for creating this page and ones similar to it before. OSborn^arf_contribs. 04:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per WP:NOT#PROMOTION. elektrik SHOOS 03:48, 1 February 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. Arguments from the previous AfD also taken into consideration, as it was only overturned and relisted for procedural reasons. lifebaka++ 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double Trouble (nickname)

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural relist per this discussion]. Neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep per RS Someone65 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason I posted last time at the last discussion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stewart and Williams are both successful and young running backs with promising careers. However, their nickname has only been around for three years. Other well-known NFL nicknames, such as Purple People Eaters, Steel Curtain, and The Greatest Show on Turf are not just part of their respective team's culture, but have been part of NFL Lore for decades now (save for the last). I'm not saying this nickname is not notable whatsoever, but it's too young of a subject to deserve its own article. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk
Keep- Mainly because of the nickname controversy. This was a very large headline in and of itself back in '08, almost a scandal of sorts, and that alone makes it notable enough to stay. Toa Nidhiki05 01:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: The nickname controversy was over the use of "Smash and Dash." None of the current references in the controversy section mention 'double trouble' itself as part of the controversy. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 02:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is definitely part of Carolina Panthers lore. These two running backs are great young players, and if they get better, then the nickname will get more and more popular. We should keep this article unless, they fall off the map within three years. Soxrock24 (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "might be notable later on" is not a reason to keep but is actually a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, that could be a reason to merge with Carolina Panthers. I think that it actually should be kept but it looks like we have a deadlock. Keep firing away. Soxrock24 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Thing Since the team is so young, it definitely is Panthers lore. This was a huge controversy back in '08. Probably one of the topt ten storylines in their young history, if not higher. That's a definite plus for keeping. Soxrock24 (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The controversy comments belongs in the Smash and Dash (if it existed), or Stewart and Williams' articles. All the controversy was about the usage of that nickname, not the 'Double Trouble' nickname itself. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 04:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable nickname WP:NOT#NEWS Secret ^account 22:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not discuss the topic, but rather details the stats of some athletes who presumably have their own articles. No secondary sources are provided, and "lore" arguments are not based in Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Abductive (reasoning) 15:00, 8 February 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. I will restore the content behind a redirect if someone wants to merge, but the consensus appears to be delete. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia – Malaysia relations

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

fails WP:GNG. could not find any coverage of bilateral relations [33]. no evidence of state visits, significant trade, migration, agreements, disputes etc. only coverage I could find related to the Georgia (U.S. state). Those wanting to keep must provide evidence of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no GNG Someone65 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info which can obtained into the respective foreign relations articles and redirect to the Georgia article.--TM 05:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see nor have I found any useful info. LibStar (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has useful information. WP:BEFORE.--TM 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yep all there is diplomatic recognition, very low trade and non resident embassies. that's it. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I suggest we use that content and merge it into the respective relations articles. It is verifiable info, it just does not pass WP:GNG yet.--TM 04:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Even quanta of useful evidence should be kept, even if not as a separate article. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insignificant relationship that fails the GNG. There's nothing of any use that should be merged -- the country foreign relations article should contain important details only and ignore trivial "relationships". The relationships are so insignificant to each country that any mention at all in their respective foreign relations articles would be undue weight. Even so, the merge would be of such minor content that it wouldn't really be a merge at all.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:58, 7 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crowswing Books

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD was a no-consensus keep. Several years later, this small publishing company does not appear to be notable. The article is unreferenced at present, and I have been unable to locate anything which would attest to notability. There is some limited coverage in reliable sources, but most of it is trivial - "Directory of UK & Irish book publishers" etc. None of this reaches the WP:GNG threshold of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Thparkth (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I really don't see significant coverage here. If this hadn't been taken to AFD in the past, it would qualify for A7 speedy deletion — someone tagged it for that, and I deleted it a few minutes ago, only to realise that it had previously been at AFD, and I don't think it a good idea to delete under A7 if an article's survived AFD. That being said, I don't think that it should survive AFD this time. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable defunct micro-press. Qworty (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was only ever a vanity press and it is long defunct. Its own website has been taken down and the proprietor (Sean Wright) has now decided to become a self-publishing musician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.142.249.81 (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Delelte - needs to have considerable Reliable sources discussing to be worth keeping, Sadads (talk) 16:07, 2 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Balanghai Hotel and Convention Center

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

This is not a notable subject--all of the references are to center's website, and I found nothing using Google that would count as independent and providing significant discussion. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete the 3 gnews hits merely confirm it held events. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 2 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disciple/Scars Remain

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

A yet-to-be-released album that simply combines two previous albums is not notable. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 18 January 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, 24 January 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, NW (Talk) 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, if album is notable after it is released, it can be recreated. CTJF83 02:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Also deletable per WP:CRYSTAL. Qworty (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per logan Someone65 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swami B. A. Paramadvaiti

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

Does not comply with WP:BIO req. No intellectually independent sources to support notability. A relatives' story can not be used as it is not independent. Since no other serious sources found, the only other option left is to merge to Gaudiya Math Wikid ^as© 22:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable Hare Krishna guru. Calling a huge article in The Washington Post "A relatives' story" will not help to prove otherwise. There're more reliable and independent sources where the Swami gets coverage [34] [35] [36] [37] Gaura79 (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like three of the sources (supposedly) discussing him, are only mentioning him in passing (does not satisfy the "significant coverage", and the other source by Jelena Galovic does not mention this paramadvaiti. Again the "huge" story is just what his relative wrote, you can not call it an independent source. Wikid ^as© 09:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His name is not mentioned in passing and Paramadveiti in Jelena Galovic book is the same as Paramadvaiti in all other sources. And yes, The Washington Post is a reliable and independent source.Gaura79 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paramadveiti is less then a paragraph. And less in others. How come it is so important to have it's own article? Wikid ^as© 13:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about him. It includes an interview with him. One page in Jelena Galovic book also does qualify as significant coverage. To merge the article into Gaudiya Math makes as much sense as merging Barak Obama into Indonesia because he lived there when he was a kid.Gaura79 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note:I am still not convinced that the sources are sufficient for inclusion under the guidelines, especially for BLP. Wikid ^as© 13:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This individual is not notable. A mention in a newspaper article does not make a person notable. This is a very clear delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you haven't read the discussion. Currently we have two newspaper articles (one of them in The Washington Post) describing every detail of the swami's life. Plus there's one page about him in an academic publication in Spanish. What we have is a significant coverage of the swami in reliable sources.Gaura79 (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no independent reliable sources that establish notability. A family member's article about a relative is not a reliable source for notability. While this individual does exist; nothing makes him notable. There is no significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject that suggest that this person is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources discussed here are independent and reliable. They are sufficient to establish notability of the swami. You can't call sources such as The Washington Post, John Gordon Melton not independent or not reliable. I understand your strong desire to delete the article but you have to give valid arguments supporting deletion. Besides the two articles entirely dedicated to him, we have a one page coverage in an academic publication in Spanish and John Gordon Melton's Religions of the world: a comprehensive encyclopedia of beliefs and practices. Volume 2 that states, quote

Some of Sridhar's Western disciples have also known considerable success, particularly Bhakti Aloka Paramadvaiti (b. 1953), a Swiss national and disciple of Bhaktivedanta Swami, who founded his own organization, VRINDA, which now has more than a hundred centers, most prominently in South America. Paramadvaiti has also been the driving force in reviving the WORLD VAISHNAVA ASSOCIATION (Visva Vaishnava Raja Sabha), an attempt to coordinate the activities of the disparate Gaudiya Maths. This project has met with limited success, and there're few joint projects with the various institutions, though, with the significant exeption of ISKCON, most are members.

Gaura79 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word Vaishnava Association is also not notable. If it was you could produce sources and make an article about it. Mentioning someone in passing does not make one notable. There are hundreds of swamis in and around Hare Krishnas, and if you brother writes an article in New York Times, it does not count as the basis of notability (I would use it for an article, but not to establish notability). See my comment below (again). Wikid ^as© 13:47, 1 February 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, NW (Talk) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable preacher Someone65 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to explain why is he non-notable?Gaura79 (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can certainly explain. The policy is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." He has not been a subject of any, with an exception of an article by his direct relative. It is as good a an autobiography, which is a reliable source if published by a reliable publisher, but it can not be used to establish notability. In this case the second part of the policy --"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" -- does not apply since there are hardly any sources on him that establish notability. You already said that there are sources, but if you look at the sources you are selling, it does not satisfy others, as we see it as "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources" and that is not sufficient to establish notability. There is no point in asking everyone who votes against the same question. Produce clear cut sources, impartial and legible and I will personally vote to keep. Wikid ^as© 13:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may interpret Wikipedia rules and guidlines the way you like, but the fact is that besides the article in The Washington Post (which you claim is not intelectually independent)

there's an article solely dedicated to the swami's persona in Caretas magazine
there's one page coverage in an academic publicaton in Spanish
there's some coverage in an Religions of the world: a comprehensive encyclopedia of beliefs and practices edited by John Gordon Melton.

This is not much, but it's enough to establish notability.Gaura79 (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caretas mention his name once. A page is more like a paragraph and J G Melton is you right, "some coverage". I agree with you that it is not much. For an author of books and a prominent svami as it is the claim, there would be more than that in my opinion Wikid ^as© 19:56, 1 February 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. Meistriliiga is not fully pro. And there is just barely consensus that his UEFA participation is inadequate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Lõsanov

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG, and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he has played in the first round of the Intertoto Cup and the first qualifying round of the Europa League neither of which confer notability in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

Yes, this player may not have played in a fully professional league but he has played in a UEFA Competition 3 time. They may all be defeats and, yes, one was 10 years ago but that must be notable for something. I have also added/provided infomation about his UEFA Competition Games. I might make some of the infomation into a table like the shots. Don't you think?

Also, I know it isn't that significant. I'm positive there's more infomation on his life-We can expand this page. There are also may other people who have not played in a fully Professianal League. I do agree to get rid of some. Recently I've been trying to expand this page as you probably can, and hopefully, can see. I will expand this page as much as I can.

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wait, wait, why does everyone keep saying that he hasn't played in a professional league ? He is playing for club that plays in the Meistriliiga, which is the top league in Estonia and definitely a professional league - I mean, winners and top finishers go to Champions League and UEFA Europe League. --Ezhuks (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FPL. The Meistriliiga is not fully professional. The teams that are typically at the lower end of the table have a fair number of part-time players playing for them. As for the international competitions, UEFA does not require its feeder leagues to be professional. Even the teams competing in UEFA competitions are permitted a fair degree of amateurism. For example, the Maltese league which is largely amateur qualifies two teams to the Champions League and Europa League, which is precisely why the early rounds of the these competitions cannot be regarded as fully pro, and are therefore insufficient to establish notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see. Still, the fellow passes Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability, if his club, JK Narva Trans, is professional ( I couldn't find anything that supported this claim, neither anything that contradicts it ). --Ezhuks (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As reasonable as the assumption that Trans is pro team may be, it is an assumption nonetheless and therefore an invalid claim for notability since notability requires verifiable evidence. Also, WP:FOOTYN is an essay not a guideline and a somewhat archaic one at that as far the section on players is concerned. Last year, the notability guidelines for all athletes were revised to form WP:NSPORT making it the definitive document on footballing notability, and it requires not only the club, but the league to be fully professional. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~STRONG, STRONG KEEP~~

Hi,

Hold on, Hold on you are completely wring about Trans, his current club, being towards the bottom half. They finished the 2010 Meistriliiga in 3rd position-Qualifying for the 2011–12 UEFA Europa League First qualifying round. Some of his other clubs may be towards the bottom but he's not at those clubs now. He's playing for a club that has finished 3rd in the Estonian League. Yes, it's not fully professional but why are there still players who have never played in a fully professional league on Wikipedia. That will be stupid if there all deleted. This is a good league. YES, I KNOW it's not fully professional!

Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, please do not !vote more than once. Second, the fact that there are other articles on footballers who have not played in fully pro leagues is an invalid claim to notability. Those articles either pass WP:GNG, or should be deleted. Third, I never claimed that Trans is at the bottom of Meistriliiga, nor is their position in the table relevant. It is the profossionality status of the entire competition that is relevant here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the two relevant guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, and this chap fails both of them. Ergo, he isn't notable - sorry guys. Giant Snowman 23:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG Spiderone 13:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plays in a notable top-level European League and has played in notable UEFA competitions, including Europe League. Eldumpo (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Eldumpo, we've been through this before. And I don't just mean the community, but you and I personally. It is a well established consensus that the early rounds of UEFA club competitions do not confer notability. I apologize if I come across as a little rude, but to argue that they do is not only futile, but dilatory. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to my comment being labelled as dilatory; just because my view is different to yours it does not mean my purpose in posting is solely to be difficult and obstruct matters. It is my personal opinion and I don't believe the counter-argument is cast-iron. Yes, there are a number of people at AfD who state that qualifying rounds are not regarded as notable (I'm not sure how that ties in with what sources are saying though) but there are others who agree that European competition is a notable level. Eldumpo (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, and I have no objection to you disagreeing with me. Where I object is you making this argument when you know full well that every time you've made it you've failed. I never intended to imply that it was your intent to be dilatory, but there comes a point when you have to admit that slowing down the afd process is all that your argument is going achieve. The counter-argument, as you say, is not iron-cast, but if we are going to break with consensus we are going to need a good reason, which you have not provided. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your original comment to me stated "...to argue that they [the early rounds of UEFA club competitions confer notability] do is ...dilatory" so I'm not sure why you then claim that you did not mean to imply my reply was dilatory. Anyway, I haven't kept records but believe that sometimes the view has been at AfD that the early rounds can denote notability. Other than talk of consensus you haven't indicated why you believe the early rounds of UEFA competitions don't confer notability - have you any sources to show this? I'm not sure what the comment about slowing up the AfD process means. I posted my view on the AfD as I am entitled to do and you posted a comment, which you didn't have to do, but which you are also entitled to make. In any case, what is the desire to rush through the AfD process. Eldumpo (talk) 10:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I obviously don't have a complete record either, but every time you objected to the deletion of an article I nominated with the argument that the early rounds of UEFA competitions did confer notability, the article was deleted, which to me indicates that there is a fairly strong consensus that these rounds do not confer notability. In the vast majority of cases, these rounds generate nothing more than trivial coverage in the form of database entries and match reports. WP:NSPORT explicitly states that database entries can be used as sources but are insufficient to establish notability, and match reports usually have only passing mentions of any one player involved in the match. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This guy sounds like he could be notable, and I would be tempted to support keeping this if someone could find some decent independent sources. So far we just have stats pages, and I couldn't find anything online. Without them, he fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 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, NW (Talk) 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATH, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - UEFA Competitions. Would be disgraceful if his articles info would get lost. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, he has only played in the qualifying rounds of UEFA competitions which are not fully pro and only generate trivial coverage (databases, match reports) making them insufficient to grant notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:04, 1 February 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. As much overcategorization as this seems, the "keep" side has enough valid points to prevent this from being deleted, in particular the Wisconsin and Purdue source provided by Orlady. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ten business schools

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League business schools. Grouping a set of mainly graduate business schools by their undergraduate sports league affiliation does not make sense. While the term "Big Ten Conference" is colloquially used to refer to the schools collectively, doing so to group individual parts of those institutions, especially graduate schools, does not have any significance or notability. You would not have a list of Pac-10 medical schools. Jadunne (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments here. —Bill Price (nyb) 07:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked at Bill's comment ref'd above. That only reinforces my belief that this list is arbitrary and unencyclopedic. We regularly run the risk of over classification and this is a prime example. This has the added confidence of not having any real sources that backup the same qualifications that the article purports, and to any extent there is a "big ten" business schools, it's not exactly concurrent with this article. There are too many issues of OR and neutrality that make this kind or article unnecessary. Shadowjams (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Big Ten is solely a grouping for athletics, and the business schools have no relevance in this way. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The discussion at the virtually identical case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League business schools is proceeding very differently from this one and attracting different participants. (I'm the only person to weigh in on both cases so far, not counting the nominator.) If it's okay to use "Ivy League", it should be okay to use "Big Ten"; if it's not okay to use "Big Ten", it shouldn't be okay to use "Ivy League". —Bill Price (nyb) 01:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The common usage for Big 10 is athletic in nature making this grouping unworkable. (Please note I have voted the opposite way for Ivy League intentionally because, although technically an awful football league, the common usage "Ivy League" has lost the sports conotation.)RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone can demonstrate that corporate employers hold a "Big Ten business school" in the same regard that they do for an "Ivy League business school", the "what works for one works for the other" argument would be persuasive. I'm not persuaded. "Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth... Purdue? Thanks, we'll let you know our decision..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 22:29, January 23, 2011

I have no idea how that is related to the discussion at hand and it just seems elitist. ElKevbo (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a useful grouping of institutions similar to one another in many ways (which is why they're in the same conference). It doesn't really matter if Wikipedia editors think it makes sense as the institutions have chosen - for many decades - to group themselves this way and it's widely used by many others. It's also not an issue of prestige or even some specializations of the institutions being as prestigious as their counterparts at other institutions. And the idea that readers might confuse "Big Ten" as implying a ranking is ridiculous. ElKevbo (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still comes down to notability. This search [38] didn't turn up much of a sign that anyone considers the programs at midwestern universities as being "Big Ten business schools", no matter how useful or "okay" it might be for us to call them that. If someone can demonstrate that these are thought of as a group, great. Mandsford 20:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I'd be somewhat okay deleting this article iff the template and category for this group is kept. Wiping out all grouping of these schools as Big Ten schools would be unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you here. The thing I am primarily opposed to is the notion that "Big Ten business school" is somehow invalid or useless as a grouping. If this nomination were reframed as "the concept of a 'Big Ten business school' isn't inherently notable enough to justify a list article, so it should be demoted to only a navigation template," I would be more inclined to agree with it. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - My gut reaction was that this grouping is nonnotable, but on second thought I could see a shred of notability. Although the Big Ten is generally considered to be just an athletic conference (unlike the Ivy League, which has broader significance), I've occasionally encountered situations where the Big Ten schools and the SEC schools were treated as groups of peer universities for non-athletic purposes such as comparisons of faculty salaries and graduation rates. I also have encountered people who were intimidated at the idea of attending graduate school at a "Big Ten school" after being undergraduates in less-well-regarded state universities (both second-tier universities in the Big Ten states and state schools in other parts of the country). That caused me to think that there might be some notability to a list like this one. However, the clincher for me is the discovery that U.S. News and World Report has actually fooled around with ranking universities within their athletic conferences.[39] and some of the Big Ten universities themselves actually have compared their business school rankings to those of other Big Ten universities (see University of Wisconsin press release and Purdue press release). That discovery leads me to conclude that the topic of "Big Ten business schools" is a notable one, albeit weakly so. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 25 January 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, NW (Talk) 02:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't even list Harvard or Sloane. Nor does it include top business schools outside of the United States. It's a list based on POV. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world would this article include Harvard or Sloan??? They're not in the Big Ten. ElKevbo (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell where the user is from, but s/he may not be aware of the Big Ten being a sports league. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is "Big Ten business schools". It is a misleading title. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to take that up with the Big Ten. But it might be challenging because they've used that name for many decades.

But seriously, is the objection here really the name? Would you (and others) like us to change the name to "Business schools in the Big Ten" or something similar? That seems reasonable and fairly easy. ElKevbo (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! The article contained no mention of the Big Ten Conference (other than the template at the bottom of the page). Apparently the reader was just supposed to know. I made a bare-bones edit to add that missing detail. --Orlady (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I meant when I said the title, "Big Ten business schools" is misleading. The "Big Ten", although an American sports conference, has connotations of being, well, the big (or top) ten, which these schools aren't. The template conflates business schools of widely varying caliber merely because of a shared sports history. If the title was changed to something like "Business schools in the Big Ten sports conference" or some title like that which clearly spelled out just how these business schools are related (and it's definitely not that they're similar business schools, because they're not), I'd be entirely fine with the template and would switch from delete to keep. Banaticus (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the title of the article is changed to "Big Ten Conference business schools" I'll change my vote to Keep. But from a global perspective "Big Ten business schools" is not what it says it is. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 18:36, 5 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sedra Bistodeau

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

15 year old fiddler and student that won a local state fair contest Travelbird (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's all in how you present the facts. She's a 16 year old fiddler and violinist who won a statewide open talent contest when she was 14, as well as at least one national contest. She's attested by references from the Minneapolis Star Tribune and PBS. She's also a credited professional musician. On the continuum of notability she may be at the lower end, but she's rising. Brain Rodeo (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Winning a state fair talent contest and as part of a duet in the National Oldtime Fiddlers' Contest ("almost 350 fiddlers compete in 8 divisions", so she beat out maybe 20-30 other teams?) do not bode well for notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to refrain from casting a vote because I created the article, but I'll point out that she's also a credited studio musician and (I just added this to the article) has appeared as a guest performer on A Prairie Home Companion. Brain Rodeo (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yeah, she is notable enough to have a big Minneapolis newspaper write a feature on her and for Garrison Keillor to invite her on "Prairie Home Companion." People who heard her on the radio (all over the world) will expect WP to have an article about her. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:MUSICBIO requires that she be "the subject of multiple [my emph. added], non-trivial, published works". The Minneapolis Star is one published work. Is there another "published work" in which she's really the subject? Well, it can count as another if she "has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." If the Prairie Home Companion appearance + commentary got up to 30 minutes, she might be clearing the bar, if only by a hair. Yakushima (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The Prairie House Companion probably doesn't count as she was a guest performer there not the subject of the program. 16:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
    - Reply Good point -- and she's listed as only one of several performers (including her sister) in that appearance [40] Yakushima (talk) 05:34, 23 January 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) 15:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. One-time guest appearance on a radio show doesn't cut it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sedra was also the youngest, and first female to ever win the "Gone to Texas Open" Division in the Texas State Championships in 2008. She also placed 4th in the Grand National Open division at the National Championships in Weiser, Idaho this year. She was also the youngest competitor in those finals. She has also just finished recording multiple tracks on a Grammy nominated musicians upcoming album. — Bist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 02:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: I'm a little frustrated by the tendency of some editors to mischaracterize the "keep" case in an effort to support the "delete" case. The Prairie Home Companion is significant because it meant that she performed on a broadcast listened to by hundreds of thousands of people, not because it's being cited as a source within the article. A second non-trivial, published source is cited in the article, Yakushima; that would be Twin Cities Public Television's video report and writeup [41]. And Clarityfiend, how many teams did the San Francisco Giants have to beat to win the World Series? About thirty? Maybe their performance wasn't so notable after all. :) Brain Rodeo (talk) 06:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I agree, Brain, that there's mischaracterization (to the point of trivialization) of Sedra going on here, from the very beginning -- to the point where'd I'd support a clean-sheet relisting of this AfD just to get the discussion off on the right foot. However, there are weaknesses on the Keep side, too. For example, the "non-trivial, published source" you point to above has an "artist bio" of only a couple paragraphs -- and for Sally O'Reilly, not Sedra. (The title lists them both, Sedra first, confusingly.) So who's really the subject? My heart says "Keep", but my head keeps going back to WP:MUSICBIO (a guideline that's pretty new to me, admittedly) to see if she can somehow get across the notability line on points. And I can't quite see it yet. Let's say it comes down to the competitions. What counts as a "major competition"? WP:MUSICBIO doesn't say. Maddening! Yakushima (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. OK, I've just watched the Twin Cities Television clip "Sedra Bistodeau and Sally O’Reilly" [42]. It's about 5-1/2 minutes -- well worth watching, even if you find yourself still on the "Delete" side of this discussion at the end. I'll go out on a limb and say that this is a WP:RS "published work" (see the note that says the category is "deliberately broad") in WP:MUSICBIO terms, and that it yields, together with the newspaper piece already mentioned, the "multiple, non-trivial published works" on the subject that are required by WP:MUSICBIO. Despite the title, the video is unmistakably about Sedra primarily, in terms of screen time and spoken content. Since Prof. O'Reilly is Sedra's violin teacher, one might question the objectivity of her commentary in this piece; since Sedra speaks at length on screen, one might wonder whether it's too much a primary source. It is not, however, a self-published work. I retract my quibble above about the "Artist's Bio" section of the introductory text. I suspect that the emphasis O'Reilly gets in the text might have been mainly motivated by Minnesota state regulations about justifying use of taxpayer funds in promotion of the arts. After all, Sedra is unquestionably performing for popular entertainment as well as practicing "serious" music, but Minnesota Original styles itself an "arts and cultural" organization, and is partly tax-payer funded, as is the university at which O'Reilly works. Minnesota Original may have strained a little to draw the public arts-support connection in this case, on the web; TV-only viewers wouldn't have noticed and wouldn't care if they did, probably, but perhaps readers on the web might forgiven for being a little confused, as I was at first. As O'Reilly puts it, Sedrea "straddles" the popular and serious genres. That Sedra does it so well is, of course, a good part of what makes her remarkable in the first place, and I rather doubt that many people today except those affiliated with University of Minnesota's music department would know of Prof. Sara O'Reilly had it not been for Sedra and this video on local public television. As far as I'm concerned, this makes the case that Sedra was the true subject of this work, and that her popularity was the motivation for producing it. I am not, however, an expert on the application of WP:MUSICBIO by any means, and would be interested in other interpretations and precedents for those interpretations. Yakushima (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - further to the issue of whether Sedra meets "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition." of WP:MUSICBIO, I've researched and created National Old-Time Fiddlers Contest. She and Alex Depue together placed first in the category "2010 Twin Fiddling Judge's Choice".[43] Sharing first place is a "win", I'd say. Should this contest be considered "major"? Perhaps still a reasonable question. With hundreds of contestants in 8 categories, and thousands of attendees, sponsored by an organization that claims to certify fiddling contests in 29 states, it's certainly pretty big. Yakushima (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blush My ineptitude in searching (and anal-retentiveness in punctuating) ... there's already an article, National Oldtime Fiddlers' Contest. OTOH, that article offers relatively little to establish the independent notability of its subject. Mine relies almost entirely on third-party sources. So maybe a merge of my work into that one is in order. For now, you might consider the version I wrote more relevant for determining whether this contest was major enough. Yakushima (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overwhelming Keep. It seems many more sources were added subsequent to this nom, plus I checked the many references in the Google news link in this nom's template ([44]). In reviewing this article in its current state, my opinion is that she meets WP:Music #1 with multiple nontrivial independent reliable sources; #9 with placing in multiple major music competitions; #10 performing for a notable television show, A Prairie Home Companion; and I would venture to say she passes #7 as well with being a prominent representative of a notable style of a local scene. Cheers. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction. "notable television show" should be "notable radio show." Yakushima (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw vote. Agreed with some points, disagreed with some points and was sorely misunderstood on others. Don't know when I'll get a chance to address this again, so I'm just withdrawing my vote.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Delete. She seems like wonderful artist and state treasure, but she is not a notable musician in the world of fiddling. She just isn't. there are only two major sources listed in the article, and one is the New York Times article, which only mentions her in passing. The article itself is about fiddling festivals. Her appearance as a studio performer one time on a radio show doesn't even remotely make her notable.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shorter version: your comment makes two false claims, one of them patently so. Nothing in it budged me from Weak Keep. Longer version: Did you really scrutinize the evidence presented? It seems not. You say the New York Times article "mentions her in passing", when in fact it doesn't mention her at all -- I added that article as a reference in part to provide evidence to help us evaluate whether the Weiser event qualifies as a "major" music competition under WP:MUSICBIO. You say "The article itself is about fiddling festivals." No, the article goes into detail to identify fiddling competitions, but only those in which Ms Bistodeau has performed notably or actually won an event -- the grammatical subject of each such sentence being Ms Bistodeau, not the competitions themselves. I'm still at Weak Keep, because I'm not sure how WP:MUSICBIO applies in admittedly borderline cases like these. (See my notes on my vote above.) Is a 5.5-minute segment in a partly state-funded documentary shown on a metropolitan educational/arts-and-culture TV program a second "published work", meeting (together with the Star-Tribune article about her) the requirement of "multiple" independent RS sources in WP:MUSICBIO? I don't know, but if so, I think this BLP is within that guideline. Is the Weiser event a "major" music competition? I don't know (everything I know about oldtime fiddling as a country music genre, I learned in researching this article.) But if so, I think this BLP is within the guideline. Those seem to be the key issues to be resolved here -- and only one of them needs to be resolved in her favor to meet WP:MUSICBIO, as I read it. Making false derogatory statements about the article and its sources does nothing to provide any clearer focus on either of those issues, for this discussion. If anything, it fits a pattern of understating accomplishments and recognition that started with the how the AfD was initially listed: "15 year old fiddler and student that won a local state fair contest" -- period, as if there were no more to her musical accomplishments (and how they were notedin the media) than that. After all, even at the point of AfD listing [45], the article had references in External Links to national titles won, and a link to the documentary segment. Yakushima (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possible correction. See [46]. Yakushima (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Seriously, Esprit15d, did you read the article? Miss Bistodeau wasn't a studio performer on a radio show; she was a live performer a radio show and a studio performer (and had a song named for her) on a Peter Ostroushko album. You seem to be conflating the two. Supplemental: Miss Bistodeau has been invited to perform a second time on A Prairie Home Companion in February. I'll add a reference to substantiate that once it's happened, assuming there's still an article then. Brain Rodeo (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can cut some slack for Esprit15 on the live-radio vs. recording studio distinction. But I take exception to Esprit15's "doesn't even remotely". Here's the relevant part of WP:MUSICBIO: "10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)". So how might she qualify? We've got an appearance on not just "a radio show" but a highly notable, nationally broadcast radio show (Prairie Home Companion), and with more than just a credit like "violin - Sedra Bistodeau". We've got her recording studio work on what appears to be a notable album (moreover one with a track title having her name in it). Now, I doubt these satisfy the above guideline clause. But to say she "doesn't even remotely" satisfy it sounds a lot like proof by assertion to me. Besides which, neither is the "only claim", or even a central claim, to notability. I suggest (for, what is it now, the third time?) that we stick with the core issues: how "major" the competitions were, and/or whether the Minnesota Original video segment counts as a significant RS "published work." Yakushima (talk) 09:10, 30 January 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, NW (Talk) 02:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets general notabilityThisbites (talk) 10:36, 1 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rik Barnett

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

Apparent WP:AUTOBIO - created by User:MrRikGB , which otherwise appears to be a promo account for an acting coach and his books. Nat Gertler (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not sure how prestigious an Ibiza International Film Festival award is...but I'm not finding any reliable coverage of him on Google or Google News. CTJF83 02:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Puff piece with WP:AUTO and WP:COI problems; clearly fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Qworty (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 2 February 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 nominator after sources were found and added. In future - all of us - need to assume good faith. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muthucumaraswamy Sornarajah

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

To quote the PROD: "No in-depth sources appear to exist on this person. Currently fails WP:GNG.". Prod contested, but no sources were added. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5 and WP:BEFORE. Or, to quote the edit summary when it was deprodded (not by me): "please stop using guesswork and spend a few minutes looking for sources before proposing deletion". Sources do not seem to be hard to find but AfD is not the way to go about asking other people to do the work for you. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:PROF? "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for an article in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; see Wikipedia:Verifiability." Two of us spent nearly ten minutes looking for sources in two professional databases which have millions of records of newspapers and books and are far more extensive than a Google search, which we also tried. The only source I could find was a profile for a university he works at, which in my eyes is a primary source (most likely, in my experience, it was written by him). One primary source does not equal notability anymore than twenty man-minutes trawling through databases is 'guesswork'. I know you're only trying to help here, but read up on the appropriate policy on verifiability: Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. That's what we're doing here - removing unsourced information. Either someone provides a source, or the article - per policy - has to go. We have made good efforts to find sources that support the material. We did not succeed. Others are welcome to try - we're not all-powerful sourcerers, and I applaud efforts to source the article. Hell, I'll help all I can. However, I find it absolutely incredible that some people have had the gall to call what is clearly a well-organised, good faith effort to improve the project as nothing more than 'disruption'. We haven't tried to do anything but help. TLDR: In this case, we've not managed to source the article, so it's not verifiable and should be deleted. Others are welcome to try. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe you're just really really bad at finding sources. Because two seconds of the usual Google found this one which is clearly nontrivial, about the subject, and reliable (in that it's published by a reliable third party, a university department, and corroborates much of the detail in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one I found, but large chunks are copied from "his CV" (PDF)., so I dismissed it as a primary source, and we need multiple secondary ones. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, 20 minutes of searching found a lot more. The Koh Professorship can be sourced to his department's faculty listing, and the chair at the University of Malaya can also be sourced to their faculty directory. Here is yet another third party source. And here is an actual news story with a one-paragraph bio of him, also sourcing two journal editorships, if for some reason you don't like the non-media sources.

The journal International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics has two papers specifically about Sornarajah's research, in its December 2006 issue [47] [48]. Additionally, his book The Pursuit of Nationalized Property has a published review in International and Comparative Law Quarterly [49]. His book The International Law on Foreign Investment has a review in the American Journal of International Law in 1995 (though I haven't found the actual text of this one online), in ICLQ [50], in British Year Book of International Law [51], in World Trade Review [52], and in Verfassung und Recht in Ubersee (2006, volume 39, issue 3 , p. 369-370, but I don't seem to have access to the text of this review either). His book Law of International Joint Ventures again has a review in ICLQ [53]. So there's plenty to write about what he's done. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Twenty minutes well spent! Let's stick those in so that the article is keepable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lazy and condescending, a fine combination. I added the sources, no thanks to no help from you. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passive and aggressive is an equally fine combination, from what I can see. So is assuming bad faith. It's not my job to add the sources, I didn't find them. I spent 20 minutes trying to do what you say, and couldn't. The sources are now added however, thanks to yourself, and the project was improved through this AFD. In future, though, given the massive incivility coming from these users, I will be deleting BLP articles if I am unable to find sources for them articles. I will not be taking them to AFD, although others are welcome to. I will simply delete them as 'unsourced BLP article for which a comprehensive reference search has been carried no sources can be found'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C5 on basis of two named chairs. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on basis of text with 337 cites in GS. Nominator is asked to follow WP:Before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Nominator understands WP:BEFORE. Nominator is, in fact, rather well-versed in policy, oddly enough. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are well-versed in policy makes your failure to apply it even less excusable. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit did I fail to apply? Would you like to open up an RfC, or perhaps call for my resignation from ArbCom? Obviously my rampant 'disruption', as you called it, needs to be dealt with. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy, which says "reasons for deletion include...articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed", not "articles which do no not currently cite any sources". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's cute, Phil. You've not read the above discussion(or policy) at all. Instead, you've given one user - whom you knew had schizophrenia if you'd had read her userpahge - a severe panic attack and driven her off the project and off work for the foreseeable future. You've also labelled an arbitrators AfDs as tantamount to a blockable offence. I will say it again now for you, in simple words: I made thorough attempts to find reliable sources and failed to find any. I did not break any policy, although I'm pretty close to your level of incivility. The next step you should go is WP:ANI, where you can inform them of the blockable offences I've committed and ask them to comment. See you there! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although gnews turns up nothing, sufficient hits in gscholar to establish this person as an academic author. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn, do other delete comments. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross E. Dunn

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

Does not assert notability using multiple reliable sources. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK Qworty (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hundreds of reliable sources can be found by simply clicking on the search links spoon-fed in the nomination. I've put references to a few of them in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks Phil! Maybe if you'd done it earlier we wouldn't be in this mess. Thanks to Phil's good work, I'm happy to Withdraw. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 and the multiple major-national-newspaper reviews of his books added to the article by Phil Bridger. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment needs more reliable sources for an encyclopedia Someone65 (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well sourced on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 1 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flow notation system

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

Looks like one guy's private system, not used elsewhere. Not notable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now, and with regret -- move to wikibooks). It does seem like this guy has invented something useful, and there's indication other rappers are using it. In a few years some hip college professor will write a book on rapping that will cover it, I hope, but for now it's just a new innovation with no RS independent of its inventor. Sorry. EEng (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Could this go in a wikibook on music theory or something? I don't know what their standards are for inclusion.[reply]
Strong Delete per no RS, looks like a hoax Someone65 (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it's a hoax? EEng (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know if this is the way I'm supposed to edit this, but I'll try..it's Arightwizard (creator of the article) and I'm saying go ahead and delete it, I've decided if Tonedeff wants his system on any website other than his own (Which I would think is an RS, but I guess not since you guys don't, maybe I need more than one?), then he'll put it there himself. Arightwizard (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the message I left you at User_Talk:EEng about how you might be able to add it to Wikibooks. EEng (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 2 February 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. -- Lear's Fool 13:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pusa Call

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

No coverage in secondary sources whatsoever. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable WP:OR, and may even be WP:HOAX. Qworty (talk) 04:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no RS, looks like a hoax Someone65 (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 20:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 2 February 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, performed by Sphilbrick. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hogback Mountains

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

Article is probable hoax. Cannot find Hogback Mountains in GNIS. Article contains dubious claims (multiple Sierras? mushrooms?). Article created as sole edit by user, whose user page is also gibberish. —hike395 (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article fails to mention any specific ___location for these mountains; the "Bera Mountains" adjacent to them don't appear to be a recognized place either. Zetawoof (ζ) 02:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No entry in GNIS for California or Nevada. There is a listing for the Hogback Mountains in Vermont. So Delete or make it a redirect to Hogback Mountain (Vermont) or something. The mountain in Vermont is in the Hogback Mountains. –droll [chat] 02:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with a redirect to Hogback Mountain (Vermont). Good find. —hike395 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In a sample of California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names, it states under "Hogback" there's a "Hogback Ridge" in Death Valley National Park, a "Hogback Peak" in Kings Canyon National Park and a "plain Hogback" in Sonoma County. None of these fit the description of the ___location stated in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn and article renamed.

Ecological Monitoring Centre

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

fails WP:ORG. gnews doesn't reveal indepth coverage [54], one article merely cites a member of this organisation. note there is a similarly named organisation in Tanzania. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Plenty of coverage under its French name: http://www.cse.sn/ [55] [56]

on the basis of that and this [57], I will close nomination. however, we are supposed to use English names, so I'll rename: Ecological Monitoring Centre, Senegal. LibStar (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian–Albanian conflict

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

Gigantic SYNTH of unrelated events presented as a single conflict. Only in this wikipedia article are the various conflicts between Serbs and Albanians treated as a single "conflict", this is never done in the literature. Imagine someone did this for every single conflict between two ethnic groups. Athenean (talk) 00:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree 100%. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 01:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article. Good nomination! --Brunswick Dude (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Athenean. --Local hero ^talk 19:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, giant agree. I missed this one, this supposed to be done long time ago... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article may put Serbia in a wrong position, but the past can't be changed. This is a good article that tells fast and clear that Albania and Serbia can't stand each other, and where it comes from. It also gives the main reason why Kosovo is independent now, the can't stay together with a country that has opressed them only because they are Albanian --Vinie007 15:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a POV!! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.--Gaius Claudius Nero (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't a single conflict between Serbs and Albanians as this article implies. Maybe add some of this info into "Serbophobia" and "Albanophobia" articles. Yes there is this idea that Serbs and Albanians dislike one another and there are incidents to suggest this, same can be done with English/ British and French, doesn't make it true; I'm British and I quite like the French, I can't think of a single conflict as such to make an article like this. At the end of the day there isn't a single conflict between Serbs and Albanians. IJA (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Serbs and Albanians are enemy for centuries, but there were few examples of cooperation. The conflict is curently ongoing, and we need historical background to better explain readers. I do not comment content of the article, just topic. And we have Turkey-Kurdish conflist, Arab–Israeli conflict. -- Bojan Talk 14:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. Orthodox christian Albanians have an excellent relationship with orthodox christian Serbs. Your POV is only reflected by non-christian Albanians. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 14:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nipso, be careful with making such declarations in this deletion process, and try to not assert things that it would be difficult for you to sustain and source. The problem of this article is that it is trying to depict a situation that is far from being well researched and founded, unless of course putting together all the history of the conflicts, or bogus sources. I don't see an article Franco-German conflict, or Franco-English conflict, or Italo-Austrian conflict, although these nations have had many wars between one another, probably more than the Serbs with the Albanians. Neighboring nations have conflicts and also have periods of peace. I don't think the comparison with the Arab-Israeli conflict is appropriate, or pertinent. The situation is completely different. On the other hand, trying to find religious implications in the various conflicts between Serbs and Albanians, is a fallacious attempt to give religious colors to several armed conflicts that are mostly ethnic, not religious. But merging these conflicts to give a continuity of conflict is evidence of an attempt to forking several existing articles and generalizing things for which there are virtually no sources. --Brunswick Dude (talk) 16:21, 7 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Little Flowers

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

No sources, no evidence anywhere of notability. PROD was contested without any explanation by IP (almost certainly the author, judging by editing history). JamesBWatson (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually PROD was contested with explanation by me, certainly not the article author. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD was contested by an IP editor, and then restored in collateral damage by a bot edit. This restored PROD was then removed by Phil Bridger. I had seen the removal by the IP and had not seen the (incorrect) restoration and (correct) re-removal when I wrote above. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but... potential keep if sources are found and someone rewrites it. A TV show running nationally for 27 years almost certainly has some core of notability, and presumably reliable sources somewhere. That said, the current article is virtual nonsense, presumably machine-tanslated, with phrases like "girl strawberry cake and a massive slide animation of global brands". To sum up: completely incomprehensible article, (probably) notable subject, would need 100% rewrite to be kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 18 January 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) 00:02, 24 January 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) 00:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. Apparently notable topic, but a really poor translation from Vietnamese of vi:Những bông hoa nhỏ. "Girl strawberry cake" is apparently a reference to Strawberry Shortcake. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Boy

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

Previous user had prod for notability removed awhile back. he wanted to wait to give opportunity for sources to be added before sending to afd, no sources appear to have been added and another user suggested it be sent to afd. I agree, being on your cousins label doesn't sound notable to me. everything seems to be unsourced fanbased original research. Tracer9999 (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 January 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) 00:02, 24 January 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) 00:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as at least part of it is a direct copy from the AllMusic bio, and thus a copyvio. They even left in the "Cyril Cordor, All Music Guide" part. No comment on notability, looks borderline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio has been removed; I think they meant the Cyril part as a reference as it wouldn't be picked up on a simple copy and paste. Edgepedia (talk) 13:31, 1 February 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Getz

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

There was a contested PROD in 2009 that was then never picked up again. (I wasn't the one who PRODded it.) As far as I can see, I don't see this person's notability, and the assertion of winning two events at X Games (if true) does not itself establish notability as X Games is not listed at WP:ATH as an event that itself establishes notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 January 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, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This [58] independent news article verifies the claim that Kerry Getz is a X Games gold medal winner. Xajaso (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted, however, winning an X Games event doesn't by itself establish notability under WP:ATH. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 27 January 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, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dhuwan Dhuwan Chehray

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

references provided do not provide reliable information on this books notability Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 January 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, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Viglione

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

Page is entirely self promotion of an unknown person. Article does not contain proper or worthy citations. Dasonras (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be yet another spam/vanity article on a person who failed to attain any notability. -- Mecanismo | Talk
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has zero notability per WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, or WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete The page has information on a film director, Joe Viglione, who produced cds and a DVD by Marty Balin of the Jefferson Airplane, is published in over eight books, with numerous articles naming his interviews with Brad Meltzer, Michael Moore, Ray Manzarek of The Doors, comedian Margaret Cho, and more according to Google. Google also has information he co-produced Grammy winner Buddy Guy including contributions from Bruce Springsteen guitarist Nils Lofgren, Aerosmith's Joe Perry, Genya Ravan of Ten Wheel Drive and others. If anything the site needs an update, not a deletion. Joe Viglione is also noted on the web for being a 2010 "Producer of the Year". It should also be noted that the first posting on this "discussion" is someone who may have vandalized this site years back. Someone should update the page with the correct information. Petition (talk)petitionPetition (talk)

interviews with notable people does not necessarily make you notable. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the qualification that the information from the prior comment can be sourced to reliable, third-party references. The subject would seem to meet notability criteria under those circumstances. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:16, 29 January 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, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. yes coverage confirms he has written stuff but you need coverage about him as the subject to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find no cited facts. I would put this up for BLPPROD, but it's already been prodded in the past, created prior to the BLPPROD start, and is conterversial I submit it to the standard battery of tests for an article. We have not seen any reliable sources come forward from Ed and Petition, who claim that they have references. Only reference on the page is the biography that the record company started (and probably still owned) by the subject which does not qualify as a independent 3rd party source. Hasteur (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Headmaster (Transformers). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Siren (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character, no reliable sources, and none of the non-reliable sources are even about the character. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to the Marvel Comics Transformer character page. Mathewignash (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 25 January 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) 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect No evidence that anyone other than fans of the show care about this. Shii (tock) 02:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Headmaster (Transformers). Worth at least a mention. JIP | Talk 07:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect. Not a show character, so is a little obscure, but not enough to simple delete. The Matrix Prime (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redicrect per kite Someone65 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as its an obscure character with out substantial reliable sources if it must be kept redirect. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for the sake of building a consensus. No reliable sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:39, 5 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prima Donna (album)

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

Unreleased album, I did not do anything about the broken link refs, unreliable sources (fansite etc.) Could more appropriately be merged into the artist article. The article is barebones and will not be expanded at any time in the future. Fixer23 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 25 January 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) 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per crystal ball policy Someone65 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Union for the Mediterranean

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

I was going to merge this with Union for the Mediterranean until I found Talk:Union for the Mediterranean#Flag which suggests it isn't authentic. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 26 January 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) 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this page on the website of the Union's secretariat. Look at the flag in the background of both pictures: it's plainly a blue flag with the Union's logo in the middle, so I'm sure. Unfortunately, only one half of the logo (with the white background) is visible, and thus only one half of the flag, so we can't tell what the other side looks like. It's quite possible that the current flag is the one shown in the article except with the logo superimposed. All that being said, I believe deletion to be appropriate: the photo shows that the flags shown in the article's references are wrong, and if these pages so inaccurately depict the flag, I don't think we can consider them to be reliable sources for the flag. Since all I can find about the flag from plainly reliable sources is a couple of pictures, and since these pictures aren't in-depth coverage, deletion for lack of notability is the best course. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The complete logo is on the EU site. As the Union of the Mediterranean is an official body, the flag would have to be formally adopted and the wiki entry suitably referenced. But it would not seem to have a place outside the main article and clearly non-notable otherwise. AJHingston (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no RS Someone65 (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of county roads in Duval County, Florida. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County Road 213 (Duval County, Florida)

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

Disputed PROD. The article does not meet WP:USRD/NT nor WP:GNG. Suggest merger into a list for the county, but barring that, deletion. Imzadi 1979 → 22:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article does pass USRD's notability guidelines as a former SR, but does not meet the WP:GNG, needs some secondary sources to prove notability. Suggest merger into a List of county roads in Duval County, Florida or List of former state roads in Florida if either are created. Admrboltz (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere or delete. --Rs chen 7754 23:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How many articles for Duval County Roads have existed on Wikipedia? I prefer both a List of county roads in Duval County, Florida, and assuming we can make them regional, a List of former state roads in Florida as well. ----DanTD (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For now, Redirect to List of State Roads in Florida until either a list of Duval County routes or former FL state road list can be created. Dough 48 72 03:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of county roads in Duval County, Florida to create that page. Or I can create that page later if somebody doesn't get to it first, in which case Redirect there. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Go for it, Bushranger. ----DanTD (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh, see I was beaten to it... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:37, 29 January 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) 00:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of county roads in Duval County, Florida. This article is just a road map in prose, which is not particularly useful in or out of Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mild WP:TRAINWRECK. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts in the seduction community

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

No indication of notability. Terms that appear in one or two books and that haven't received any outside recognition are not notable. WP:DICT, etc. ("Neg" appears to have received some acknowledgment so one might consider un-merging it. However, "neg (seduction)" is not quite NPOV.) I am likewise nominating a number of other pickup artist-related articles on concepts and people which, while perhaps famous in the so-called "seduction community," have not received the necessary recognition - ie. significant coverage - from reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pickup artist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchester369 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Strauss's book was on the NYTimes Bestseller list for weeks on end, those specific terms are language people are speaking now, and that phenomenon has been reported on by reliable non-blog news outlets. It's more notable than "insert yet another crappy band no-one's ever heard of here". 173.52.133.162 (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — 173.52.133.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong keep Owen Cook. He is the owner of a highly successful international business and mentioned/written about hugely in Strauss's well known book. This is a very important phenomenon and should not be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.29.13 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — 178.111.29.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Lurkers should note that in spite of the above comments from what appear to be single-purpose accounts, significant coverage in reliable sources not only means that means that "everyone uses these terms" would not equal notability even if it were true, but also that Strauss's book isn't enough because "sources" = plural. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider individually. totally dissimilar things, whose only relationship is heir common association with what I, and many of us, consider a rather distasteful subject. Jeffries and Juggler and Cook and possibly Perrion are notable authors. The "concepts" article is a suitable place for discussing things and terms that may not be notable individually; "Seduction Literature" is a notable genre--the two should be suitably expanded to cover a variety of other minor topics that do not merit individual discussion. AFC I'd merge into the concepts article, but that does not take an AfD. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 January 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, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and selectively relist seperately. Bulk nominations are rarely a good idea except with large groups of substantially identical articles, which these clearly aren't, nor are they of even roughly equivalent notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I picked an article at random (Ross Jeffries) and found (even at nomination time) it gave references to significant coverage in the Guardian and New York Times. So, I do not agree with the nomination in the specific claim it makes. Therefore, I do not think these articles should be treated in a single nomination. Hence keep and, if need be, consider any of these articles on their individual merits. Thincat (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - No need for separate article. Almost all the information here is the same information in the numerous other related articles.

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close, this is a poorly-formed bulk nomination, as all articles in this nomination should be nominated separately. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close as nominator - maybe I'll get round to listing these separately sometime. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are we really meant to believe that there is a community of seducers. Or that slang terminology can be passed off as concepts? Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 19:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The so-called "seduction community" is just a bunch of completely insignificant selfhelp scammers - the often quoted Neil Strauss himself published his fictional book as advertisement for his own scam activiry (selling DVDs for $3,799 for example). Wikipedia is not a free advertisement platform for these pathetic scammer clowns. Johannes Christian (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seduction concepts (or whatever you want to call it) is a reasonable thing to have an article on. There must be newspaper and magazine articles on the subject that could be used as sources. Since the academic community does research on human reactions (e.g. the work on dancing published last year), there might be academic literature to cite. Conceivably this could be developed into a valuable article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable and dare I say interesting. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:28, 7 February 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chicano vendido

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

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I know that in some cases (for instance the "N-word") an ethnic insult has enough historical and cultural importance so that "not a dictionary" can be ignored. In this case the expression is said to have been ~~coined in the 1960s~~ popularized in 1967, after over 150 years of Mexican-American history. I have never heard it before and I just don't see it as being that important, or for that matter reflecting the attitudes of most Mexican-Americans. Jaque Hammer (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches showed almost nothing. The first image was Buzz Lightyear in his Spanish mode from Toy Story 3. :-) -Jaque Hammer (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt seem worthy of an entry to me either.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a merge, but I'm not sure where to. The scope is too broad to merge to Los Vendidos or even to Chicano literature, and I'm not sure what part of Chicano it could be merged to. I don't think the content should be deleted, so I vote keep pending a decision on where it should be merged to. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:05, 24 January 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, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not even seeing any solid evidence that this term as described in the article even exists, much less is widestpread and notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable enough for an WP article.--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Shalom Show on television

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

Non-notable cable TV show lacking GHits and GNEws of substance. No evidence that it is carried nationally or of notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Respectfully; there most certainly is evidence that it is carried nationally. The Shalom Show is on JLTV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Life_Television This is evident by going on the www.jltv.tv website or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DirecTV_channels_(United_States)Jewish Life Television is listed on channel 366 It is further evident by simply tuning into the Shalom Show on TV which is broadcast on the JLTV network on:

DIRECTV: Nationwide - in all 50 states Ch. 366

Time Warner Cable: Los Angeles and Southern California Ch. 177 Hudson Valley, CA Ch. 137 New York Ch. 120 New Jersey Ch. 120 San Antonio, TX Ch. 491

Comcast: South Florida Counties Ch. 239 Greater Boston, MA Ch. 196 Greater Houston, TX Ch. 268

Atlantic Broadband: Miami Beach & South Beach, FL Ch. 167

Bright House - Florida: Tampa Ch. 172 Orlando / Melbourne / Daytona Beach Ch. 165

Independent cable systems: Laguna Woods Digital TV Service, CA Ch. 210 Wainwright Cable - Norman Park, GA Ch. 99 Funston, GA Ch. 45

Notability concerns can be easily resolved by notable public figures who have been guests on the Shalom Show, including Dr. Abraham Fischler, the President Emeritus of Nova Southeastern University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_S._Fischler He can serve as reference sources and can confirm and verify the substance of the entire article. Dr. Abraham Fischler has been guest on the Shalom Show many times over the years. One can see and confirm this by either seeing his appearances on the Shalom Show on TV during national broadcasts on the Jewish Life Television http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV broadcasts on national DirecTV broadcast and also by viewing his interviews online at www.shalomshow.com. Furthermore there is a videotaped testimonial statement at: http://www.rcptv.com/ss/testimonial_video.htm in which one can see Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin, Dr. Abraham Fischler, in addition to Stan Chesley, the national president of the Jewish National Fund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_M._Chesley Richard Peritz the shalom show founder and host can serve as a reference and source to confirm the validity of this article about his show.

Please assist me in correcting the formatting of this article to meet your specifications. Josephn18 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All articles in Wikipedia must meet certain criteria for inclusion. Wikipedia based notability must been met in order for the article to remain in Wikipedia. Currently the article does not meet that criteria. In addition, you as the author, have the burden of proof. Just saying something is true does not establish notability using reliable sources. If you say the subject is broadcast nationally, then you must provide a valid source that supports that statement in the article. I have also asked that you not include personal information in any of your comments, but you have ignored the request. Personal information may not be included anywhere in Wikipedia, including article pages, talk pages, articles for deletion, user pages, or user talk pages. ttonyb (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof respectfully is addressed by the fact that notable public figures who have been guests on the Shalom Show, including Dr. Abraham Fischler, the President Emeritus of Nova Southeastern University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_S._Fischler can serve as proof and reference sources and can confirm and verify the substance of the entire article. Dr. Abraham Fischler has been guest on the Shalom Show many times over the years. One can see and confirm this by either seeing his appearances on the Shalom Show on TV during national broadcasts on the Jewish Life Television http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirecTV broadcasts on national DirecTV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_DirecTV_channels_(United_States) broadcast and also by viewing his interviews online at www.shalomshow.com. Furthermore there is a videotaped testimonial statement at: http://www.rcptv.com/ss/testimonial_video.htm in which one can see Prime Minister Itzhak Rabin, Dr. Abraham Fischler, in addition to Stan Chesley, the national president of the Jewish National Fund http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_M._Chesley Richard Peritz the shalom show founder and host can serve as a reference and source to confirm the validity of this article about his show.

I hope this addresses the burden of proof concern and I will very much appreciate your kind assistance in improving this article. Please do not delete it. The article is absolutely true in every detail but I'm not sure how to insert substantiating supportive information into the original article. Please assist. Thank you!Josephn18 (talk) 03:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Reliable sources have to be independent of the article. Providing a reference that provides a testimonial is not exactly independent. In addition, just because a guest, who is defined as notable by Wikipedia, has been on the show, that appearance does not make the show notable. As I explained to you before, notability is not inherited from others. You still have the burden of providing adequate references in the article. As it stands, the article does not have adequate references. ttonyb (talk) 03:42, 28 January 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, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article survives AfD, it should be moved to The Shalom Show. I have found at least one good source which I will add to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now three articles in the "External links" section. Besides those, I should note that there has also been some mainstream media coverage of Allen West's recent interview on the show, although that coverage mostly had to do with the controversial nature of West's statements and did not provide significant coverage of this television show: Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Atlanta Journal-Constitution. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Night (Valery Leontiev album)

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was "No reliable third party sources, information here not supported by the Discogs link, nothing from google, no assertion of notability." Removal reason was "albums by notable musicians are notable". Notability is not inherited, especially in cases where it fails to meet such basic guidelines as verifiability. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 26 January 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) 00:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't verify that album exists; Discogs link points to a different album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 12:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no WP:RS Someone65 (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Alister E. McGrath, Christian literature: an anthology (Wiley-Blackwell, 2001), p. 357

[2] Campbell Gillon, Words to Trust (Rowman & Littlefield, 1991), p. 42

[1]

[2]