Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 5

< 4 January	6 January >

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 keep. Courcelles 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2004–05 St. Lawrence Saints women's ice hockey season

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

Delete as per Wikipedia Notability Policy (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 23:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep season articles for major NCAA Division I sports are notable, this article looks to be a new article but it already fits with the layout of season articles and has sources. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this Women Hockey team is notable in NCAA Division I. --Geneviève (talk) 20:38, 10 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. Courcelles 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 St. Lawrence Saints women's ice hockey season

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

Delete as per Wikipedia Notability Policy (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep season articles for major NCAA Division I sports are notable, this article looks new but it already fits with the layout of season articles and has sources. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this Women's Hockey Team is notable in NCAA Division I. --Geneviève (talk) 20:36, 10 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. Courcelles 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2007–08 St. Lawrence Saints women's ice hockey season

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

Delete as per Wikipedia Notability Policy (WP:N) BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 23:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep season articles for major NCAA Division I sports are notable, this article looks new but it already fits with the layout of season articles and has sources. Bhockey10 (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this Women's Hockey team is notable in NCAA Division I. --Geneviève (talk) 20:37, 10 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. Clear consensus. Ironholds (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean colonization

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

Seems to be completely original research, and reads like someone's essay to boot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Interesting, but this isn't Marine Science class. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's an encyclopaedia. So what makes this not an valid stub encyclopaedia article about the subject of ocean colonization? You've offered no explanation. Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, totally unreferenced OR at present, though a valid article on the subject could probably be written. Karenjc 09:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what makes you think that the exercise of the deletion tool will get to there from here? And what makes you think that this article's linkage of ocean colonization to OTEC is something that no-one outwith Wikipedia has made, and is thus original research? Uncle G (talk) 10:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because at present it's somebody's essay consisting of a lot of unreferenced assertions and generalities on a subject that is still at the speculative rather than the practical stage. As it stands, it's fair to consider it OR, since the creator - or indeed any contributor - hasn't backed up any part of it with a citation from a reliable source. My instincts are not deletionist, but without references I don't see how this is a useful stub. If you're arguing that it's a "keep", and can point us in the direction of references to support this view, that's great - let's save it instead. Karenjc 11:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So your argument is a circular one: When asked what makes you think it's original research that no-one has documented outwith Wikipedia, your reply is that "it's an essay". And of course it's an essay because it's original research. This isn't an essay. It's formatted as an encyclopaedia article and there's nothing personal about it in any revision. And if you haven't checked to see what sources exist, and whether they do indeed draw a link between ocean colonization and OTEC (Hint: They do.), you cannot have any good foundation for an assertion that this is original research or an assertion that it should be deleted. Just chucking in an opinion that something is original research, or an essay, simply because there isn't a source cited in the article is a wholesale abuse of the Project:no original research policy aiming it at something other than what it is actually aimed at, and a wholesale misapplication of Project:deletion policy to boot.
      It's up to editors at AFD to look for sources, not provide unresearched, drive-by, opinions that don't even use the right policy. (And this goes for SchuminWeb and Erpert, too.) One looks for sources that document the idea of ocean colonization to see whether they exist. Only if things are ideas that haven't escaped their creators are they original research. Only if there are no sources at all is something unverifiable. And an essay is only an essay, per Project:What Wikipedia is not, if it is a personal reflection.
      One of your several starting points for sources on this, that very much do link ocean colonization and OTEC, is Marshall Thomas Savage's "Aquarius" idea, which was even discussed at some length in an older revision of this article, before people started repeatedly blanking it. When you're done with him, and the people who have discussed him and "Aquarius", go and see what Chien Ming Wang and Brydon T. Wang have to say on the subject of ocean colonization (in their paper that's helpfully entitled Colonization of the ocean and VLFS technology, that comes up pretty much straightaway if one just looks for sources on the subject of "Colonization of the ocean"), which brings in very large floating structures and Thierry Gaudin. Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - At present, Ocean colonization's content boils down to: "OC describes the extension of human settlement to the oceans; this would be done to obtain energy using OTEC, but transport is an obstacle, so it's not happening yet". Period. The actual material about OC itself consists of unsupported assertions (the purpose of OC is to exploit the sea's renewable energy potential / the critical obstacle is inadequate transportation). The rest comprises a description of OTEC and its potential benefits, but OTEC already has a separate, well-referenced article and is not the subject of this one. So, an article with no history of the subject, no discussion of any current or planned projects or research, and no citations to suggest that the ideas on how OC might work and what it might be used for are anything other than individual speculation. That's why it is currently inadequate as a Wikipedia article. If you feel inclined to salvage it using the sources you suggest, I'm sure people would be pleased to reconsider their !votes. Ka renjc 17:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        An article with that amount of information is called a stub, and stubs are perfectly acceptable as articles. Not that that is in fact relevant in this case. Ironically, you seem to have missed, even though I said it quite explicitly, the fact that this article contained more information in previous versions. For no really good reason it has been blanked and eroded away rather than rewritten and improved. There are earlier versions of this article that are more than stubs, and that contain some of the very content that you speak of. Deletion isn't the answer to fixing that, and restoring some of what has been blanked out. Opining for deletion doesn't help the process. It doesn't put deletion policy into action, and it doesn't align with how article improvement is intended to work. The article improvement process may have become stuck in reverse gear in this particular article, causing it to shrink and cover less of the subject rather than grow and cover more, but that doesn't mean that the deletion tool is the answer. Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very poor quality OR and bad tone as well. In its current state, the article doesn't help the reader at all, and if a rewrite were performed, the current content wouldn't help the rewriter at all. AFD isn't cleanup, but this is beyond the point of cleanupability. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tripe and nonsense. The fact that the article has been rewritten twice already (from a version that, as mentioned, was actually better, and gave more clue as to where the sources lay) is proof by existence that rewriting this article is possible without deletion being involved in any way. And you clearly haven't done any research at all to determine whether this is in actual fact original research. Name even one thing that you did to determine whether ocean colonization and OTEC were linked outwith Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same concept as Seasteading, but that article already exists and is well documented. Nitack (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Seasteading. (Assuming any of the statements can be backed with sources. The Seasteading article looks pretty good and is definitely part of the same subject. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of, perhaps. The whole of, definitely not. Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Uncle G, with all due respect (because you're an admin), what exactly is your problem? Why are you questioning people's delete !votes when they've clearly explained their reasoning? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your question is based upon the falsehood that you did explain your reasoning and is thus a loaded question. Not only did you not explain your reasoning you still haven't, even though I've asked you directly to. Is this because you don't actually have a rationale supporting that assertion? Was there simply nothing underpinning the swift drive-by statement that something is an essay? After all, the article clearly is not an essay. One can see from just looking at it that it's a stub, with a definition of the subject and some tidbits of information that don't cover the subject fully, as stubs are. And that's just from simple inspection of what's right there, without even noticing the prior edit history, blanking, rewriting, and shrinkage. Uncle G (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge here: This was a quite common term when I was a kid. Now it appears the neologism is seasteading. Looking through Google and Books, it appears there are approx 20x mote hits for the older term than the newer. I would recommend merging the content of seasteading into this article, instead of a redir the other way. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:58, 6 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. Aside from the nominator there is only one other argument for deletion based solely on WP:IDONTKNOWIT. There are some good suggestions for redirecting but the consensus for that is not strong enough for that to be the result here so that should be left to the normal editing/BRD process. Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mackerel Snapper

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

Violates WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Even if it was this expression seems rather obscure. Sources cited include a slang dictionary, which quotes an episode of M*A*S*H, and a letter from a member of the KKK. Google searches bring up WP copiers, one more instance of use (as a joke in the 1980s), and a lot about fishing for the two species. Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless article.. as a catholic I have never heard this term, and it is not worthy of being on wikipedia as an article. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTKNOWIT is one of the arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion. For what it is worth (which is about as much as your "never heard of it"), this non-Catholic has heard the expression. LadyofShalott 01:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without good sources for something more than a dictionary definition, redirect this to List of religious slurs, which already lists it. LadyofShalott 01:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lady of Shalott. I don't think this term has any potential beyond a dictionary definition. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This term is notable and can be covered in an encyclopedic fashion, even if it is now passe. It is a part of history. Simply add "Catholic" to Google News Archive and Google Books searches for a wealth of references. We have a category called "Pejorative terms for people" that has 250 articles. We have a category called "Ethnic and religious slurs" that has 116 articles. This particular slur was discussed in a New York Times book review Something's Fishy on September 6, 1998. It has been discussed in the Chicago Sun-Times, the Buffalo News, the St. Petersburg Times, the Chicago Tribune, the San Jose Mercury News, the Richmond Times and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Novelists including Stephen King, John Irving and Tony Hillerman have used it fictionally. Former U.S. Senator Jeremiah Denton was criticized widely for using it. It has been discussed in many books, including Jan Harold Brunvand's American Folklore: An Encyclopedia, Jonathon Green's Words Apart: The Language of Prejudice, and Gordon Rottman's FUBAR: Soldier Slang of World War II. I am just scraping the surface of the reliable sources discussing this term. On a personal note, I was raised Catholic although I left that church over 40 years ago. I heard "mackerel snapper" many times (usually jokingly) as a child in Detroit. Cullen328 (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can and will these sources be used to make this something beyond a dictionary definition though? LadyofShalott 01:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per LOS. While I've heard the term myself, I'm at a loss to imagine what substantive could possibly be said about it beyond what's already listed in the List of religious slurs article. Ravenswing 05:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I wonder whehter this might usefully be converted to an article perhaps Catholic fasting dealing at length with Catholic doctrine and tradition, modern and historical, on abstinence from meat on certain days. This used to be an important aspect of Catholic Christianity and needs an article. If we have one somewhere already, this one should be merged to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it can be sourced per Cullen. Seems to be beyond a mere dictionary term. JASpencer (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common usage years ago. Racial slurs are a part of Wikipedia. Religious ones should not be exempt. More of a joke by the 50s or so. Should have references though. Student7 (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia. It was used by Robert Mitchum in the film Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good historical article for a phrase. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:47, 6 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, default to keep (in this case). NW (Talk) 03:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Unaegbu

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

Seems to be entirely non-notable, self-promotional material (was created by User:Jeff Unaegbu). No reliable sources. Friginator (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not at all notable Google CTJF83 chat 23:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Finding sources for Nigerian artists is always problematical, and yes... the article is full of perhaps addressable fluff and COI. But it does seem the individual was written about in something called Newswatch: Nigeria's weekly magazine [1] Can anyone access or find others? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jeff Unaegbu's books appear in the following sources:[2][3] [4] The internet source seen by Schmidt is actually true. see Ajonye, A. (2007). One Page Book Review: Another Look at Lagos (Refers to the book, This Lagos na wa as “The longest poem written by a Nigerian”), Newswatch Magazine, April 2, P. 57. There are also two other newspaper sources in which Jeff Unaegbu's books were reviewed: Ezendiokwele, S. (2005). “The Longest Metrical Poem in Africa!”, The Roar, Vol. 6, No. 1, P.8. Edukugho, E. (2008). “UNILAG emerges overall winner of research fair”, Vanguard, April 3, P.43. There is an interview granted by Sunday Vanguard: Unaegbu, J. (2007). “I write to Put Right the Wrongs”, Sunday Vanguard, April 8, P. 48. Maybe the wikipedia article on him may have to be pruned, but he is notable for his contributions to Nigeria with his eight books.Revolutionary Images (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I sure appreciate your digging where I was unable. Might you be prevailed upon to add those sources and maybe clean up the article a bit? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is also in Open Library with a short biography: [http://openlibrary.org/authors/OL6876805A/Jeff_Unaegbu Revolutionary Images (talk) 13:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone can edit that, therefore not reliable. CTJF83 chat 17:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes... however, the other sources are far more convincing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The fluff in the article has been curtailed. Philosophy removed. Complete Newswatch magazine one-page review of his newsworthy first book appeared in April 2, 2007 edition in page 57 as already shown in my comment above. Completely available in hard copies in Nigeria newswatch archives. Call +2348055001912 Editor-in-Chief of Newswatch magazine, Dan Agbese, to confirm. Revolutionary Images (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Revolutionary Images, only one "keep" per customer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In adressing the problems inherent in sourcing articles on Nigerian notables, I can see that User:Revolutionary Images has made some good faith efforts to address concerns toward WP:CREATIVE. While the article format is still problematical, I believe that in addressing our unfortunate systemic bias, it looks like it can be addressed through regular editing. Gonna be a pain, but with the provided sources, it looks do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to point out that User:Revolutionary Images (the account used to create this article) has recently been blocked as a sockpuppet created by User:Jeff Unaegbu. See here. Friginator (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that you filed the SPI report, and that checkuser determined that User:Revolutionary Images was a puppet of User:Jeff Unaegbu. However, as this second account was created by an obviously inexperienced newcomer (article quality and format kinda speak volumes) the puppet does not appear to meet the definitions of WP:ILLEGIT, though the addressable COI is definitely of a concern. Without evidence to the contrary, the second account could simply have perhaps stemmed from a total newb's misunderstanding of WP:SOCK#LEGIT, and there are processes for addressing THAT issue... but I do not expect that User:Jeff Unaegbu is even aware of them. Leaves us back to an article that appears to show notability, even if only in Nigeria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotional material, non-notable person. See above. Friginator (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article fails to demonstrate notability as defined in WP:GNG. Article fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLP. Article contains original research and unsourced material. The few sources in the article are unreliable and self-published sources. The article creator apparently is trying to use Wikipedia as a promotional platform. Amsaim (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}. I agree that there is a huge amount of cleaning up to do, but this subject seems well worth the editorial effort required to bring the article up to snuff. Evalpor (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails by WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BK, WP:SPAM, WP:AUTO, WP:SPA, WP:COI, etc. etc. etc. Qworty (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Revolutionary Images. I easily found several of the sources he mentions. CPerked (talk) 05:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very new here. But I think I am getting the hang of things already. Please can anyone help post to my talkpage the rules and regulations in wikipedia. I am confused and want to study them fully before I continue posting substantive edits. For I have very many notable people in my kitty and would like to share their histories in Wikipedia. Enjoy the direct evident sources of the "Filmography" section in the article, "Jeff Unaegbu".195.219.154.25 (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Judging from your Nigerian IP address and your identical contribution to the previous user, I'm guessing you're User:Jeff Unaegbu/Revolutionary Images. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow for one user to have two or more accounts. It also doesn't allow self-promotional material. Whether this article is self-promotional on your part (again, just assumptions here, don't take it personally), is part of why this discussion is taking place. And if you're going to edit the article, I'd just use a regular account. Though if you're just looking for an introduction to policy in general, I would go to the "Getting Started" page. Friginator (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Friginator, Amsaim and Qworty. AndrewvdBK (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep as probably notable, though it will take a great deal of editing. I will give it a try. (though I must admit another thing I considered was a G11 deletion as hopelessly promotional--but even an article like this can be fixed.) DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 4 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have closely researched for secondary sources for this subject and I discovered a full-length article about him and one of his works in Nigeria's Newswatch Magazine. A full-length copy of the review is posted at the base of this source: [5]. I also saw an article on him in Nigerian wiki. See source:[6]. This article seem enough to pass WP:CREATIVE ~~WP:AUTHOR WP:BIO~~ WP:GNG etc.Bjanie (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three of the wikilinks you're citing are just different names for the same notability policy. Also, NigerianWiki and Wordpress are not a reliable sources, as they are user-generated. Friginator (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked at the sources user Bjanie is pointing to. Friginator, you are right. They are user-generated sources. But let's look closely, the newspaper article upload at the bottom of one of the sites, specifically the one on wordpress, is very convincing. I have seen the Nigeria's Sunday Vanguard half-paged interview granted to Jeff Unaegbu in hard copy recently. Just now, I have tried to see if it is online, but I think it may not have been uploaded or if it has been uploaded is not accessible to non-subscribers. I will keep on looking. Will come back soon.Qwilliam (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}. The subject is probably notable. I have examined his documentaries and the movies he took part in as availed by sources already cited. I agree that his presentation in this article is in such a way that it became an article for deletion because it then and still needs some editing and I am willing to take part with DGG and MichaelQSchmidt in doing so.Qwilliam (talk) 23:10, 12 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 by original nominator. Non-admin close.JDDJS (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012 MLS SuperDraft

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

WP:CRYSTAL JDDJS (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the draft is still a ways away, teams have traded draft picks already so there is content for the page. Future drafts with many traded picks are generally considered notable, see 2010 NFL Draft and 2012 NHL Entry Draft. Ravendrop (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Just give me a minute to withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 00:18, 6 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. If people could quote rather than misquote policy, AfD would be a lot smoother (although I thank users for at least providing full rationales, which seems to be a change). Ironholds (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Haswell

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

Mayor of a small community (population <22,000). No significant coverage in google. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. noq (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable CTJF83 chat 23:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:POLITICIAN clearly states that mayors of major regional centres are notable. Owen Sound is a major regional centre. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "WP:POLITICIAN clearly states that mayors of major regional centres are notable": Actually, it doesn't. See below. --MelanieN (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage in Google is lacking because, like all newly elected mayors in the province, she was only just sworn in a few weeks ago and hasn't had a chance to garner that much coverage yet. That said, although I'm no fan of unsourced articles on small-town mayors in principle, the key is verifiable references in reliable sources — I've initiated articles on mayors of places the size of Owen Sound or even smaller, where good media references were available. As well, the inclusion criterion for mayors is not a raw city population cutoff, but the more subjective determination of "regional prominence" — which I would argue that Owen Sound does meet, as it's the primary population and retail and administrative centre for a rather sizeable chunk of the entire Southwestern Ontario region, and we already have articles about nine other past mayors of the city. And if the person meets our inclusion criteria, then we only require one legitimate reference to support a basic stub — while more sources would certainly be welcome, one source to demonstrate basic WP:GNG notability is already present. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current source only basically says she is the mayor. One source doesn't meet the significant coverage requirement of GNG. If in the future she garners more coverage, the article can be recreated. You are just assuming she will gain more coverage in the future. CTJF83 chat 19:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How on earth could a person who meets our basic criterion — mayor of a city of at least regional prominence — possibly not garner additional coverage in the future? Is her hometown newspaper going to somehow fail to even report on basic city council business for the next four years? Is nobody ever going to quote her on anything? Even if she somehow ceases to be mayor tomorrow, there will still have to be at least one article somewhere about how and why that happened. In order to never garner another whit of media coverage, she would have to spend the next four years literally doing nothing at all — so you're making a far more extraordinary "prediction" than I am on this one. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now, now, AGF...when/if in the future she has more coverage, an article can then be created CTJF83 chat 19:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The rule is and has always been that a politician who holds an "inherently notable" role is entitled to a basic stub on the basis of one source which confirms that the person has held the role, because some (not all) political roles are notable enough that anybody who held them is automatically notable just by virtue of having held that role. We do not, for instance, distinguish between "notable" and "non-notable" members of a national legislature; if they held that office at all, then they're entitled to a basic stub even if the only reference we can ever actually find is that legislature's own web listing of its past members. You can certainly question whether "Mayor of Owen Sound" is one of those roles or not: if it is, then she's allowed to have a basic stub on the basis of one reference which confirms that she held the role, and if it isn't, then she isn't. But the notability of the role is the primary question when it comes to a politician, because we do not distinguish between "notable" and "non-notable" occupants of an "inherently notable" office. If the office is inherently notable, then everybody who ever held it gets to have an article no matter how weak you think the references may be; if the office isn't inherently notable, then you can start distinguishing the notability or non-notability of individual holders of that office. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) Personally I don't think mayor of that city is an inherent role. Any national, state/province role I would agree is inherently notable, as are top regional centers, which I don't see this city being. CTJF83 chat 20:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Just so that we can be sure that we're all speaking the same language here, what's your definition of a "top regional center"? If the two people in this discussion who actually live in the country (and province) this city is in — and who can thus be expected to have a pretty reliable sense of which cities are or aren't considered important regional centres in that province — have both said that it is one, based on the fact that it's the largest city and the primary retail, educational and administrative centre for a four-county region that's larger than several entire US states, then what's your criterion for suggesting a different definition? I'm not asking this to be tendentious or anything, but we're very unlikely to achieve any sort of consensus if we're not even defining "prominent regional centre" in the same way. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You make a point...but your point may also be skewed to locals who may have a slanted opinion on what is a top regional center. Since there is no definition, it is hard to say. I understand what regional means, but if people outside the region haven't heard of the city, is it really important enough? CTJF83 chat 22:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do not see the inherent notability. The Southhwestern Ontario region primary administrative capital seems to be London. Other larger cities also exist in the region - so what makes a city that seems to be no bigger than the village I live in notable enough that its local representatives meet WP:POLITICIAN? If this is notable, then most English Parish councillors would qualify - they get the election results to appear in local papers as well - which seems to me to be absurd.noq (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "administrative capital" of Southwestern Ontario; London's only status is that of "largest city". Owen Sound is the primary hub of the region defined by Grey, Huron, Bruce and Dufferin Counties (as well as parts of Simcoe and Perth). Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the mayor of Owen Sound responsible for the administration or governance of that larger area? If not, I don't see why that area would have any relevance. noq (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per Bearcats reasonings. But work needed to expand the article. etc etc etc..--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The language in WP:POLITICIAN refers to "mayors of cities of at least regional importance", a statement that is vague enough that it's open to interpretation, with people arguing that the surrounding area is a region. However, I can't see interpreting the policy to give a free pass to everyone who has ever been the mayor of a county seat. It doesn't matter that Noq mistakenly referred to an administrative capital. What he or she argues about London being the city of regional importance in that region holds true. London, population 350,000. Owen Sound, population 23,000. No comparison. Nothing against Ms. Haswell or against Owen Sound, ON, but if she wouldn't make it in without an elaborate argument about qualifying for automatic inclusion, that's a clue to the non-notability of being the town's mayor. Mandsford 16:58, 5 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move The article is too skimpy for an article. When there's more coverage, it can be expanded. Now, it's just a telephone directory entry. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's appropriate to mention her in the article about the town. I've added the text and the cite to a new section (Owen Sound#Municipal government), i.e. "Deborah Haswell (born 1960) is mayor of the city. A 13-year council veteran, she unseated popular incumbent Ruth Lovell Stanners by a mere 41 votes in the October, 2010, municipal election." It's unlikely that she'll attain notability as it's defined under WP:PEOPLE. Small towns are notable, but their politicians aren't. Mandsford 14:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, but claiming that a town of 23,000 is a "major regional center" of an area as thickly settled as Southern Ontario is not remotely persuasive. Claiming that a county seat automatically qualifies is likewise absurd; the state of Texas alone has nearly a hundred counties with entire populations less than 10,000. Ravenswing 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Bearcat's arguments to the effect that Owen Sound is a substantial enough city for its mayor to be notable. Although they may not help establish notability, which seems to me to depend on whether one considers her city a regional center, this search of the Owen Sound Sun Times archive for "haswell" and this feature about her in that newspaper may be useful in expanding the article beyond what would be included in a page on the city.--Opus 113 (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of whether every town in the world of at least 20,000 inhabitants is "substantial enough" for a free article without regard to WP:PEOPLE. If WP:POLITICIAN had been intended to cast a wide net based on civic population, it would have been written in terms of cities of at least X inhabitants. There are, of course, thousands of towns on Earth that have 20,000 or more folks, and each of those towns has had many mayors throughout history. If it had been intended to confer a page upon mayors of all county seats, it could have been so written. Although the phrase "regional importance" is vague, it does turn upon the definition of a "region". In our imperfect encyclopedia, some areas are defined as regions, and little Owen Sound would be part of the region of Southern Ontario, which has 12,000,000 people and fronts Lakes Huron, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. While some might argue that Southwestern Ontario is also a region, Wikipedia defines it as a subregion, one of four in Southern Ontario. By that measure, Owen Sound has very little regional or even subregional importance. WP:POLITICIAN doesn't refer, of course, to "subregional importance".

Bearcat argues the town's importance as the hub of "a region defined by Grey, Huron, Bruce and Dufferin Counties (as well as parts of Simcoe and Perth)". The question then becomes, is that something that is a region defined by Wikipedia? The answer to that is no. We don't have recognition on Wikipedia of even a sub-subregion defined as "Grey-Huron-Bruce-Dufferin" (I'd refer to it as Northeast Southwestern Ontario). Recognition of being the mayor of a city of "regional importance" requires recognition of its importance within something that Wikipedia has actually defined as a region. Mandsford 16:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think the sources I linked to above may show enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I realize it is possible that articles in local newspapers are not considered sources capable of establishing notability, but they are reliable sources as far as I can tell, and the article I linked to is a somewhat in-depth profile of the subject. I already understood that the size of the city did not inherently establish notability; I was arguing that the city might indeed be reasonably considered a regional center, however, this argument seems moot given what people have said about WP:POLITICIAN not conferring inherent notability on such mayors. If it is concluded that the sources in the Owen Sound Sun Times do not establish notability, I might switch to supporting merging and redirecting the article; for now, I'm not sure.--Opus 113 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, not notable. The required press coverage just isn't there. Google News finds a dead-link story in the Winnipeg Free Press about her being elected; there are also a couple of quotes from her as a councillor in Reliable Sources; but I contend those do not amount to significant coverage. Please read the actual wording of WP:POLITICIAN: It grants notability to "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors of cities of at least regional importance are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." There is no automatic-notability clause there, it just says that such mayors "are likely to" meet the actual test, which is WP:GNG. And she doesn't meet it, at least not yet. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad you pointed that out with a quote from the larger context. Looks like all the rest of us, myself included, weren't reading what it actually says. Mandsford 16:51, 10 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 the whole shebang with leave to nominate any of these separately. However, some of these have already been merged and redirected so it might be better to discuss the fate of the rest on the article's talk pages or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Years of the Trees

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

As with Years of the Lamps, this article is written with an in-universe perspective, lacks citations for verifiability and also doesn't have third-party sources independent of the subject being covered. All text appears to be original research by synthesis and while Tokien's work has notability, this article by itself doesn't. The article doesn't meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, it's an unnecessary content fork and a plot-only description of a fictional work. It is my opinion that this article falls into the criteria of reasons for deletion. The topic of the article, along with other similar ones, is already covered in History of Arda and Timeline of Arda so there is no need to merge anything. Jfgslo (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they share almost all the same problems and are all related to Tolkien's work in the same way that this article is:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No opinion on deleting or keeping, but the Third Age probably should be nominated separately — unlike all of the other periods, it's commonly referenced as being the setting for The Lord of the Rings. Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split Vote. Redirect Years of the Trees, Years of the Sun, and Ages of the Children of Ilúvatar to History of Arda, making sure that all relevant content (Years of Bliss, Noontide of the Blessed, etc. etc.) is preserved in that article. These aren't really important as concepts and there isn't significant information in the background literature on them as concepts. Delete Valian Years as it doesn't need its own article - the content should be preserved because it's important for chronology, but I don't know where. (Timeline of Arda?) Keep Dagor Dagorath as the article charts Tolkien's conception of the final battle as an idea, the content wouldn't belong anywhere else, and it's been observed to be similar to Armageddon and Ragnarok. (That's not the only source that draws the connection.) Keep First Age, Second Age, and Third Age, because the history article would be too long if the information were merged, and Fourth Age for consistency. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Roscelese, who takes a balanced approach to the topics. I might even see a merger of the numbered ages into one article on Tolkienesque ages, but that's really an editorial decision, not AfD's purview. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, there really ought to be separate AfDs for each of these rather than each page being directed here. Second, I note that none of the content from Years of the Lamps was moved over to History of Arda when that article was 'merged'. Third, I see no grounds for deletion. It has been demonstrated that this material is referenced in multiple independent sources. Once notability is established the matter of whether the material is presented on one page or multiple pages is purely a stylistic issue - which ought to be discussed on the article talk pages like normal merge and split discussions. Some of these (Valian, Lamps, Trees, Sun) are short enough and unlikely to expand that they can be merged into 'History'. The explanation of 'Ages of the Children of Iluvatar' could also go there. However, the specific ages and Dagor Dagorath either already contain more information than it makes sense to merge or could easily grow to do so if/when all relevant references are incorporated. That said, again none of this stylistic discussion really belongs here. --12.42.51.28 (talk) 12:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Roscelese, indeed. Lots of other things to do before AfD. htom (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Ages There are so many in-depth, unnecessarily lengthy articles on Lord of the Rings topics, and I think that instead of deleting them, First Age, Second Age, Third Age, and Fourth Age could be merged into Ages in Middle-earth, for example. That way most of the substantive content is preserved, while all the fancruft is rightfully removed. As for everything else, I'm with the general consensus, which seems to be Roscelese's plan. --Interchange88 ☢ 13:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we keep them as-is. Those that are poorly referenced can have references added; those that are well-referenced contain plenty of sourced, substantial information that merging would make the merged article completely unwieldy. I see nothing wrong with the status quo. Húrin Thalion (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but given that you are highly associated with the topic at hand, it seems all your opinions must be taken with a grain of salt. I would have no intentions of arguing with anyone here, but in order to get some discussion going I would like to state that per WP:NOT and WP:Fancruft, there is no need to keep the vast majority of the content in these LOTR articles, and we are doing LOTR enthusiasts a favor by even considering not deleting the article. Thus there is also no argument as to that there is too much content on any of these articles to merge them. --Interchange88 ☢ 13:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you refer to WP:Fancruft, you should also consider the following advice from that page: "Instead of immediately listing a potential WP:NOT article for deletion, it may be better to prompt those interested in the article to improve the article." That said I think Roscelese has provided the best arguments above. The three main ages are important enough as a part of Tolkien's fiction to have standalone articles and Dagor Dagorath provides insight on Tolkien's inspiration, so these should be kept. All the rest can be merged to History of Arda. De728631 (talk) 20:20, 10 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply pointing out a direct reference to WP:Deletion_policy/Middle-earth_items, dating all the way back to 2005. Everything old is new again, it seems... And as always, once again open for debate. :P Twredfish (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect all for the sake of producing a consensus. This AFD is a bit of a mess. It would be easier to deal with if they were nominated separately... articles appear to have different levels of potential. But appears to be some movement towards merging or redirecting. And no harm from doing that since the articles with potential can be unmerged once adequate sources have been found. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider in appropriate groups or separately. There are enough commentaries on tolkien that there should be sources for most of this. certainly for the four ages, which I think should be kept as 4 separate articles. As for the Years of... they might be nominated in a group; I would support a merge to Arda ; as for Dagor Dagorath, I think there's sufficient independent discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider separately. Some of these should probably be merged and some kept but none of these reasonable search terms should be red-links. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of completeness my preliminary recommendations would be to merge Years of the Trees, Years of the Lamps, Years of the Sun, Ages of the Children of Ilúvatar and Dagor Dagorath to History of Arda and Valian Years to Timeline of Arda while Keeping First Age, Second Age, and Third Age. Fourth Age could be either a separate article to complete the set or a section, probably in Timeline of Arda. This is pretty much what Roscelese suggested above except that I am more sanguine about merging the Last Battle. However, a full AfD to consider the individual issues raise by that article is the best way forward for it and indeed for the others here as well. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:32, 15 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. Clear consensus. Ironholds (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astigiani Wars

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

Violation of WP:SYN. See Talk:Astigiani Wars#Title. There is no such thing as the "Astigiani Wars", although the city of Asti was certainly involved in many wars in the Middle Ages. Srnec (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this editor has a history of creating articles with problems like this. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN and WP:V. I was unable to locate reliable published sources that use this term. — Satori Son 15:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there material that ought to be merged to Asti before deletion? I suspect that the history sections of that article already cover the subject as well or better, but this needs to be checked. Also delete the category if the article goes. If merging do not retain a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shulman (writer)

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

Author of articles for periodicals with limited assertion of notability. Article lists publications he has written for, but no third party mentions. Only external links are to an article he has written (publication's CEO is his father per the article) and his personal site. Article is otherwise unreferenced. Zachlipton (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 08:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being a writer is not enough for inclusion here; one has to be a NOTABLE writer, and there is no indication that he meets WP:AUTHOR. --MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 10 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. Davewild (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Nicola Roberto Paternó Castello e Guttadauro Ayerbe Aragona

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

Fails WP:RS and arguably WP:N. I should've done a speedy delete but went with a PROD to give editors a chance. Kimon^talk 20:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification - went with a PROD that was contested and removed. That's why I'm doing the AfD --Kimon^talk 20:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Arys (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the person who contested the prod is a sock of a banned editor. Since it is already here at AFD I have not reverted their edits. Syrthiss (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unverified and unsourced. Even if he actually is who he says he is (a claimant to a no-longer-extant throne), that would not amount to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Yopie (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Darkest

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

This is purportedly a disambiguation page for the term "Darkest", but the only titles listed are partial title matches. There are no Wikipedia articles titled "Darkest", and no non-article topics with this name listed. This is an unnecessary disambiguation page—another leftover from the non-dab dab pages created by blocked user Eep². ShelfSkewed Talk 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Darkness. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Blachardb - straightforward case of WP:PTM. --JaGa^talk 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as partial title match list (see also User:JHunterJ#Partial title match lists). Do not redirect to "Darkness". Deleting and not redirecting allows the best result for the reader: a list of search matches for the term "darkest". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JHunterJ. As it exists, it's an imperfect search result, and does more harm than good. Redirecting takes the user even farther away from content named "darkest."--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community based eco-tourism development in Nuratau Mountains of Uzbekistan.

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

Contested prod. Essay. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We don't appear to have an article on the Nuratau Mountains, and this article contains some sourced content about the mountains that would be useful as a start to such an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a complete copy pasta job from 1 2 and here 3. A very worthy topic which should be treated with greater respect. Jørdan 05:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sidnei Amaro

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

Non notable music bio/COI. Can find no reliable solid sources to reference/expand this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Grandfathered by the BLP-PROD, policy, but unsourceable. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 6 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 overwhelming keep. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 01:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Williams (announcer)

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

Another case of "I heard it in the news so let's make an article!" Facepalm Standard WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E applies; a homeless voiceover artist's pitch goes YouTube viral, and in a tug0-at-the-heartstrings moment, gets a real job offer. This is why we have an essay on recentism, to caution against writing on spur-of-the-moment, news-of-the-day subjects. This person is only notable for a single event, an event for which there is no lasting significance or historical impact. If in a year's time he turns out to be the next Johnny Most for the Cavs, sure, this will be a nice intro to a well-deserved biography. For now it caught a few headlines' attention, then will fade into nothingness. That is the essence of NotNews and 1E. Tarc (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Snowball clause in favor of keeping. While WP:BLP1E may be applicable (I as well thought to delete the article per this criterion), it is an editorial question whether Williams passes BLP1E. Personally, I now think that the reaction he is getting now may give him notability beyond this event. If this article is in fact deleted, I ask consent to permit future re-creation if more reviews can be actually cited.Tktru (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, your usage of "snowball" here is not even remotely applicable to this deletion discussion. No idea what point was trying to be made; if you're trying to short-circuit this discussion prematurely, then there are no grounds for that at all. As for BLP1E, no, it is not simply an editorial question, it is a policy that I have cited as a basis (one of two) of the argument to delete. if you disagree, fine, but this is the place to discuss it. Tarc (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It may have been premature for User:Deliveryreviled to start it very early this morning, but looking at the sources and the general media frenzy about this situation, Ted's story is only really just beginning. There is likely to be a fair bit more in the media over the coming week, and given all the job offers that are apparently coming in for him, it is probably likely that he will soon also be notable for more than just a single viral video. If nothing else comes to fruition within a week, maybe then look and re-assess his notability before taking action. And before you counteract me with WP:CRYSTAL, I'm going to just say WP:IAR. Give it some time. TheChrisD ^{Rants•Edits} 19:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this guy is receiving a ton of press. Definitely notable.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage meets notability. Yes BLP1E is an issue, but this AfD can close without prejudice to a future AfD or proposed merger of this content somewhere else if a separate article on Williams is not merited. No matter what, the original video and its effect is appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia, as this is already a notable viral video.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the TheChrisD. Less about BLP1E and more about the notability of his viral video and ensuing events. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Millowent. Can always be revisited if the need arises.`--Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per William Saturn. Quite notable. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TheChrisD; it can always be reassessed later. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least for now. I agree with the first poster in that this is just a case of sensationalist b.s. Just because you're on the news does not mean that you have done anything noteworthy. What about all the other PA announcers for every other sport and every other arena? Why don't they get their own pages? Because they truly do not do anything notable other than say names from a roster, even if it is in a smooth, hypnotic voice. This is what is wrong with society. We focus on every little trite piece of tripe, thinking that it is all important. Why don't we give that "double rainbow" or "they rapin' everybody up in here" guy a page? Draw the line somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wearend4 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, there is an article on Antoine Dodson (to whom you so eloquently referred as "they rapin' everybody up here guy") - a rather comprehensive one, in fact. As to whether or not this particular article should be kept, I have no opinion.216.251.104.127 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh these are some of the worst keep rationales I've seen in recent times. Seriously, "the notability about the viral video and ensuing events" ? "A notable viral video" ? Says who or what source? That this is a person notable for only one event is factually undeniable. WP:BLP1E does have a threshold that can be overcome for the truly ironclad cases, as given in the example at that link for John Hinckley, Jr.. At the risk of pulling a reverse-WP:OTHERSTUFF, are we really arguing that some (and it is some, not a lot) press has elevated this guy to that level? Or even beyond some of the more notable deletions of late such as the "bigoted woman", the JetBlue flight attendant, or the large-breasted unemployed woman? Really? I realize this is only about one quarter of the first day of what will hopefully be a 7-day discussion, and hopefully more voices will join the fray in due time, but, just...ugh. Tarc (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it definitely complies with all general requirements, but I don't think there's any harm in letting it stay until after the short-term hype has died down and its notability can be clearly determined. EW_{_i}kist^Talk 22:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now If this all turns out to be a flash in the pan and no one remembers the guy's name in a few weeks (as many viral phenomena are wont to do) then the result of a future AfD will be, if not obvious, then at least uncluttered by voices more enamored with Ted's story than with WP policies. GreyWyvern^⚒ 22:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was offered a deal by the Cavaliers and most likely he will accept it. Also significant coverage by press per Saturn. Spongie555 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An encyclopedia should contain information about a topic people want to learn more about. I wanted to learn more about this man, I went to his wiki page and found out more. That's the point of an encyclopedia. I've never understood this communities desire to strip out interesting and useful content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.4.17.53 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of people are famous for one thing. DangApricot (talk)22:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ted Williams is cool! Crab Pappy (talk) 22:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree entirely with the poster above me. Wikipedia is about the spread of information, and I found the information I was looking. Sure, I could've Googled it, but this was even more quick and efficient, and it always is so long as they've been sufficiently checked for accuracy(which shouldn't take too long for articles like these). Articles like these are great, people want to know about recent events and I believe the wiki principles stand for this. I'm sure there are more "traditional" encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia that get read less. Further more, I personally feel like this discussion underrating this story, whether or not it falls under the category of "recentism". 5,000,000 hits in a day is very remarkable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.68.18 (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep @Crab Pappy, that's a poor rationale for a keep. Provided he receives coverage beyond today, that there is no reason not to keep. I don't see a benefit for Wikipedia in deleting this article.Smallman12q (talk) 22:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This man is significant enough to warrant having his own Wikipedia page; I have never seen such a story before either. He may even become even more famous in the forseeable future. --Rayboy8 (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable per significant mentions in a massive number of mainstream sources across the world. As an encyclopedia we cover what the sources cover, and deem noteworthy what the sources think is worth writing about. The sources are covering the person as: (1) a viral Internet video, and (2) a person, not just a news event. Although this is still an emerging story, the sources are covering at least three aspects of his life: the video, his personal history, and the outpouring of support and job offers from around the world. The whole BLP1E thing is not meant to prevent Wikipedia from covering people notable for only one thing (e.g. a person who holds a world record), or who only did one thing of note in their life (e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald). It is certainly not meant to avoid covering people who are famous as the actor in a single video or subject of a single documentary. Rather, it's supposed to avoid covering as a biographical subject someone who just happens to be caught up in the course of a newsworthy event, e.g. a victim of a crime. Susan Boyle is a similar case of someone who rose from obscurity to worldwide prominence, initially and primarily for a single vocal performance (and a number of sources have commented on that). Her article was subject to a similar misguided deletion attempt. Perhaps reviewing that would be helpful. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He has received widespread coverage because of an unusual ability. He is not the average person who got a burst of news coverage because one thing happened. He did not just do a one time stunt have something unusual happened to him one time, although looking like a vagrant while having a professional voice-over delivery might be considered a stunt. There are certainly many thousands of unheralded announcers with as good a voice who did not get the viral video treatment. CBS News compares him to Susan Boyle. This can always be revisited in a few months. Sometimes "1 event" people survive AFD and are generally accepted as notable, like Chesley Sullenberger, Balloon boy or Steve Bartman. I'm definitely not saying "otherstuff exists" as a Keep rationale, just that right after something enters the news cycle we are not always in a position to accurately predict how long the coverage will last. Edison (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per William S. Saturn ^{(Cheers! Want Anything? Chatty?)}_babylarm 00:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mishal Al-Mutairi

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

Can find no reliable solid sources to reference/expand this. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Jørdan 05:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unverified. If he has in fact played for Saudi Arabia or in the Saudi Premier League, he would be notable. But since these claims are unconfirmed, he is not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 12 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. Courcelles 22:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Cardon

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

Unsourced BLP, dubious notability. Another editor tried to AFD but didn't finish. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (updated from delete) The article has been signifcantly updated, more carefully written, and certainly more adequately sourced. 842U (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some sourcing out there, such as surely intriguing 1992 article, "WEIGHTS BRING DAD AND DAUGHTER CLOSER TOGETHERNESS COMES FROM BENCH PRESSING"[7] (behind paywall), but overall I'd say she probably is not notable.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to Keep based on improvement noted below.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is no longer unsourced, and more being added. The individual meets notability through WP:ENT's "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" (IE: The Amazing Race, Soup of the Day, The Scorned, Work Out), and through having significant coverage beginning back in 1992 and extending to now.[8][9] Both surprising and quite rare for a child weight-lift champion turned personal trainer turned actress. Not a one-trick pony. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With no disrespect to the subject of the article, are we equating mere mention in a reliable source with significance? Or aren't we looking for good sources that actually support that the subject of the article contributed significance? The articles (two which appear in prominent newspapers) that mention her TV roles seem only to recount those roles -- there isn't any suggestion that the subject has contributed "significance." The articles in her hometown newspaper are rather chatty, anecdotes that again, don't speak to significance. Taken as a whole, the sources suggest that her career has been more aspirational than actual. Frankly, that the article now includes the subject as having received "Woman of the Week" from a Sportsbra manufacturer is somewhat disingenuous. 842U (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one sentence about her being a sports bra company's woman of the week is trivial. Feel free to remove it. But even with the earliest articles about her early success as a teen weight lift champion in the Virginia Pilot articles, we do not have just "mere" mentions. And "aspirational"?? 13 episodes of The Amazing Race (2004-2005), and 23 episodes of Work Out (2006-2008), as well as the few films seems "actual" to me, even if not Academy Award material. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So 36 appearances on televsion equals notibility? No... significance equals notiblity. Nothing in thos appearances actually suggest significance.842U (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree, but meeting WP:GNG = notability. Recurring as a significant character in 13 episodes of one notable series and suporting character in 23 episodes of another does indeed equate to notability, specially as she has coverage for her apearances. WP:GNG is met. WP:ENT is met. And that life goes on and she moves on to others things does not negate her earlier notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't get it. She lost Amazing Race and appeased on a show on Bravo network. That does not add up to several major supporting roles as an actress. Where's the beef? Bearian (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does not matter that she lost, as its the coverage that matters. And 23 episodes of a Bravo show is something more than an "appearance". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage or "appearance" does not equal notability; it's a logical mistake to conflate the two. In the meantime, there is no reliable source coverage apparently that suggests anything about what the subject of the article has done in her appearances. The coverage notes her appearances while failing to suggest those appearances mattered. 842U (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but having coverage in multiple reliable sources from 1992 until the present, per guideline does indeed equate to notability. Extensive coverage as a youth record holder equates to notability. Recurring and being being covered in multiple reliable sources as a significant character in 13 episodes of one notable series and as supporting character in 23 episodes of another does indeed equate to notability, specially as she has coverage for her apearances. WP:GNG is met. WP:ENT is met. WP:BLP is met. But most importantly, policy is met....as notability requires verifiable evidence, agree with that evidence or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that along with much of the information in the article, the number of episode appearances isn't sourced, nor is the ultra-short film "Nice Pants". How could information like that even get into an article unless its put there by someone promoting the subject of the article? A quick google search turns up zero information on the ultra-short film. And you may be reading between the lines (and enjoying the use of hyperlinks that don't actually support the text you pipe from here) as well as using circular arguments: the subject is significant because the subject is significant. Nothing in the guidelines says that if a person has X number of appearances on television they become notable. What the article needs is a reliable source that explicitly gives support to the significance of the subject. I have yet to see that... unless we're talking about the Woman of the Week "award: from a sports pro manufacturer. 842U (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Use of hyperlinks in discussion is per such converntions. It is not circular reasoning to point out that the television series have already met notability standards elsewhere within Wikipedia. I do not have to rebuild and source those articles for you here in order to show you the notability found by others elsewhere. And please, your interpretation of WP:ENT runs against existing consensus, as it does not matter per that guideline if she had 2 significant appearances in a notable series or 200, as long as the appearances in notable productions were significant enough for them to be written about in multiple reliable sources (and no, such write-ups do not have to be the main foucus of the articles). And her record of being in those films and television shows may be directly verified in the onscreen credits of the film or television show itself, without me having to offer links to copies of such... but here, go watch the Nice Pants at Spike.[10] However, since you asked, The New York Times subsidiary InBaseline, a reliable source dedicated to accurate reporting of information on actors and film, does indeed verfy her televion appearances in the Bravo and CBS series. She meets notability criteria through significant coverage beginning in 1992 as a youth record holder and leading up to now for her other activities. Her also meeting ENT is simply icng on the cake. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We happen to be building "the consensus" on this article, right here, on whether this subject meets notability requirements. Appearances on television do not equate to notability. The sources that note the subjects appearances hardly detail her roles – as is required. Most of the sources for her appearances simply state that she appeared, without any detail of her role, her acting, her awards, etc. The "Nice Pants" appears to have been more of a video than a film... having received about 1500 hits per year in ten years. 842U (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inre Nice Pants... you wanted verification that she was in it, and such was offered. I never stated that it was some major studio blockbuster. ENT does not mandate that all her productions be notable or appearances significant... only that some be so... and ENT is not the sole criteria that may be used in our consideration... only one that might be considered. We use various applicable guidelines in determing an individual's notability, and consensus is not just a count of heads. We can also discuss whether the individual's coverage since 1992 shows her being worthy of note, as meeting the GNG while even if just grazing ENT would be still be enough, as meeting the GNG for coverage over 18 years is meeting the GNG. Notability may be found in the considering the overall and cumulative parts that make up an individual's career, without ignoring some and spending paragraphs quibbling over others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep i think there are enough sources MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 06:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of someone who arrives on Wikipedia and 127 edits later is rendering a strong opinion in what would have to be a fairly obscure type of discussion on a fairly obscure topic. Wow. 842U (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember WP:AGF and WP:ADHOM. The new editor has been on board since December 8,[11] and the discussion is listed in a ___location where it could have caught even a newcomer's eye. In an encyclopedia anyone can edit, even a 4-week newcomer is allowed to voice an opinion at AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks like all key items mentioned in article is sourced, and as MichaelQSchmidt points out, she does meet the standard set by WP:ENT. Tabercil (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is sufficient coverage here to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:02, 12 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. Closing this a little early, the consensus is quite clear. Courcelles 00:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Graf

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

Once again, what we have here is a textbook WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS scenario. Absent the scandal, the subject would not pass neither the overall general notability guidelines nor the specialized WP:SOLDIER fallback. Yes, she has been awarded medals, but the criteria are either your nations highest, or the 2nd-highest multiple times. Next is the scandal, of which there's really little else to say but that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newswire. All that can be said about the event was that a) it happened, and b) she was relieved of command. The subject no longer receives extensive news coverage...the name drops of this week come in the wake of Owen Honors' own debacle, whose article will hopefully be excised. The subject is not parlaying this into a book tour or similar fame-grabbing claims that may extend notability beyond the initial event. At the end of the day, not every military mess rises to the Tailhook scandal, just as not every political brouhaha becomes another Watergate scandal. I'm sure ship captains aren't fired in the wake of scandal day in and day out, but this particular case had its time in the headlines, then it was off to the sunset. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the WP:BASIC criteria set forth in WP:BIO: not only on the basis of the reports of her being relieved of command, but also as the first woman in the US Navy to command a cruiser and the first woman to command a destroyer. WP:NOTNEWS refers to "routine news coverage". The national and international coverage of Graf's behavior and her termination of command in major news sources satisfies WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:INDEPTH and demonstrates that the coverage is not "routine". WP:BLP1E pertains to "low-profile individuals". Arguments can easily be made that captains of warships or individuals who get multiple mentions in TIME when they repeatedly berate subordinates are not "low-profile" individuals. WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant as it is only an essay that does not reflect community consensus; the fact that it has not reached guideline status suggests that it is flawed in some manner. Regardless, WP:GNG overrides it. The recent "name drops" are actually an indicator of WP:PERSISTENCE and confirm Graf's notability in that she has been found "worthy of notice" to be mentioned in conjunction with another related person or event. Location (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GEOSCOPE, DIVERSE, INDEPTH, and PERSISTENCE refer to events, not people. The "name drops" refer to another AfD, not media mentions, so PERSISTENCE is again not a good rationale. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, an event centered on one person. And, as mentioned above, that person meets the WP:BASIC criteria set forth in WP:BIO and WP:GNG, particularly with the notability claim of being the first woman in the US Navy to command a cruiser and the first woman to command a destroyer. The "name drops" occur in conjunction with another subject that the media has deemed noteworthy, so PERSISTENCE is a good rationale. Location (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the note about my sig. As it stands, the notability requirements for an article on an event and a biography are different, though I understand the point you are trying to make; I just wanted to make the note for the benefit of other editors who might not have noticed. I really don't see how arguing WP:WAX on another AfD would satisfy PERSISTANCE for this article at all. bahamut0013^words _deeds 16:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A distinguished military career which was covered in the press makes her notable independent of the "one event" objection. And the Time article and NY Times article covered many episodes in her career, not just something that happened at one time and got a short burst of press coverage as WP:NOTNEWS would apply to. A career, and the tactics one used in pursuing it over a span of years, is not "one event." Edison (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the notability guidelines that support the claim that a "distinguished military career" is in itself notable. Also, please back up the claim that there was coverage in reliable sources of this person prior to the scandal. I removed a line from the lead that claimed just that because the source did not back up that assertion. Tarc (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Her career is not distinguished at all, really, and sounds much the same as thousands of other naval officers. Aside from the gender firsts and the scandal, she's got no notability as a military officer. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only reason I can see this person having lasting notability is as the first woman to command a US destroyer. However I'm not convinced that this is truly notable. There are many classes of naval ships, and the implication is that the first woman to command each type would be automatically notable. Would that extend to other countries too? As for GNG, I looked in the Proquest newspaper archive and did not find any significant coverage of her prior to her dismissal. Nor has she received significant coverage since then. Will Beback talk 22:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that the matter is also covered in USS Cowpens (CG-63)#Graf relief. Perhaps that's sufficient. Will Beback talk 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Former commanding officer of the Cowpens, a major ship of the fleet--to my mind, enough to pass the notability test even if she wasn't the first woman to command a destroyer. Blueboy96 23:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which aspect of WP:PEOPLE do you think is met? Will Beback talk 23:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I mentioned earlier, she was the commanding officer of a major ship of the fleet--thus passes WP:MILPEOPLE. If that doesn't work, I would think being the first woman in the history of the Navy to command a cruiser and a destroyer qualifies as a "widely recognized contribution," per WP:PEOPLE. Blueboy96 23:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:MILPEOPLE doesn't say or imply that commanding a cruiser confers notability. I see no evidence that the subject's contributions to the US Navy are "widely recognized". Can you point to several citations which could support that conclusion? Will Beback talk 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A guided missile cruiser is not exactly a ship of the line, blueboy. Let's not get too carried away in trying to prop up someone's shaky notability. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I don't think a destroyer or cruiser counts as a "significant body". bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I indicated in the AfD on Capt. Honors, BLP1E clearly provides for inclusion of articles "if the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial[...] Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." You do not get much more reliable than TIME Magazine, especially a full featured article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mean to pester, but the Time magazine article came out right after her dismissal so I don't see the persistence. As for BLP1E, how is the event of her dismissal significant, apart from her? Will Beback talk 22:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, her crew did dance and sing about it, I'm sure it's notable to them. :P bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was the first woman to command a destroyer and a cruiser in the U.S. Navy. That is notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the first female to command a cruiser in the US Navy Graf's notability seemingly extends beyond the incident of her sacking, so BLP1E probably doesn't apply (unlike Owen Honors). Also it would appear that there is a range of coverage in reliable sources (is it "significant", not sure but it seems ok to me). That said I do not accept keep arguments that assert that she is notable under WP:SOLDIER purely as she commanded a major US Navy fleet unit. This guideline doesn't automatically confer notabilty on a ships captain no matter how big it is or how important you think it is. (it does say that someone may be notable if they commanded a capital ship in combat but that doesn't apply here). Anotherclown (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: while her career is more or less undistinguished and identical to that of thousands of other naval officers, she does have two things going for her: the brief scandal and being a notable female first. While neither being fired nor being a small gender pioneer is enough for a "keep" on thier own, I think combined, they barely meet WP:MILPEOPLE, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. I think respect for WP:BLP1E drops it to a "weak" from a full "keep", because being a ship captain isn't really a fully public high-profile individual (thousands of them in the last fifty years whose names are known only to military records and the occasional memoir), especially since destroyers and cruisers aren't really capital ships anymore. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:32, 7 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 Withdrawn by nom as indicated below. For the record, in light of the references found, I am withdrawing my own Delete !vote. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smaart

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

Non-notable software product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No non-trivial sources can be found if one adds "Rational Acoustics" to the search string to weed out the false positives. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page is just now being revisited after almost a year of no activity. Please do not delete it before proper editing can be done. This software is certainly notable and is considered extremely valuable to the music industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.193.71 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was about to write this article when I found it already existed. I will expand it such that its notability will be obvious. Binksternet (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Expansion is largely complete. You know they won a TEC Award in 1998? This article is a keeper. Binksternet (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Nomination withdrawn based on the herculean efforts undertaken by Binksternet to find and organize this information. Kudos to him. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:25, 9 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. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal Mumbai Supporters Club

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

Fails notability. Shovon (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable third division football club--Sodabottle (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as a football team OR as a supporter's group. If an editor can track down all this supposed media coverage then it may pass WP:GNG; as of now, however, the article doesn't. Giant Snowman 14:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the only source for 6 gnews hits is goal.com, fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete External sources have been confirmed. [[[User:Mugglekiller|Mugglekiller]] (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)] — Mugglekiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Davewild (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Lougheed

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

I found this in random article, I looked closely at the sources and just doesn't have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG, a couple of the sources are local news stories that is normal for local athletes, and the rest are either first party sources or passing mention. Fails WP:BIO for not playing a game in the NFL and no significant coverage of his college years other than a ton of passing mentions from the local newspaper. Delete Secret ^account 17:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This guy was a professional American football player. Since his position was Offensive tackle, he got no media attention. However, he easily passes WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per his NFL.com stats page, his only professional appearance was a preseason game. Never played a down in a game that counted. Blueboy 96 23:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATHLETE not only outlines who qualifies for an automatic article (subject specific guideline), but also sets a boundary line for what separates one athlete from another. Thousands of football players in America have met WP:GNG in terms of local coverage and the scouting reports, but significant coverage for a college player has to be the standard. True, Lougheed was a professional football player on the roster of various NFL teams, but he doesn't get past "have appeared in at least one game", and none of the sources meet WP:BIO's requirement of "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." If there's something that might separate him from the rest of the pack, I'd reconsider, but I don't see it. Mandsford 03:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I PRODed this a few days ago (at the time it was an unrefed BLP), but my PROD was contested and refs were added. Anyway I was meaning to get around to taking this to AfD myself because, as Secret and Mandsford have stated above, he fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played an NFL match. More importantly though (and this is also stated above), he also fails the WP:GNG, with the only significant coverage he has coming from very local sources. Jenks24 (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have played professionally and does not appear to have an otherwise noteworthy collegiate career. College offensive linemen who don't turn pro are (sadly in my opinion) rarely notable. Bigger than me? Yes. Worked butt of in practice and games? Sure. Notable? Nope.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:57, 6 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 In that we're two days past the regular closing time, and it involves a fundamental issue, this one deserves a (long) explanation. Copyright violation is a serious matter, and even one !delete based on a true copyright problem can trump all other arguments. The nominator raises a good question to consider. The swisscharts.com has its own ongoing list (linked in the article itself) of the progression of number one hits, and one could view this as an exact copy of that list that cannot be rewritten. On the other hand, as others have pointed out, what's here is a list of nothing more than the top song on a Top 20, and an attributed report of a fact drawn from a copyrighted source is not, in and of itself, a copyright violation. Finally, compilers of sales figures, viewer ratings, and critics' choices (such as Billboard magazine) do not necessarily object to some of it being repeated, in that it reinforces the perception of the compiler as the authority on a subject. As pointed out by both sides, there is a plethora of lists of this nature on Wikipedia, and if it were a copyright violation, then we would indeed have to "delete this and all similar articles". Ultimately, the common sense approach (and I'm not at all saying that anyone in this discussion is lacking in common sense) is to recognize that the Wikimedia Foundation, which has its own legal advisors on matters of copyright, has been permitting articles of this nature for nearly a decade. If this were indeed seen as a problem by the legal department, then it would have been remedied long before 2011. (Most of this was written before User:Moonriddengirl received a reply from Wikimedia associate counsel; the new message and the edit conflict coincided. Counsel, as she notes, had no definitive answer. If this were perceived as a clearcut copyvio, then this and all similar articles would immediately be deleted. If, upon further consideration Wikimedia feels that this and similar articles expose the Foundation to a lawsuit, then those articles will be deleted without a discussion in the AfD forum.) Anyone may challenge this "keep", but this discussion is not going to set any precedent. Mandsford 02:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one hits of 2011 (Switzerland)

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

I'm not sure how this nomination will go over as I realize there are many similar pages and similar kinds of pages across Wikipedia. There's the multi-year whole family of Switzerland articles like this one, for example List of number-one hits of 2010 (Switzerland), List of number-one hits of 2009 (Switzerland), etc.

My concern is the wholesale copying of material from external commercial Web sites to build this article. The refs quite appropriately point to Source 1 and Source 2. (Both are run by the same company.) Source 2 is a weekly list of 20 singles. The article creator has copied the #1 song and pasted it. Checking various weeks may mean selecting a week from a drop-down list, and gathering the info means ignoring 19 other songs on the list, but otherwise we're just ripping off that first song from every iteration of the list.

It's even more blatant with Source 1, which I invite you to compare with the upper part of the nominated article. At the end of the year, the upper table will be an exact replica of the source Web page, minus the single cover images. The WP page offers no commentary about the singles, no historical information beyond the dates they hit #1, no additional value of any kind. The source has no other info on it besides the cover images mentioned and some navigation menus, so we are not merely using an excerpt in some fair-use way. We are duplicating the entire page of a commercial site.

WP:COPYVIO tells us "material copied from sources that are not public ___domain or compatibly licensed without the permission of the copyright holder (unless brief quotation used in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline) is likely to be a copyright violation." That certainly applies in the case of the upper table relating to the German-speaking part of Switzerland. The Romandie section, covering the French-speaking portion, is less blatant because we're taking one song from a list of 20. The parallel operation for the albums in Romandie takes one from a list of 50. Older sisters of this list like like 2010's include top-ten year-end copied in bulk from yet another page.

In any case we're making too sweeping a harvest of other people's work, clear-cutting huge swaths of intellectual property we are not using fairly. If we have something to say about the number-one hits of Switzerland, or if we're writing about "Tik Tok" and point to its Swiss chart peak, then okay, but all we're doing here is republishing lists from Hung Medien's Swiss sites. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ keep Besides the tl;dr deletion rationale, there is a very strong precedent that it's acceptable to have lists like "List of number-one hits of [year] in [country with a valid singles chart]". I'm amazed that the nominator was so hung up on "copyright violation" of a song title and a number. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you're amazed because you didn't read the nom rationale? For my part, I'm amazed you'd cast a !vote (and a speedy one at that) without reading my explanation. The precedent is a concern, as I mentioned, but if the usage is wrong, a precedent doesn't make it right, does it? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note speedy keep should only be used where one feels that the nominating editor has acted in bad faith or it is not controversial. Where there is a scope for discussion (i.e. ambiguity or copyright issues) one should vote either keep or delete. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I called it a speedy keep at first because I thought it was a pointy nomination. I still think it's pointy, but I've withdrawn the speedy part. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point is that my concern that copying a list from another site into a WP article violates WP:COPYVIO, if that's what you mean. I don't see how that's bad faith. I'm supposed to have a reason. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and all articles of similar construction. Reproducing copyrighted lists without providing any critical commentary isn't fair use.—Kww(talk) 18:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all similar articles. The copyright violation is not necessarily the name and number of charting songs, rather it is the compilation of such material into a list. When the information is already available in a near identical format from the Swiss Charts at Hung Medien then our recreation of that material is almost certainly a copyright violation. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about, say, the Billboard Hot 100 pages that are just like this? Billboard's site doesn't have a de facto directory of each song that hit #1 in each year, just each individual chart one by one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said that all lists of similar construction should be deleted. I would certainly include the Billboard lists in that category.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And although I didn't bother formally nominating all 44 of the Swiss articles, all of the French, all of the Australian, Billboard, etc., articles, I implicitly include those as well. I'm rather waiting to see what input folks make on this one (which was so obvious a case to me). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question to the nominator regarding copyright: is the text from this commercial website being copied, or is it just the fact that a certain song reached a certain chart position that's being re-stated in the article? 28bytes (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think John will mind me answering this one: it's not the literal text. However, there's a pretty major gray area here: when the copyrighted information consists of a list of facts, how much can you confound the matter by rearranging it? If the copyrighted list says "song x by group y was number one on date z", is "on date z, song x by group y was number one" a restatement of a fact? Or is it just a rearrangement of text to attempt to avoid copyright issues? With articles that are explaining things, there's still a gray area, but most of us are pretty comfortable with saying that "Amazingly enough, he said the Pope was green!" is indeed a copyright violation of "He said the Pope was green, amazingly enough!" With simple lists of items, that gray area gets a lot bigger, because there are only so many ways to say the same simple fact.—Kww(talk) 19:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that brings up the question... can you copyright a list of that nature? I was under the impression that you can't, since it's a simple recitation of known facts without any creative component. There's probably a definitive WP policy on this one way or another, I'll go look for it. 28bytes (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's dubious. We've had previous instructions from WMF counsel that told us to look at the creativity behind the list creation. If the list is a mechanical compilation, it isn't copyrightable. The question here is whether the methodology used to create the chart (selecting retailers, extrapolation of total sales from the sample, sorting stations into genres, sorting retailers into classes, etc.) is creative or mechanical.—Kww(talk) 20:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind Kww answering at all; glad of it, in fact. I will add this reply: in the case of this article there isn't much text to copy except the fact that song x by group y hit #1 on date z. We've formatted the dates differently and split the info into table cells, but it's all the same stuff. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and a question I was asked about the copyright question here on my talk page, here. I just wanted to note that there have been cases in the past where we consulted our then attorney. For this one, in 2008, because the formula was simple and published, the list was determined to be non-creative and the articles were retained. We consulted him again in 2009 over specifically the Billboard Hot 100 charts (see), and he again opined that these should be no issue. Worthy of note, of course, is that we have different counsel. This is a grey area. I don't know if we have a "steady" yet, but WMF staff have been willing to put me in contact with associate counsel over copyright questions in the past and have indicated that I can contact them in the future with major issues. I'd be happy to do that here, if we want to see if the counsel recommendation is the same. If so, it would be handy to know the formula being used here, first, if it can be ascertained. I like to give complete information in first contact. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind contacting counsel, that would be great. I'm not comfortable !voting either keep or delete until the basic copyright status of the article is settled. As JohnFromPinckney notes above, this AfD is intended to set a precedent for similar lists of #1s (i.e. Billboard's), so if counsel could provide us with general guidance on whether chronological lists of #1s (as distinct from "Top 100 of the year" type lists) are OK, that would be very valuable. As for the Swiss chart specifically, I don't speak the language so I can't tell what formula they use to determine the #1s. 28bytes (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, would appreciate another look by counsel. Moonriddengirl, I appreciate the links (and your continued efforts in this area), and I'm now slightly better aware of the issues, but I'm still no copyright expert. I can't make any judgment as to whether the Swiss lists are creative works (I assumed they were, but it appears to be a bit tricky). Unlike 28bytes, I do speak the language(s), but I have no idea where the formula/explanation is published. I haven't found it anywhere yet. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, will do. :) I think it's a pretty important issue, given its far-reaching implications. We don't want to delete unneccessarily or retain if we should not. I'll wait until closer to the end of the day (UTC time), though, in the hopes that somebody can figure out their formula. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've written. This may go the way of past queries, but, either way, it'll be good to know. There are a whole lot of articles potentially involved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Moonriddengirl. I look forward to seeing what they say. 28bytes (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See below. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm not understanding something about the original source for this information, the Swiss music chart is not itself creating a list: it is applying a formula of some kind every week that produces a single result. Those results can then be compiled as a list, but the list just tracks the results of the formula. The list is not itself a creative work, because the "author" of the music charts did not at the outset creatively select 52 songs to be in a list, and then arrange them creatively. So it's not a list like Rolling Stone's year-end top 50 songs or whatever, which is creative in its selection and arrangement. The list of number ones should instead be considered more analogous to a list of awards, which should be treated as uncopyrightable fact. postdlf (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who !voted delete, please read Postdlf's argument. This is what I was trying to say but not finding the words for. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree with the logic in the above response. The Swiss charts website in question is a licensed provider/publisher of charts in Switzerland. Thus on a week-by-week basis it compiles the chart and creates the list of singles which form the top 100 (or however many singles are in the chart). For the yearly chart they've used their compound formulation techniques to generate the results and then they have published them in a list. It doesn't matter whether the Swiss charts selected the songs on the list or not... they have access to the chart data and are licensed to produce the list. Wikipedia doesn't have access to the complete chart data nor do we have access to the formula which is used to generate the list. The only thing we have access to it the actual Swisshcharts.com list. So in that sense Wikipedia's page on this matter is a direct copyvio of the information which is already produced by a licensed publisher of the information. The wikipedia page in question is simply mirroring the information. Wikipedia has put no creative effort into influencing or generating the list other than formatting its style. The actual accumulation of the data or its processing is done by Swisscharts and the Swizz charts authority. Hence it is a valid and active copyright violation. What baffles me most about the objection to the deletion of such a page is that people don't actually seem to understand what a copyvio is. Effectively copyright violations involve copy someone else work without giving due credit. At the end of the day we've accessed Swiss charts to copy the data. Have we added to it or changed it? No. Do we add 'value' (e.g. chart performance sections add analysis e.g. Rihanna's forth number one)? No. We could save ourselves a lot of time (and effort) but stopping the creation of such pages (and in-turn successboxes, but that's another debate) and focus on actually improving the articles about the songs themselves. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understood my comment, or maybe I'm not understanding yours. Factual information is not copyrightable in the U.S., which is the country's law that Wikipedia observes. Neither is mere work (i.e., effort) copyrightable unless it is creatively expressed, yet your comment seems to insist the contrary. And if you're claiming that this list of (thus far) one entry is copyrighted, then you do not understand what a copyvio is.

In fact, your comment seems to reinforce my understanding; that the Swiss charts website compiles a weekly chart of singles based on some formula. Depending on the extent to which that formula entails some creative judgment, that weekly chart may be copyrightable in its entirety. But that would mean the situation is exactly as I have opined: that the Swiss charts website is not itself creating a list of number one hits any more than the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences "created" a list of Best Picture winners by choosing one year after year. Instead, the Swiss music charts rank songs every week, and which ones were in the #1 spot for an entire year becomes just a fact that is incidental to the weekly charts they create. They have not themselves created a list of #1 songs for the entire year as a copyrightable list. And that is really the only way a weekly music chart could work, unless they created it at the end of the year. postdlf (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lil-unique1: Just to make a little pedantic clarification, although I'm not any expert, the thing you wrote about "copying someone else's work without giving due credit" isn't necessarily a copyright violation, it's plagiarism. Not good either, but something different. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 08:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and if an act of copying is copyright infringement, then giving "due credit" for that copying doesn't cure the infringement. postdlf (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the chart itself is subject to copyright, merely reproducing a small portion of the copyrighted list (in this case, just the number 1 entry) should not be a copyright problem. If the above contentions are correct, and the underlying list is simply a reproduction of facts (based upon airplay rates, sales, or some other definitive number), facts cannot be copyrighted. If the sources are based upon some creative interpretation of facts, we could have an issue, but repeating only a small portion of the source in question should easily justify as fair use (as long as they are cited and credited to the copyright holder). I see no reason for deletion unless someone can state that the determination of positions within the list is somehow itself subject to copyright. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Jim Miller. Even the Swiss part of the list reflects the information in the source, but not quite the form of the source, and the source information at this point is rather trivial. Rlendog (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "delete" opinions are mistaken. Facts and lists thereof are not subject to copyright in the US, see Feist v. Rural. No other deletion rationale has been advanced. Sandstein 07:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The explanation byLilUnique establishes quite clearly this is a mechanical compilation, & therefore not copyright in the US. As Moonriddengirl points out , those similar lists taken to couinsel have been consider not copyright either, but a change in counsel doesnt mean the law has changed & , if anything, the manner of preparation makes this particular one at least as clearly a noncopyvio. In cases like this where there is no other significantly different way of plausibly expressing the material, having partially analogous wording is inescapable. What would be copyvio, isif we photgraphed their presentation,or tryied to do an exact facsimile in html. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All indicators here say that the (original) list is compilation of facts, which are ineligible for copyright in the United States. As far as I see, no one else has brought up any other deletion rational. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update Well, Associate Counsel has kindly responded, and unfortunately we have no definitive answer (which she says she is not able to provide). She notes that since Feist, courts focus on the creativity of the selection and arrangement and that the tendency has been to view data, "where all-inclusive or completely dictated by function" as not meriting protection. She points out that where selection or arrangement of data is discriminating, copyright protection may apply, noting that "Compilers who exercised significant taste and opinion in choosing, from a universe of available data, that which they deemed important to their target audience, and in arranging the selected data into a unique and distinguishable format have qualified for copyright protection of their arrangements." She concludes by saying that "unless you know the criteria involved in creating the list, it is impossible to even gauge the potential of a court finding that it warrants copyright protection. And unfortunately, even if you do know the criteria, it is very hard to predict what a court will say (especially because the courts vary in their opinions in different circuits on this matter) when there is a degree of creativity involved. You are really only safe if the list is purely formulaic." I'll note that in previous cases, we were able to determine the formula used in preparing the rankings, fwiw, and that was presented to Mike Godwin when he was asked for his opinion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:03, 15 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. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wi-Fi Hotspots in Pakistan

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

PROD contested by creator. Classic violation of WP:NOTDIR Courcelles 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR seems to sum it up. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 18:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. And with the proliferation of Wifi in various countries, the day is coming when it might be more succinct to list places where there as NO Wifi, if directories were allowed. Edison (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of the few genuine WP:NOTDIR cases I've seen recently. postdlf (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as many editors voted above, per WP:NOTDIR Neptune 123 (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, I don't see the use of this article given that there are 18.5 million internet users in Pakistan and Wi-Fi should pretty much be widespread in the entire country. Mar4d (talk) 02:36, 11 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) 01:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katdarra

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

No sources can be found to verify that this stadium exists. Also listed:

See Alyans debate. Spiderone 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —Spiderone 16:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Spiderone 16:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 16:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - probable hoax articles; even if they do exist, I have notability doubts regardless. Giant Snowman 16:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per my reasons in the Alyans AfD. Bettia (talk) 21:49, 6 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. Davewild (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National RTI Forum

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

This is not really notable. Besides, the author seems to have a close connection. Would like to have a discussion about deletion TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 15:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article links to article in The Hindu, while Google news shows continuing coverage in the Times of India and the Indian Express. These are three of India's most prominent English language newspapers. Nominator, did you look for reliable sources? Cullen328 (talk)`
- Comment I've now read 5 articles from various Indian newspapers that convince me that this organization is notable. The article was heavily edited in November, removing most of its substantive content. Before any editor votes "delete", please read a few of the Indian news sources, and look at the edit history. Cullen328 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Murthy2010, cited in the article, indicates that even if this isn't a standalone article, it's one of several things that the encyclopaedia should (but doesn't) discuss with respect to the impact and execution of the Right to Information Act over the past few years. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Cullen328. Enough secondary sources exist to establish notability.--Nayvik (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why I nominated this for deletion basically, was because the major contributor (I think the creator) is the person who created this RTI forum itself. I have run into that editor many times, and well, most of the time, anything that she adds is just her propaganda stuff. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 04:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are available outside of those stated in the article, as are those on the much larger and separate RTI activist movement in India. I would have '...RTI Martyrs' in the article replaced instead with 'RTI members' as a basic POV issue. Jørdan 06:12, 8 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. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha

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

This page has been subjected to POV editing for years and no neutral, peer reviewed, broad accepted sources can be found. It doesn't seem that it can be improved. Also, the main contributors to the article don't appear to be against deletion. Kimon^talk 15:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no way to make this article balanced and accurate with so little information. Also, I recommend that users review the talk page of the article before voting. FnH (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Yopie (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Arys (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The very first source - "Self-Styled Orders of Chivalry" - says it all. As far as I'm concerned, articles on almost all of these gimcrack "nobles" and "orders" cobbled together by pretenders and other people claiming descent from abolished noble lines are WP:NFT violations. They are almost always self-sourced, "significant coverage" doesn't exist, and the only difference between them and the denizens of Otakon or Comicon is that the cosplayers tend not to really believe they are what their personas claim to be. Fails WP:V, the GNG and any measure of WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not for wannabe "knights" to score some egoboo. Ravenswing 22:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Ravenswing.--Yopie (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The history is said to result from "family tradition": this is not a reliable source. I do not doubt the claims about medieval knights, but there is nothing substantial to link them with the order invented by an Italian noble in 1851. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Organization for People of Indian Origin

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

non notable organization WuhWuzDat 15:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I couldn't understand on which basis the nominator tagged for deletion on this page. Google News search show the following results. I think nominator should do more home work before he applies deletion, otherwise I will have to take him for a Rfc, irrespective of his/her tons of edits and clean ups. As once Jimmy Wales pointed out on a "Speedy Deletion' for the page he has created, "the nominator should concentrate on other projects than on Wiki". We need more real world maturity, understanding on regional cultures than cleverly using the Tools and Tags.Hillcountries (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can get away with this sort of blatant personal attack when you succeed Jimbo, but until that day, I would suggest you keep such "suggestions" to yourself. WuhWuzDat 18:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean until you become a saint you should not pass on the God's word to others from Holy books(from any religion). What you have done is a Blatant attack to a community because your negligence to check using verifiable tools for Notability and the hidden motive of Only deletion of the article.Hillcountries (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fully notable. The organization is very large and long-lived, and serves as an umbrella organization for numerous groups in the Indian diaspora. A quick and easy search of GoogleBooks shows a lot of source material. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hillcountries (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The organization has enough coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable. Can the nom explain why he/she thinks organization is non notable ? --Nayvik (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Time could be better spent than discussing the notability of an organisation capable of putting together the programme line-up GOPIO did for their 2010 Annual conference http://gopio.net/news.htm . There's a lot of other opportunities for idle hands available at Wikipedia. Opbeith (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Hillcountries.Notable Organisation Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough hits in Google news and Google books to show the notability. Salih (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another example of the wasteful and damaging effect of the AfD procedure in its present form.Opbeith (talk) 11:25, 10 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 This has not yet been able to reach even WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage by independent sources. While it is possible that it may demonstrate notability in the future, it has not reached that plateau yet. Unfortunately, the Google search engine also picks up misreadings of the word "equality", and most of the hits are "equalitv" rather than "EqualiTV". Mandsford 21:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EqualiTV(Canada)

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

pure spam, but speedy removed WuhWuzDat 15:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are enough results when google it.StevenFS (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:GOOGLEHITS notwithstanding, I cannot find significant coverage by reliable sources.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to be on the air yet, so appears crystalish at present. Blueboy 96 23:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe you meant to link WP:CBALL and not WP:CB--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google does show enough hits and EqualiTV is the world’s first broadcast television channel by, for, and about all people with disabilities. For this it is also the world’s first cause-based television channel.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the issue is not number of google hits but notability, which can only be established through independent reliable sources. While there is certainly a claim of notability by the nature of the TV network, I could not find independent sources to back it up. As mentioned by Blueboy, the network is not on air yet, so it appears to be too soon to create an article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - The Canadian CRTC is a reliable source and the CRTC has approved to launch the EqualiTV, as the world's first TV channel in the world by, for, and about people with disabilities.

The above fact is enough to qualify under the following terms mentioned in the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball;

.........It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.

1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place.

As it is a TV channel and, is the world's first for people with disabilities, its formation and activities might have been well covered at least in the Canadian TV Networks to make it Notable.StevenFS (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - obtaining approval from the CRTC does not fall under the criteria of notability, because anyone can apply for some room on the airwaves. It only proves existence (in a limited fashion), not notability; see footnote 5 of WP:N. You need independent coverage, such as this Globe & Mail article about an Obituaries TV channel. I couldn't find any similar coverage for EqualiTV.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You have mentioned number of places on crystalish. To counter that only I have taken Canadian CRTC is a reliable source to establish the fact - "........It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."

But suddenly you have taken a "U" turn and talking about the Notability of the "Obituaries TV channel" which is still in the crystalish form.

To indicate the Notability, I have mentioned in my previous comment that EqualiTV is about a Televison Network, and other Canadian TV Channels might have broadcast enough to establish EqualiTV's Notability , but we don't have in black & white of what were aired. The world needs some more time to store what are aired and be available for references.StevenFS (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my !vote has always been about notability, and the need for it to be verifiable. If the network was actually broadcasting right now, then it would almost automatically be notable like other TV channels. The crystal ball issue brought up by Blueboy is that, at the moment, EqualiTV is nothing more than a project with CRTC approval, and that there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to make it deserve an article as of now. Extensions of WP:CBALL are better expressed in WP:NFF (about future films) and WP:NALBUMS (for music): for a future subject to deserve its own article ahead of time, there has to be enough external sources to warrant it. There is zero media coverage, thus it fails WP:GNG. The example I gave of the Obituaries channel (which doesn't have or deserve its own Wiki article either) was the kind of coverage I was expecting for EqualiTV to possibly warrant a weak keep vote. For a proper keep on a future TV channel, you'd need coverage similar to Sun TV News Channel.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment - If you disagree with User:Blueboy96 on crystal ball issue, that is fine. But you have taken Sun TV News Channel for comparison,but still there are proposed TV Channels with fully fledged articles with poorly sourced or questionably sourced references, eg: Film GB, Houses of the Oireachtas Channel, Sofa Screen, Sofa Stars and TV CPLP. I have mentioned in my previous comment that EqualiTV is about a Television Network, and other Canadian TV Channels might have broadcast enough to establish EqualiTV's Notability , but we don't have in black & white of what were aired. The world needs some more time to store what are aired and be available for references. And for the EqualitiTV, a Notability tag is enough(which is already in place) for the time being, and not the outright deletion. If the deletion is the only solution why we should have those Notability and similar tags?StevenFS (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Closing Admin

137.122.49.102 is blocked for 2 weeks. There might be new intruders to influence the discussion on their behalf.StevenFS (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could we WP:INCUBATE this? Once the channel launches it'll be sure to garner notable coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been a lay-down G11. EqualiTV will showcase what is happening, what is possible, what works, and what doesn’t. It champions a move not just from "me to we", but to everybody. It will take people with disabilities out of a dark corner of our society and into the spotlight in an immersive, inspirational way that fosters a sense of belonging. When the channel gets significant coverage in reliable sources, it can be recreated in neutral non-promotional language. Until then, this article has absolutely no place on wikipedia. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I couldn't see any valid point on your comment above challenging Shawn in Montreal on WP:INCUBATE and rather a no-sense comment how the nominator of this page nominated Global Organization for People of Indian Origin.StevenFS (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with incubation is that we don't incubate promotional material. It's not allowed anywhere on the project. I don't think there's any text in this article that could form the basis of a proper article, so it needs to be started afresh. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be your POV that "I don't think there's any text in this article that could form the basis of a proper article, so it needs to be started afresh." We need others consideration as well.WP:INCUBATE will allow enough time and space for a wider community participation. StevenFS (talk) 04:28, 14 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. NW (Talk) 18:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William Francis Doherty

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

Notability not established. Claims made in article poorly sourced and dubious. Google search of subject here shows no reliable hits other than an extremist website. All so-called "reliable sources" cited previously have been debunked as fraudulent[12][13]. The only verifiable source left in the article in it's current form does not establish significant notability. There has been no coverage of this alleged "murder" in any mainstream scholarly books, reports, or any of the vast literature and material available on Gandhi or the Indian independence movement. Per wikipedia policies, that makes this article junk. Meanstheatre (talk) 15:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Meanstheatre (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Meanstheatre (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Meanstheatre (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears like a mob lynching that actually happened. As racially targeted violence against whites by the Indian independence activists was relatively rare post-1857 mutiny, this is indeed a notable incident. But the entire "involvement of gandhi" section is sourced from the victim's widow alone without any other corroborating evidence. Both the "About Mother India" book and the "mask of divinity" book take what Annette Doherty has to say in their face value. But regular editing can take care of it.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A single highly dubious source cannot attest to the reality of this alleged incident. Bombay is a major commercial city in India, both now and back then. An incident like this would be reported extensively in the press at the time, and archived for future use. The archives of all major newspapers in Bombay at the time, both British owned and Indian owned, do not describe this incident at all. It is highly likely that there was never any such person as "William Francis Doherty" and this whole incident is an internet fabrication. The issues of WP:N,WP:BIO and WP:HOAX haven't been addresed yet.Meanstheatre (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, i dont think it is an internet fabrication, "About mother india" was published in 1929. There is another mention in a 1932 book "Hoover and his times". Both are present in google books. Unless someone took the trouble to publish a hoax and put it in a library, where the gbooks project would find it to scan and upload, it can't be a hoax. (And where did you search for "archives of all major newspapers in Bombay at that time"?. There is almost none online before 2000 and any offline search couldnt have been that comprehensive)--Sodabottle (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the "mother India" source. It's largely an op/ed in a fossilized newspaper from a journalist who goes on a partisan rant about how great the British empire was and how evil Gandhi allegedly was. The writer offers no legal documentation in attestation of this alleged incident, no First information report, no nothing. Apparently the British were the super awesome master race in India but were too incompetent to document a crime of this magnitude. As for the "Hoover and his times" ref, it offers no citations nor any documentary evidence either and so, I suspect, is simply a copy of the "About mother india' hoax. Again, no independent verification, no primary sources, no third party testimonies, no inquest, no hearing, no follow-up, no nothing. The conspicuous absence of any reliable sources attesting to any of this strongly suggests either a)an internet fabrication of recent times, or, b)a poorly conceived and completely failed propaganda attempt by British conservatives to discredit Gandhi at the time. In any case, notability is still not established.Meanstheatre (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Per sources which indicate notability. also per meanstheatres reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder if you even read these AfDs. Recently you said keep per an admin who merely relisted the discussion, now you say keep per the person who nominated the article for deletion. Meanstheatre's last statement was " notability is still not established." Blind voting doesn't work. LibStar (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline wikistalking doesnt work either. Its quite hollow argument when you then state BLUDGEON for others who discuss.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

myself and RGTraynor have expressed concern on your talk page already. are you trying to deflect from your very weak vote here. Please explain how it is possible to vote keep per someone who wants the article deleted? Feel free to reply, we know you love replying. LibStar (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I has already stated trying to have a discussion with you, without getting attacks on a personal level is impossible. So I will be the better person here and stop responding to you forever. All I am stating is that you are a firm believer in the guideline BLUDGEON, when you yourself respond to every single person on every single Afd of yours that is of another stand then you trying to talk them into changing their opinion. Have a nice life.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it is not bad faith to ask someone to explain their argument. I speak for all Wikipedians and ask again how is it possible to say keep per someone who wants the article deleted? I ask in good faith and not asking you to change your vote but merely explain what seems technically impossible. LibStar (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E and WP:EVENT. no long standing coverage after the event and yes google news goes back before 1900 [14]. LibStar (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the lynching is alleged to have been incited by Gandhi, the event is a particularly notable one. I would however be happier of there were more sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, it happened [15], [16]. However, I reached the same conclusion that LibStar did-- this didn't go beyond the news into WP:EVENT-- [17]. In fact, the name didn't even come back into the news when Colonel Singh made his allegations in 2004. For an American killed by hostile natives on foreign soil, there was surprisingly little reaction in the U.S. press. If Wikipedia had existed in 1922, would this have been considered notable? I don't think so. Not notable then, not notable now. Mandsford 22:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the lynching is alleged to have been incited by Gandhi, it would make sense to merge some of it into Gandhi as a summary, as well as keeping this one as the WP:SS article. Wikid ^as© 16:03, 14 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) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Littlejohn

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

Largely unsourced and marginal notability. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 22:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfie Meadows

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

Non-notable, WP:NOTNEWS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonchapple (talk • contribs) 14:30, 5 January 2011

Delete, non notable victim of violence. Seaphoto^Talk 23:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2010 UK student protests, where he is mentioned. This was a notable event, as can be seen from the sources provided, but I don't think the subject is deserving of a biography: it's a WP:BLP1E case, and would be better covered as a subsection of a longer article. Robofish (talk) 16:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A person known for only one event, which is adequately covered in 2010 UK student protests. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Notability is asserted by sources. There are multiple sources, both in the References section and in the External links section. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and this is already covered in the 2010 UK student protests article. E. Fokker (talk) 21:08, 12 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 - but it was already blanked by the author and then deleted by another sysop. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astrobionomy

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

Article shows bias and violates policies WP:NPOV as well as WP:OR. Article was initially nominated for WP:PROD and seconded. During PROD time, also nominated for WP:SPEEDY G1 because edits were rapidly running the article into complete gibberish and nonsense. PROD and SPEEDY were contested, so here we are. Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Random bits about astrology influencing biology (or "bionomy") do not an article make, leavened with personal reflection and speculation. Weblinks to "astrobionomy" appear to have all been created by the article author. No indication that the term enjoys any actual use. The article skirts nonsense, but only barely. Acroterion _(talk) 14:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR. A made up word.—RJH (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different sun sign have been linked with different psychological traits. Modern astrological predictions about human psychological traits are based on astronomical predispositions. Psychology has biochemical basis. Astrology must have some biochemical manifestations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.99.186 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, Wikipedia is not the place to be publishing original ideas that are not fully described and substantiated by existing publications. I would suggest moving the material to your own web site.—RJH (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Studying the article history, this appears to be an attempt to advance a new thesis via an original essay – a dubious synthesis using (and sometimes copying) sources of uncertain reliability. Online searches do not attest to a wider usage of the term outside of this essay, not even in pseudoscience. --Erik Lönnrot (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article reads like a joke. Nergaal (talk) 22:01, 6 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya Kemal College

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

fails WP:ORG. could not find extensive coverage [18]. I also am reluctant to redirect a mulitple campus college to a major city article. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course searching in the Roman alphabet, including an English word in the search argument, is unlikely to find much coverage of a Macedonian subject. Here are a few sources that show that, as with pretty well any high school, coverage can be found for this one: [19][20][21]. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please confirm that these qualify as indepth reliable sources? LibStar (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't evaluate the sources, but if they confirm that the school exists, and that it is a high school or college, that is enough for inclusion here per the usual consensus for schools. It isn't necessary to come up with in-depth coverage, just verification - because it is assumed per WP:Common outcomes that coverage will exist for any high school or college. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:WPSCH/AG#N. tedder (talk) 19:40, 6 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) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pen 15 club

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

Mildly amusing, I suppose, if one is 12. Otherwise, I don't see any evidence of this being a notable phenomenon in any way. And no, being referenced in xkcd doesn't count. Powers ^T 13:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable, and non-encyclopedic. Ravendrop (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See AFD (speedy delete) and AFD (redirect, but then RFD). ~a (user • talk • contribs)
Delete No independent sourcing found for this juvenile prank. The earlier AfD discussion suggested a redirect to "school pranks" but I would oppose that due to the lack of sourcing/verification. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 10 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 delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ovarian cyst treatments except surgery

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

Article is written by a prolific spammer, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/July6177/Archive, the author has now been blocked. Article was only written in order to place an external link. Article contains only vague claims without references. The contents should -if valid and referenced- be in Ovarian cyst together with other treatment options. In general I do not think this article is up to wikipedia standards. EdBever (talk) 13:03, 5 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) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Near woman

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

Article seems to be a joke. Google searches for "Lakota near woman" show nothing except exact copies of the opening sentence of this article. Searches for "near woman" show those sites, many instances of the two words together, and one use in a Western novel written in the 1980s which uses the expression in dialogue between two Indian characters -- and in that case the reaction did not seem to be what was described in this article. Besides that WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary discourages articles on the meaning of words and expressions, and the notability of this one is certainly not established. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the better reason for deleting this, given three years ago is that it was made up in school one day, which Wikipedia is not for. The original version of the article makes it amply clear that this is something someone said in a lecture once, that students have adopted (and then written up on Wikipedia) without checking their facts and finding proper documentation on the subject. It has been since tidied up with citation tag and so forth, to give it the veneer of encyclopaedicity, but this remains something sourced to an offhand comment in a lecture that Wikipedia readers cannot possibly check, supported by some vague handwaving at a dictionary. The I'm-a-student-and-I've-heard-this-insult on the article's talk page simply reinforces this.
By the way: There are sources discussing insults aimed at de-masculinizing males by assigning feminine attributes — a subject that Wikipedia covers very poorly if at all. Friederike Braun's article on Turkish in ISBN 9789027218414 does so, on pages 302–303, for example. This isn't one of the insults, this title isn't the name of that subject (or indeed any subject), and this content is unverifiable and useless for building a proper article. Uncle G (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This phrase lacks multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, so fails WP:N. This encyclopia is also WP:NOT a dictionary of obscure insults, especially ones made up in school one day. Edison (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. I happen to own Buechel & Manhart's Lakota Dictionary (the first reference given in the article), and while it does confirm that nuns'elececa means "almost, nearly" and winyan means "woman", it does NOT list the phrase nuns'elececa winyan on pp. 523-524 (or anywhere else as far as I can tell). That means the one possibly verifiable source the article lists is bogus; the other is a classroom lecture from over 12 years ago and completely unverifiable. The argument from WP:DICT is very weak, however, since phrases like this are (if verifiable) in principle legitimate topics for encyclopedia articles. —Angr (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of sources. Also an insult which automatically causes an immediate fight to the death does not seem to be very useful. You might as well just attack the person. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two main contributors were single purpose accounts, the source is unverifiable, and no further information can be found that isn't just a copy of this article. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:55, 12 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. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juli Lawrence

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

I am simply not seeing any notability here. The article tries hard to list accomplishments, but none seem to amount to much.

A member of the "US National Advisory Committee for the Center for Mental Health Services/Substance Abuse" - probably the best claim to notability. But I don't think it cuts it.
Articles published in "St. Louis Globe Democrat etc". Well for a journalism graduate that's hardly surprising.
A website reflecting her experience of ECT? Well, she's an activist - but I see no impact.

This may be skewed by the Scientology non-connection. But I'm not seeing notability at all. Scott Mac 12:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete : Only reference I can find and verify is this, where she testimonies about her ECT experience. According to Google News there is another reference here but it doesn't give me access to the full article and I can't find the place where she is discussed. If it can be verified, we're in a technical WP:GNG situation but so slight that even by my notoriously inclusionist standard it is perhaps too slim. Perhaps some of it can be merged in Electroconvulsive therapy#Patient experience? --Cyclopia ^talk 14:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:PEOPLE as far as I can tell but if someone provides evidence to the contrary I'm happy to change my opinion.Griswaldo (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable person who's published a small handful of articles and has a website. No indication whatsoever of meeting the notability standards of WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:RS, or WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Lightning Laboratory

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

This is a proposed laboratory that has never gotten beyond the prototype stage; I can find no reliable sources references beyond the home page and the single paper that was written by the director, in [22] DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not (yet) in operation and as proposal or organization not notable enough. The man inside the Tesla coil looks impressive, though.[23]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Edited article to better reflect the current state of NLL research. -- GPeterson (talk) 17:56, 2 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, Courcelles 11:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources - only a single 2006 Popular Science article, and nothing since then. No evidence exists of ongoing notability, see here. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 5 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) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dasher (Santa Claus's reindeer)

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

There is already an article for this subject, Santa Claus's reindeer, so we don't need this article. The new material here is dubious and only appears to be supported by unreliable sources. Bennyhui (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable reindeer. Redirect to main article (Santa Claus's reindeer) Peter.C • talk 11:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A seperate article for each reindeer is totally unecessary. Redirect to main Santa Claus's reindeer--Korruski^Talk 12:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable reindeer. Totally unnecessary to have a separate article. Redirect to main article at Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa Claus's reindeer. Should we also merge Olive, the Other Reindeer? If there were an article on "Adolf the brown nosed reindeer, who could run as fast as Rudolf, but had trouble stopping it could be merged too.) Edison (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't redirect Olive - because Olive is the subject of a book and a film, an honor granted to no other reindeer except Rudolph. Those two can stand on their own, the other eight should be merged/redirected. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any reliably sourced material to Santa Claus's reindeer and redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and all the articles about Santa Claus's reindeer and redirect as the person above said. Turnstitle (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Turnstitle has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned user. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - And to those advocating a merge, what exactly is there to merge? Note that WikiAnswers is not a reliable source so the article's verifiable content is essentially that Dasher is one of Santa's reindeer which is pretty much covered by Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 10 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 Santa Claus's reindeer. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dancer (Santa Claus's reindeer)

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

There is already an article for this subject, Santa Claus's reindeer, so we don't need this article. The new material here is dubious and only appears to be supported by unreliable sources. Bennyhui (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A seperate article for each reindeer is totally unecessary. Redirect to main Santa Claus's reindeer--Korruski^Talk 12:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What can I say? I like reindeer. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable reindeer. Totally unnecessary to have a separate article. Redirect to main article at Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa Claus's reindeer. More encyclopedic to discuss them all in one combined article, since they are discussed together in sources. Edison (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably sourced material to Santa Claus's reindeer and redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And to those advocating a merge, what exactly is there to merge? Note that WikiAnswers is not a reliable source so the article's verifiable content is essentially that this is one of Santa's reindeer which is pretty much covered by Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 10 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 Santa Claus's reindeer. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prancer (Santa Claus's reindeer)

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

There is already an article for this subject, Santa Claus's reindeer, so we don't need this article. The new material here is dubious and only appears to be supported by unreliable sources. Bennyhui (talk) 11:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A seperate article for each reindeer is totally unecessary and disproportionate to the sources and material available. Redirect to main Santa Claus's reindeer--Korruski^Talk 12:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the other reindeers listed in the batch of AFDs, Prancer not only appeared in the poem but went on to make appearances in two movies (Prancer (film) and a sequel). Would say the same about Rudolph--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still totally unnecessary to have a separate article. Just add wikilinks to the films. Redirect to main article at Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need for separate articles.Asher196 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably sourced material to Santa Claus's reindeer and redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. The film Prancer (film) can stand on its own without needing this article - which in fact does not mention the films. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And to those advocating a merge, what exactly is there to merge? Note that WikiAnswers is not a reliable source so the article's verifiable content is essentially that this is one of Santa's reindeer which is pretty much covered by Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 10 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 Santa Claus's reindeer. Courcelles 00:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vixen (Santa Claus's reindeer)

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

There is already an article for this subject, Santa Claus's reindeer, so we don't need this article. The new material here is dubious and only appears to be supported by unreliable sources. Bennyhui (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A seperate article for each reindeer is totally unecessary and disproportionate to the sources and material available. Redirect to Santa Claus's reindeer--Korruski^Talk 12:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable reindeer. Totally unnecessary to have a separate article. Redirect to main article at Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa Claus's reindeer. More encyclopedic to discuss them all in one combined article, since they are discussed together. Not enough different information about the specific fictional animals to justify separate articles. Edison (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably sourced material to Santa Claus's reindeer and redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And to those advocating a merge, what exactly is there to merge? Note that WikiAnswers is not a reliable source so the article's verifiable content is essentially that this is one of Santa's reindeer which is pretty much covered by Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 10 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 Santa Claus's reindeer. Courcelles 00:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comet (Santa Claus's reindeer)

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

There is already an article for this subject, Santa Claus's reindeer, so we don't need this article. The new material here is dubious and only appears to be supported by unreliable sources. Bennyhui (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A seperate article for each reindeer is totally unecessary. They are not independently notable, and having their own article is disproportionate to the sources and material available.--Korruski^Talk 12:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable reindeer. Totally unnecessary to have a separate article. Redirect to main article at Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably sourced material to Santa Claus's reindeer and redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as with the other seven reindeer. --MelanieN (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And to those advocating a merge, what exactly is there to merge? Note that WikiAnswers is not a reliable source so the article's verifiable content is essentially that this is one of Santa's reindeer which is pretty much covered by Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 10 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 Santa Claus's reindeer. Courcelles 00:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cupid (Santa Claus's reindeer)

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

There is already an article for this subject, Santa Claus's reindeer, so we don't need this article. The new material here is dubious and only appears to be supported by unreliable sources. Bennyhui (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A seperate article for each reindeer is totally unecessary. They are not independently notable, and having their own article is disproportionate to the sources and material available.--Korruski^Talk 12:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable reindeer. Totally unnecessary to have a separate article. Redirect to main article at Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably sourced material to Santa Claus's reindeer and redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as with the other seven reindeer. --MelanieN (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And to those advocating a merge, what exactly is there to merge? Note that WikiAnswers is not a reliable source so the article's verifiable content is essentially that this is one of Santa's reindeer which is pretty much covered by Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 10 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 Santa Claus's reindeer. I'm closing as a snow redirec--actually, it is my own fault it ever got here--I inteded to redirect it as I redirected the others , but it must have slipped past. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donner (Santa Claus's reindeer)

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

There is already an article for this subject, Santa Claus's reindeer, so we don't need this article. The new material here is dubious and only appears to be supported by unreliable sources. Bennyhui (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A seperate article for each reindeer is totally unecessary. They are not independently notable, and having their own article is disproportionate to the sources and material available.--Korruski^Talk 12:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable reindeer. Totally unnecessary to have a separate article. Redirect to main article at Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any reliably sourced material to Santa Claus's reindeer and redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:13, 6 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 Santa Claus's reindeer. Courcelles 00:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzen (Santa Claus's reindeer)

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

There is already an article for this subject, Santa Claus's reindeer, so we don't need this article. The new material here is dubious and only appears to be supported by unreliable sources. Bennyhui (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A seperate article for each reindeer is totally unecessary. They are not independently notable, and having their own article is disproportionate to the sources and material available.--Korruski^Talk 12:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also think a separate AfD for each reindeer is also totally unnecessary. I'm not going to copy and paste my !vote to seven additional AfDs. Powers ^T 13:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blitzen is a non notable reindeer. Totally unnecessary to have a separate article. Redirect to main article at Santa Claus's reindeer. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable? Really? I don't think that's a productive tack to take, as the evidence for the notability of Santa's reindeer is legion. Powers ^T 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're joking, but I'm of course referring to Blitzen (now clarified above). Blitzen is already mentioned in the main article and that's good enough. Any details of interest about him can be added there. Rudolph, OTOH, is notable enough to have his own article. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just saying that this is not a case where Blitzen or any other individual reindeer is not notable enough for an article; it's a case where there's simply not enough to say about any individual reindeer (Rudolph aside) to warrant individual articles. If Blitzen was not notable at all, we wouldn't have Santa's reindeer. Powers ^T 22:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we basically agree. I meant that he's not notable enough in his own right, only Rudolph is, but he gets his notability from being one of Santa's Reindeer and belongs there. There's just not enough RS about him independently to make a decent article. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think we do agree, except on the desired outcome of this case. I disagree that notability is at all at issue here; this is solely a matter of content. If there were enough sources to write a full non-stub article on Blitzen, and Santa's reindeer was getting too lengthy to incorporate it all, then a split-out would be fine. It's only because there isn't enough content on individual reindeer that they do not need individual articles. Powers ^T 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any reliably sourced material to Santa Claus's reindeer and redirect. Rlendog (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as with the other seven reindeer. --MelanieN (talk) 15:51, 10 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. Courcelles 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Bottlerocket

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

Minor punk band, sources cited are either not independent (e.g. band's own MySpace) or incredibly trivial (e.g. Punknews one sentence blog post stating they are releasing a new single). Guy (Help!) 09:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not at all a fan of neo punk, however, I believe it is possible to compile an informative article based on reliable sources. During my quick search among the hundreds of thousands of G-hits I found following: [24] The Palm Beach Post, [25] Exclaim!, [26] Spinner, [27] Spin. I believe that a real encyclopedist - punk fan could make a more thorough research. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also covered at Allmusic (bio, review, review).--Michig (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't judge the notability of an article's subject only by the sources placed by less knowledgeable editors. A web search finds that this band has been well-covered but everybody neglected to put better sources in the article. It needs expansion and improvement, not deletion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources found by the above editors demonstrate sufficient notability for Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:13, 8 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. Courcelles 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Lillingtons

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

Article on an indie band that reads like a personal essay and has no reliable independent sources. Claim to notability appears to be by inheritance, but notability is not inherited. Guy (Help!) 09:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article already links to Allmusic which has a substantial bio and three album reviews, coverage also found in Maximumrocknroll.--Michig (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No doubt its in poor shape, but this band did attain some notability.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Note that per WP:BEFORE #9, a nominator should make a good faith effort to determine if there really are no sources, before assuming that there are none just because the existing article is poorly written. Therefore a worthy article won't be deleted when it really needs expansion and improvement. This band has been covered in AllMusic and a few viable punk publications (like this) so that confers a basic level of notability. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources noted by above editors. Sources demonstrate sufficient notability for Wikipedia's standards. Recommend that the nom observe WP:BEFORE #9 before nominating articles such as this for deletion. If sources exist & problems are fixable by editing, then it's not a deletion candidate. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:15, 8 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. Courcelles 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carolyn Meinel

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

Subject does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, a relatively minor or unknown figure in the world of information security with a strange web site. danielkennedy74 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable computer security expert and author, plenty of reliable sources available through the G-Books search. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in 1970s and 1980s under previous married name Carolyn Henson for work with L-5 Society, a pro-space exploration group. Described in many books and magazines of that era, per Google Books (and my own recollection). Cullen328 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have enough RS to meet general notability standards. Qworty (talk) 08:31, 9 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) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddingup

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

Lack of notability. The three independent references are minor: two mentions of the website in lists of "sites worth checking" and one short article in the Waterloo Region Record , focusing on the fact that the founder is a U of Waterloo graduate. bonadea contributions talk 07:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough for inclusion and the sources are weak. Jørdan 06:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable, as is its founder, also up for deletion. Qworty (talk) 07:07, 11 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Buckley

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

I don't think I should have been harsh and tag it with a CSD or PROD, so I'm going to list it here. This BLP is unsourced, and is it notable? TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 07:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You tell us. You're supposed to have done the research to find out before nominating something for deletion on the grounds of notability. See Project:Guide to deletion#Nomination and Project:Deletion policy. What did you do to determine notability? Where did you look for sources? What did you find? Uncle G (talk) 11:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended as a question, but rather as more of a statement. I meant to say that this person is Not notable, as far as my google searching skills go. TheMike •^{Wassup doc?} 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advice given to newbies is don't edit an article without first having found out something about the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He appears notable under WP:BK criteria, in that his work is cited and reviewed in other publications, per a Google search. For example, "'Standing Ground' continues Buckley's impressive contributions to the field..." http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/content/73/1/225.full.pdf; "Thomas Buckley, an accomplished anthropologist who has done excellent work on the Yuroks of northern California..." | Book Review | Oregon Historical Quarterly, 109.2; "Blood Magic offers a lot of Information in a scholarly presentation..." (mixed review), http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0091-2182/PII009121829090077I.pdf, and so on. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have cited WP:AUTHOR, which applies similar criteria to the author of a book which has made a distinct contribution, recognized by reviews. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:55, 9 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) 15:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Reza Maheri

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

vanity page, created by the subject and his socks WuhWuzDat 06:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Weak delete. Seems to fail WP:PROF (as well as WP:AUTO), as all I can find on Google are passing mentions of him. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Though it seems WP:AUTO, he is mentioned in number of places.Hillcountries (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google Scholar for M R Maheri returns papers with at most 33 cites. No matter the field, that's not a significant impact.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:*Keep - The comment by the above editor regarding the number of citations in Google Scholar appears to be incorrect. I don't know under what terms he/she has searched the subject. In Google Scholar (articles and patents), I have counted well over 300 citations on his journal papers Link label. On the topic of 'steel bracing of reinforced concrete frames' alone, there are at least 100 journal citations. Also, there are 149 journal citations for his works in Scirus Link label with 144 citations in Science direct journals. With his research work alone he meets WP:PROF.--Strongmind25 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)— Strongmind25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - you misinterpreted my statement. By "at most 33 cites", I meant "the most cited paper has 33 cites", not that the collective papers total 33 cites. Now, if M R Maheri had a single paper with 300 cites it would be a different story.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:::*Comment - Many of M R Maheri's journal papers are published by Elsevier (Science Direct)[28]. According to Google Scholar, Elsevier journals before mid-2007 were not included in Google Scholar. This search engine would therefore return erroneous citations and h-index for his work.--Strongmind25 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)— Strongmind25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep (Though with some clearing up)- This article comes under the jurisdiction of WP:AUTO which, although strongly discourages autobiographies, does not ban them. The main concern about this is obviously NPOV and verifiability. From where i stand the article seems to be pretty neutral, stating only facts and having no wild claims of greatness. on the verifiability issue, I suggest that all that can't be verified be removed. Obviously we must take note that there probably isn't that much information out there about Iranian academics, or in fact academics from any developing nation.

On the other hand, there's the WP:PROF aspect. Whilst it is hard to judge whether prof maheri meets any of the other criteria, Criterion 9 says that (if any one of these criteria are met the article is valid) The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) or the fine arts. I can verify that prof. maheri is a published author, having written on the Early Civilizations of Kerman, which is by far out of his main area of expertise. I have personally used this book in the editing of the page Jiroft culture. Whilst the editor above used google scholar to gauge this person's impact on the field, wP:PROF itself warns against this, stating that "A caution about Google Scholar: Google Scholar works well for fields where all (or nearly all) respected venues have an online presence. Most papers written by a computer scientist will show up, but for less technologically up-to-date fields, it is dicey." If its dicey for some academics in certain fields in the West, imagine how dicey must it be when the article subject is working in Iran. After all, you name me someone who got a professorship with only 33 papers. Clearly by looking at the few sources provided it seems not unreasonable to suggest that this person may be important in his field. Apparently prof. Maheri has worked for such entities as the Ministry for housing and energy of iran and Islamic Azad University. This is why this article should be kept, though this certainly does not mean that the page does not have problems.Karafs (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)— Karafs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A search for M R Maheri on GS gives h index of 10. With only 300 cites (see above) this is rather below usual values acceptable for WP:Prof#C1. Do other things help? Comments from more non-spas would help. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

:*Comment - Many of M R Maheri's journal papers are published by Elsevier (Science Direct)[29]. According to Google Scholar, Elsevier journals before mid-2007 were not included in Google Scholar. This search engine would therefore return erroneous citations and h-index for his work.--Strongmind25 (talk) 21:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide data from Web of Science or Scopus? Xxanthippe (talk).

~~::::Sorry, I don't have access to these sites.--Strongmind25 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)— Strongmind25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

Results. WoS shows 28 papers, 169 total citations, h-index 8 on the query "Author=(Maheri MR) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. fails WP:PROF.Farhikht (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep – I believe, considering the following points collectively, he meets WP:PROF.

It seems that the Google Scholar may not be a reliable source for judging M R Maheri’s published work. However, he must be quite active to be cited in who's who in Computational Science and Engineering.

He is a co-founder and core member (I believe one of five people) of Iran Center of Excellence for Computational Mechanics; a prestigious research center in Iran.

He is associate editor of a number of International journals including the ISI-listed Iranian Journal of Science and Technology.

His contribution to and significance in the field of Earthquake Engineering in Iran is evidently very high (membership or head of a number of National committees on codes of practice and standards). I also know that he was the only Iranian keynote speaker in the 5th (latest) International Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology and one of only two Iranian keynote speakers in the 3rd (latest) Int. Conf. on Concrete and Development, both highly prestigious international conferences held in Iran (Ref. can be provided). It should be noted that Iran has suffered extensively from earthquakes in recent times, therefore her scholars are very active in this field. As an example; paper contribution of the Iranians to the 14th (latest) World Conference on Earthquake Engineering was second only to the host nation, China (Ref. can be provided).

His parallel work in a completely different field to his field of expertise (Archaeology and history), cited in WP is also very interesting.-Kingfisher48 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC) — Kingfisher48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Despite the sock party here, no convincing evidence of passing WP:PROF has been presented. Who's who is a vanity press and doesn't count for anything; huge numbers of professors found centers, and often a center is just a fancy name for the professor's research group; associate editor is not good enough, and even editor-in-chief is only a sign of notability when the journal itself is significant; objective measures of his impact to earthquake engineering, such as citation counts, do not show impact; unsubstantiated opinions about his work being "very interesting" also count for nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment I did ask the respected editors to look at the above 5 points collectively. However, you have decided to pick at and attack each point individually and unfairly; the Iranian Center of Excelence for Computational Mechanics is reduced to professor's research group and his contribution to Earthquake Engineering is belittled by ignoring other evidence and citing unreliable (at least in his case as is said above) Google Scholar citation counts. Also, I may be a newcomer; but you as an old user are expected to be familiar with the WP policy of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, adhere to objective arguments and refrain from using such terms as 'sock party'.--Kingfisher48 (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)— Kingfisher48 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- I AM NOT A PUPPET! As I have explained here I am not the same editor as user:mrmaheri. And even if I was a sockpuppet, it wouldn't matter, as you yourself have admitted I have provided "convincing evidence".Karafs (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)— Karafs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You are, though, an WP:SPA [30]. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Autobios should be held to the highest notability and verifiability standards. If the subject himself, in creating the page, can't be bothered to add verifiable notability support, why should the rest of us waste our time beating the bushes for it? EEng (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It is true that this case is somewhat below our usual bar if judged by the stats alone (e.g. h-index 8, as demonstrated above). However, in looking at the publication list more closely, it seems none of his papers have large author lists and he is almost always 1st author. Although it still might represent the usual academic arrangement of the student doing most of the work, it could also mean that it really mostly represents his work. My mind could be changed if more information comes to light. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete after consideration of arguments above and WoS stats of Agricola44. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment comments and !votes by blocked sockpuppets struck out. WuhWuzDat 06:49, 12 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 Control TV. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan Couvares

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

Person notable solely for appearance on TV show; major COI issues. Redirect to show is good idea. PhGustaf (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Control TV per nominator's suggestion. Essentially a WP:BLP1E, as appearance in this work is presently the only source of notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. The person fails WP:BIO; the only references to the person appear to be in connection with the show. The article appears to be an attempt to promote the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Control TV. And I find it odd that the one editor that reverted the redirect (and who suggested AfD) has nothing to say in this discussion. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Control TV per Kinu. VQuakr (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 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 Alameda County Library. I think there's consistent consensus that such local branches aren't separately notable, butthere's some material here worth merging. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Castro Valley Library

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

This branch I don't think is notable enough for its own article, the article is a little bit spammy. I think this is a case of redirect without merging. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve through normal editing. I can't understand how an article about a public library can be considered "spammy". Public libraries have nothing to sell, and don't benefit from driving Internet traffic to their websites. As for whether this particular library is notable, that decision should be made based on what reliable sources say, not on what the nominator "thinks". Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNews reveals more than enough reliable, secondary coverage to justify an article, per WP:LOCAL and the general notability guidelines, at that. That said, while I think the nominator uses the wrong word to describe the problem with the article (it's not "spammy," really) the article is certainly unencyclopedic in several places and reads a bit like a PR piece put out by the library. Clearly, though, that's an editorial concern and not an AfD issue. I see plenty of GNews evidence that this library is locally notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and my good faith searches have been unable to find others beyond reports of budget allocations to the library and programs associated with it. The article therefore fails WP:N and should be deleted as un-notable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - Ginsengbomb, I got GNews hits too but they weren't significant coverage - would you care to link the particular articles that you say support notability? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly a case of differing interpretations of what constitutes "coverage." I am looking at the same articles. If I saw one one-off article about "budget allocations" I'd be inclined to agree, but what I see in GNews is ~10 years of steady coverage of various budgetary and program allocations to the library, and all of these articles are exclusively about library programs, library improvements, etc. (meaning they are, in essence, about the library). Here's a more recent one: [31]. One could advance a technical argument that the topic should be "Budgetary Allocations to the Castro Valley Library," because there is clearly enough coverage of that specific topic to warrant notability, but I think that's pretty silly (and I'm not saying that's what you're arguing -- I'm taking your argument to a ludicrous conclusion, half to be humorous and half to make a point :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see this kind of coverage as falling under WP:MILL. The nature of government budgetary process means that any government-funded entity will be the subject of significant coverage in reliable independent sources (the appropriation bill and its surrounding scrutiny, if nothing else) and yet the consensus of the Wikipedia community is that not every government-funded entity is notable. The standard must be that the coverage of the subject is more than merely routine coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the non poorly written parts to Alameda County Library, as the article stands right now, there isn't enough non WP:ROUTINE coverage for a stand up article. There's no point in deleting this article if there is a place to merge the content. Secret ^account 17:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a standard library. Nothing especially notable about it. Will Beback talk 01:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This library doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. E. Fokker (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the Castro Valley branch of the Alameda County Library System, and branches are not presumed notable. There doesn't appear to be anything that makes this one noteworthy enough for an article separate from the rest of the system. Wikipedia is not a webhost for branch hours or upcoming events. That's accomplished by putting the link [32] in the article about the library system, not by using a Wikipedia page as a companion to a blog. Mandsford 21:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Grand

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person. EDIe (claim of notability?) is unverifiable. Proposed deletion contested by creator who is also the subject of the article. Pnm (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage of this person. I have examined the sources in the article. Most are by him, not about him, and I am unconvinced that Java Coffee Break is a reliable source for biographical information. In any case, were Java Coffee Break a reliable source, the WP:N requirement is for multiple sources. My good faith searches were unable to uncover further significant coverage in reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no evidence of reliable, non-trivial secondary coverage of either Mr. Grand or his work. Doesn't seem to pass either the general notability guideline or the author notability guideline. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hard to find any notability at all here, per any WP policy. Qworty (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that did not justify your removal of his name from the dab page at Grand, which I have reverted. PamD (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Milo Newman

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

Not notable — AMK1211^talk! 04:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to have a fan following, but I'm unable to find significant coverage of him in reliable independent sources, and it's therefore not possible to write a verifiable encyclopaedic article about him. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Consulted GNews and Google. Existing sourcing in the article is insufficient to confer notability, even if this individual clearly passes muster as verifiable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. He is "best known" for a role in a television series which has not yet premiered. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:16, 11 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) 23:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vernellia Randall

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

Reason Page does not cite any sources to back up most of the "information." see Wikipedia:Verifiability "Article" reads like an autobiography and does not abide by the policy on biographies of living persons. see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons Who is this person and why does she deserve a page in wikipedia.org?49311 (talk) 00:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination was incomplete. I have added it to the log for 22 December, and the 7 days should begin today. Consider this a relist, if you like. On the merits, I'm Neutral. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iffy, leaning towards delete GNews gets nothing, GBooks finds a lot of evidence that she makes herself available for commentary. So far evidence is that she's just another law professor. Mangoe (talk)
~~As above~~ Delete. GS gives an h index of 10. Probably not quite there yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. I found and added some news stories about her to the article. I think it may be enough to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 03:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty by her, but nothing about her. I have examined David Eppstein's sources and in my opinion they may (possibly) provide notability for her work, but not for the woman herself (they're not significant coverage of her sufficient to write a verifiable article). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much of the article is about her book Dying While Black, but the WorldCat entry shows this book is held by <50 institutions. The book itself has its own WP page, which perhaps should go to AfD as well, given its lack of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:32, 11 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) 23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Joseph

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. the sources do not back up the claim "He played a key role in eradicating malaria from the Indian state of Kerala in 1965". could not find significant coverage in gnews [33], or gscholar [34]. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable person and the ref links are seems to be good...unsourced statements can be removed...--...Captain......Tälk tö me... 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources about the subject on which to base an article. The sources already listed in the article quote Joseph, but they are not about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 03:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable independent sources for this individual. I have examined the sources in the article; the two articles in The Hindu provide extensive quotation from Mr Joseph but do not have significant information about him. The other sources do not provide significant coverage or are not independent. My good faith searches have not uncovered other reliable sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:55, 5 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. As with any debate with this passioned and extensive of a response, it deserves some explaining as to why this was closed this way. After reading all of the arguements, and looking at the weight of the concerns, especially over the very real concerns by the "delete" side of the arguement over BLP issues, it seems that consensus seems to be that those concerns, and any others can all be met by normal editing and dilligence on the part of good editors who patrol the article and keep it up to snuff. Otherwise, there seems to be consensus that this list is appropriate as conceived, so long as the criteria for inclusion in the list are very narrowly managed. Jayron32 15:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of HIV-positive people

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

There are multiple issues with a list of HIV positive folk. Firstly, with the over 40 million people in the world whom have this disease, I fail to see the encyclopaedic value of listing even a small subset of those people. Secondly, I don't think this is the right thing for a responsible project to do... listing folks HIV status, even if it is in a source. It is otherwise, a deeply private matter. Thirdly, not all of these people are public figures. I do want to pay special call to the good, hard work the volunteers have done to the page, otherwise. Notwithstanding the hard work, the issues I mentioned above deserve discussion. Thank you for your time and attention to this request. Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. Though there may have been a case at one time for raising awareness over the HIV issue, the list as it now stands serves little purpose beyond satisfying curiosity, and keeping the Wikipedia data-miners busy. This is none of our business. The fact that a reliable (?) source exists for something, and a notable (?) person has it, is no justification whatsoever for compiling a list. These people are not (with perhaps a very few exceptions) notable for being HIV positive. Their inclusion on this list does nothing but place undue weight on what should be seen as a private medical issue. This is unencyclopedic, intrusive, and serves no useful purpose. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm a proud inclusionist, but I see absolutely no encyclopedic value in this list. The information, if supported by iron-clad refs (preferably public announcements by the subject of their HIV status) can certainly be included in individual articles, but gathering these names together in one list smacks of McCarthyism. I'm aware that there's another argument to be made, that the AIDS pandemic requires that such information not be kept under wraps, so that people are aware of the scope of the problem, but this list does not really help much in that respect, since it's about individuals and not epidemiology. Also, such a contention is a POV, and therefore contravenes our NPOV stance.
I seem much more potential for damage and abuse in this list than I see informational value. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To the extent perceptions of the list's social merit matter (i.e., very little), the much stronger argument is for keeping, given the instrumental role that celebrity HIV-cases have had in normalizing the disease and illustrating its scope and demographic reach. I've now seen the "McCarthyism" claim in numerous AFDs regarding biographical lists, and it's no more compelling of a deletion argument here. I don't see it amounting to much more than "I don't like listing people," and if it's a matter of "I don't like listing potentially negative things about people" then it both 1) includes the POV that HIV-positive status is something to be ashamed of, and 2) only accomplishes a sweeping under the rug of subjects some find unpleasant. At any rate, nothing in your comment presents a valid reason for deletion. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE per AndyTheGrump and Beyond My Ken above, I couldn't have put it more succinctly. He iro 04:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It is a featured list article which means it went through painstaking careful consideration. AFD discussions are way too quick, just a few days. Passed the very careful and slow process of Featured List. That would be like deleting a Featured Article. Featured Article cannot be deleted. First, they must be de-certified as Featured before they can even be considered for deletion.. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Featured Article cannot be deleted. First, they must be de-certified as Featured...". Is this policy? If so, where? Wikipedia's priority should be article content, not bureaucratic formalism, as I see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of this, and even if it was a rule, it doesn't seem like we would be required to pay attention to it if the consensus was to delete, per WP:IAR. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen featured article reviews and it is very extensive. So this probably had very extensive review and was granted the featured status. The level of consensus to reach featured status is very, very high, much higher than AFD's. Therefore, it can be said that there is consensus to keep. I realize that HIV is very controversial so this AFD will be so, too. Also, I confess having come here because there is an advertisement of sorts on ANI. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I understand completely everyone's good intentions, and desire to protect the privacy of the individuals listed here, and I think this is all admirable; but I would vote keep in this situation.

Firstly, with the over 40 million people in the world whom have this disease, I fail to see the encyclopaedic value of listing even a small subset of those people. -- I would guess that this has more "encyclopedic value" than List of Pokemon characters. Maybe someone is writing a book on AIDS survivors, and is looking for inspirational people to include. Maybe someone just got AIDs and wants to see other notable people who have had AIDS and how they dealt with it. Maybe someone is trying to see if anyone has successfully played professional rugby with AIDS. I don't know why people look up Pokemon characters, and I don't know why people would want to find notable people with AIDS. But I'm sure they are out there, and I'm sure this list would have every bit as much encyclopedia value as the Pokemon list would to anime fans.
It is otherwise, a deeply private matter. -- I'm not sure how one can say that something is a "deeply private matter" after it's been published in the New York Times or an equally widely distributed publication. I understand that it would be wrong to publicly "out" someone who wished to keep it private; but if we are doing what we are supposed to, and only discussing things that have been published in mainstream reliable sources, then they have probably already been viewed in those sources by far more people than they ever will be in this list. I don't see this as a violation of people's privacy.

Again, I admire everyone's sensitivity, but I don't think that deleting this article is protecting anyone, and took issue with these two particular arguments. Best wishes. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jrtayloriv, I think you are confusing things we can do with things we should do. I'll not bother with trivialities like Pokomomon characters, but instead ask whether you actually think it is Wikipedia's responsibility to compile a complete database about any and every 'fact' we can source about 'notable' persons, regardless of what it has to do with their notability? Is there any part of none of our business that you don't understand? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Is there any reason you are acting like a dick to me for expressing a different opinion than you? I'm not confusing what we "can"/"should" do. I'm saying I think we should have an article on this, for the reasons I cited above, and that we can. I don't think it's anyone's "responsibility" to compile a list or to do anything else on Wikipedia for that matter, but I think that some people chose to, and I think that many readers will find it useful. I also think that nobody will be hurt by it because the information has already, in many cases, been published in newspapers with millions of readers, and is by no means "private" information. Anyhow, I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, but it would be great if you could drop the condescending tone (i.e. "Is there any part of none of our business that you don't understand?") -- I haven't done anything to you to deserve it. Maybe try to respond to the points I made, if you don't agree with them for some reason. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. ... and see my response below regarding my feelings on notability. I agree with you and DustFormsWords that the only people on this list should be those that are notable for being HIV positive, not just people that are notable AND verifiably HIV-positive. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, apologies for the rather strongly-worded comment earlier, Jrtayloriv. It was a reaction to your comparison with an article on Pokemon characters that I was reacting to, I think, but I should clearly have replied in a calmer manner. In response to the point about listing people notable because they are HIV positive, I think that this goes to the heart of the issue. I am now looking into this, and will reply later when I have investigated further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies accepted, and thanks for explaining. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Andy, it is certainly our business to incorporate notable information into this encyclopedia. It is certainly none of our business to judge what notable information is right to include and what notable information is wrong to include. That would be a violation of WP:NPOV. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis that names should only be appearing on the list where they are notable for being HIV positive (eg Ryan White and Rebekka Armstrong), per WP:LSC, rather than merely being notable and being verifiably HIV positive. There would be nothing wrong with a list formed on this basis. I realise that WP:NLIST takes a different approach, allowing for the creation of lists of notable people sharing a verifiable but unnotable characteristic, but I believe that WP:LSC is the practice more recently followed by the community at AfD (see the recent debates on race/profession interesections). In the event that I am wrong about this approach to list selection criteria, and that a list of notable people sharing an unnotable characteristic is theoretically a valid list, I would change my vote to delete based upon the list having no encyclopaedic value. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable to me. I agree that the list should be people who are notable for being HIV-positive (i.e. Magic Johnson, etc.). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, that seems extremely unreasonable to me, and your example demonstrates why. Magic Johnson is not notable for being HIV-positive, he is a notable person (a basketball superstar) who is HIV-positive. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take the above back, as I think I misread your comment. Magic Johnson was initially notable for being a basketball superstar but is now a notably HIV-positive person as well. Understood. Oops :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Many of the people who are notable for being HIV-positive will have been notable for something else beforehand. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I honestly don't care for or about the "let's do the right thing and let people have their privacy" arguments advanced above. The "McCarthyism" complaint is particularly rich -- unlike McCarthyism, these people are verifiably beyond-any-doubt HIV sufferers. This isn't persecution, it's fact. Indeed, deleting this list on that basis is a plain violation of WP:NPOV -- such a deletion would be tantamount to saying "our point of view is that this list represents McCarthyistic persecution, and is not merely a list of notable persons infected with a notable disease." That's practically a political position.
We also have existing precedent in similar lists: List of autistic people, for example.

It is a cop-out to say that because a great many people are HIV-positive, HIV-positive status among notable persons is not in and of itself notable. It stretches the limits of common sense to advance that position, in my opinion. HIV is, for better or worse, a disease with powerful and occasionally stigmatizing connotations. Regardless, I advance these notions in concert with the more strictly policy-based arguments DFW notes above. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear inclusion criteria for a notworthy topic. Each entry is ref'd, so no BLP issues and it's a featured list! Lugnuts (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. HIV scares the hell out of me, but a list wouldn't have acquired featured status if it weren't notable. It seems like all the delete !votes, though well-intentioned, are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Jrtayloriv's first points, though not about the inclusion criteria being restricted to people notable for having HIV (that would be only a handful of names at most, and tends to be the criteria uses for such lists within a disease article itself -- see WP:MEDMOS). Also, per Erpert, most of the comments here are just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The list has a clearly defined scope, is well referenced, and the information is widely available already. We've always had such lists and guidelines such as WP:NLIST and WP:MEDMOS cover them. There are many lists of people with medical conditions and a number of them are featured. It may surprise you that disease-related charities and support organisations actually maintain similar lists and post them on their websites too. Now why would they do that? Perhaps people with the condition want to be able to look at someone they admire and draw inspiration from them. Who knows? Many books and newspaper articles about medical conditions start by name dropping some famous people with the condition, so this list has scholarly and journalistic value. So far, I can't see any policy-based arguments presented. Colin°^Talk 08:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Basically I worked on this list because it originally was an unsourced mess. I thought about putting it up for deletion at that time, but at that time it would have been a snowball keep. So instead I (and other editors) cleaned it up and made it all fully referenced. I saw many websites who had their own (crappy) list or had the, at that time unsourced, Wikipedia list. So I am glad that there is at least one good list somwhere without unsourced gossip and other crap. Garion96 (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list has an educational and historic value which I believe is encyclopedic--it illustrates the widespread nature of the disease, and (in some of the cases given) the fact that it is caught by children and others who engaged in no risky behavior. WP:BLP standards, as I have been finding out the hard way on the related noticeboard, are usually interpreted to protect privacy of the "barely notable" against disclosure of disturbing information. There may be a small number of living people who should be deleted who did not themselves disclose their condition, are not AIDS activists or involved in a significant litigation, etc. Otherwise, there is no need to protect the dead (many of whom died in the 80's and 90's) against the information, nor avoid disclosure of people who have become prominent (or secondarily prominent) in connection with the disease. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll duplicate my comment on ANI: To be honest I don't even think such an article should exist, is there something notable about having HIV? If it has lead to notable events (like "the namesake for U.S. federal legislation that addresses the unmet health needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS") then it can be covered in the parent article, do we collate a list of people who suffer from cancer or swine flu? I can't find anything encyclopedia about it, nor anything that makes you notable for being a sufferer of the disease. You can be notable and have your notability enhanced by suffering from it but that is surely a topic to be covered in the parent article, as it would not make much notability as a fact by itself. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a big reason I detest List "articles." It provides no context, nor any indication of why each person on the list should be included. Simply because the person is notable, it does not follow that their HIV status is itself notable. The list is not encyclopedic in and of itself, and any utility as a navigation page is better served by a category. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually categories are an extremely poor choice for this sort of information and cannot be used where the information is at all contentious. To verify the information in a category, one has to look among all the sources listed on each article to see if they support the categorisation. This list is fairly bare wrt facts about each person, when/how they caught or died of HIV (see other such FLs to compare) but that is no reason to delete. Colin°^Talk 15:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Completely disagree. The entire point of my deletion request is that this list 'is "fairly bare wrt facts about each person..." It doesn't change that if someone wants to verify the accuracy of the list, they'll have to go into each article and then each reference to verify it is correct. Making it a list doesn't solve what you pointed out... in fact, it makes it more of a problem, as lists are not tagged in the related article, which means folks familiar with the subject won't be alerted the way a category addition would attract attention. Lists like this are far more vulnerable to BLP violations, and provide no real context for the reader. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Speaking from experience. Categories are a BLP nightmare. It's obvious, one list is quite easy to manage to keep the junk out. A category on the other hand can be placed on lots of articles and not all these articles are being watched. Garion96 (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, it's not "obvious." The only people watching the list are the ones adding content to it. That doesn't make it any more safe than the categories, really. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        There are many editors who have articles on their watchlist just to stop vandalism and unsourced crap. One article/list or hundreds articles in categories. Which is easier to check? Garion96 (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        HandThatFeeds, your comments indicate ignorance and I suggest you listen to folk who've actually watchlisted these for years. Categories are, let's face it, generally completely unsourced and suitable for only the most benign of information - we have guidelines that say as much. Until WP figures out how to attach an inline footnote to a category, the system is unsuitable for anything BLP related. I'd certainly vote for an XfD of such a category of people. Colin°^Talk 21:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Watch the "ignorance" comment, please. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This is getting far off-topic. The easiest to check is whatever the editor chooses to watch. Claiming that the list is better because it's a single page is a fallacy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Claiming categories are better because it's easier to check 1000's of articles instead of one list is fallacy. If this list is deleted (or even if it's kept), I really hope Category:Deaths from AIDS-related illness and it's subcategories will go because that's more a potential BLP nightmare than this list. Garion96 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        (sigh) This is my last comment on this side-matter: you have my argument completely backwards. Categories are added to individual articles, and people watch those individual articles. They are more likely to notice an odd category being added to that article. Moreover, they may be completely unaware that this list exists, or that the subject of an article has been added to it. That makes lists more dangerous BLP violations than categories. Anyone may create a list and add various people to it, while folks following the people have no idea such a list has been made, but would notice a cat being added to the person's article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - Further discussion has really brought the problems with this list to light. Biggest one IMO, aside from potential BLP violations, is undue weight. As I stated before, many of the additions to this list are not notable for having HIV. The list makes their HIV status the first thing people see: "Oh, a list of folks with HIV? Oh, person X has it?" The list presents their infection status with undue weight. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't delete articles or lists because of "potential BLP violations". And have you read WP:UNDUE? The subject here is "HIV-positive people". Other than, perhaps a retrospective diagnosis, their HIV status is not a matter of opinion that might be held by a minority. It is just a fact. And the weight given to the HIV-status of a person in a list of HIV-positive people would, I reckon, be aproximately 100%. Colin°^Talk 16:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, their HIV status is a fact (assuming it's properly sourced, which is the BLP concern), but it is not the reason most of them are notable, nor is the fact they are HIV positive notable in and of itself. And you're sorely misreading WEIGHT. Do we have List of black people? ~~List of Catholics~~? List of people with leukemia? Then why is List of HIV-positive people different? I submit it's merely the shock value of HIV status, which is placing undue weight on their status. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit) Wow, List of Catholics is a disambiguation page for multiple lists. I can only Facepalm , and I'll have to go through that mess later. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every list, just like every category, only lists its subjects by one fact or aspect. That's not an "undue weight" concern at all; that's exactly what lists and categories do. The claim that lists should only list what people are notable for has been addressed already. If you think that all such lists should be deleted, such as all people by place of origin lists (no one is notable for being born somewhere), all people by educational institution lists (no one is notable for going to a particular school), all people by year of birth or death lists, well, then you're consistent, but you're way outside of any consensus-supported interpretation of notability guidelines. postdlf (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lists should only be for people who are notable for that aspect, especially if it has the potential for being a major BLP problem. Yes, I am consistent in that regard: categories should be used for minor, non-notable aspects. Lists should only be used for major, notable aspects. That may be something I have to push for a broader consensus on, but I believe it's the correct thing to do per WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Back in the late 1970s early 1980s there were three books of lists published, mostly people kept them in the loo for light relief. Anyway I still have a copy it includes items like
      - 10 Beans and their flatulence level.
      - 8 People that have taken Heroin: Aleister Crowley, Alma Rubens, William Burroughs, Billie Holiday, Charlie Parker, Lenny Bruce, Stan Getz, Janis Joplin. You'll note that in each of these cases the drug addiction formed a major part of their biography.
      - 7 Famous men who were full-time virgins: Isaac Newton, Immanuel Kant Louis XVI John Ruskin George Bernard Shaw Havelock Ellis Adolf Hitler. No bit part soap actors here.
      - 6 Of the Most expensive Women in History Lamia of Athens Lais of Hyccara Ninon de l'Enclos Laura Bell Virginia Oldoini Kitty Fisher.
    - I could go on, in all the lists involving people the thing listed is notable in itself, or played a large and part in the persons notability. In no cases is the list simply a dump. John lilburne (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And that has relevance to this debate... how? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a relevant biographical stand-alone information. It maybe relevant to explain, for example, the early death of a person, and in this case, the information should be given in the article about the person. The only exception would be people who have made their HIV infection a central aspect of their public image, so a list of HIV-posivive HIV/AIDS activists may be possible with regard to the BLP guideline. Cs32en Talk to me 19:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully protect if kept. This list risks harm to living people if not fully-protected from unsourced additions, so I would think BLP considerations require full protection as an anti-vandal measure. (If the outcome is "no consensus" then it should still be fully protected.)—S Marshall T/C 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does policy require full protection for a list that is rarely vandalised. Even George W. Bush is only semi'd. Colin°^Talk 21:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page is a BLP nightmare, and even if rigorously patrolled it cannot provide adequate context (per Hand that Feeds). S. Marshall's concern, just above, is enough for me to say that cost far outweighs benefit here. Delete, delete, delete.Griswaldo (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list gained attention at ANI due to a BLP issue which ultimately led to this AfD. I have watched this list for many years and unsourced details are generally swiftly dealt with and there is no more of a BLP problem here than any other biographical article of a notable person. Indeed, this list is a beacon of responsible sourcing and compliance with BLP. This AfD and many of the comments here are a knee-jerk reaction to that ANI report and are not founded in policy. We do not delete lists or articles because some random IP vandalised it. Colin°^Talk 21:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my case. I don't frequent AN/I, and "fully protect" is my habitual position on lists of people where there's a BLP risk. (I said the same thing here, for example.)—S Marshall T/C 21:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was on AN/I? I got to the article from another article. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not in mine either. I came across this posting Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#List_of_HIV-positive_people_at_AfD which was neutrally worded and then explored the issue at the AfD.Griswaldo (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- The ANI is here (for now). There's no policy being cited as a reason for deletion. S Marshall, you may have "fully protect" as a "habitual position" but nobody it seems is listening. The List of Scientologists isn't even semi'd. Colin°^Talk 22:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'm unsure why so many people think that if it is information it ought to always be on Wikipedia unless there is some clear cut policy that says otherwise. WP:BLP is enough for me. This information of little value in an encyclopedia but has the potential to cause a lot of harm. You can say that this isn't a policy rationale, but I'm pretty sure others will agree that it is. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite aware of WP:INDISCRIMINATE and it says nothing about such lists. Perhaps you feel it is worthless data, but others disagree and as I've noted above, the information is useful to some. Colin°^Talk 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, the fact that closers don't always listen to me doesn't make me wrong. :) Griswaldo, BLP is a reason to prevent harm to living people by fully protecting the article. You've got from "BLP" to "delete", but I don't see that. It relies on your idea that the information is of "little value in an encyclopaedia", which is (a) an opinion statement which you've not yet supported by reasoning or evidence, and (b) appears to fly in the face of the majority opinion, as evidenced by clear consensus at the three discussions here, here and here.
For the avoidance of doubt I do not believe that featured content is protected from the AfD process. But I do believe that when dealing with featured content which has undergone significant scrutiny over an extensive period of time, the bar for a "delete" is set somewhat higher than usual.—S Marshall T/C 23:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per The Hand That Feeds You. Recording someone's self-admission of HIV in the context of an article where it can be explained is one thing, putting people on a list, without context, because they've got a disease is quite frankly barbaric. I'm not arguing for censoring verifiable information because it's unpleasant, I'm simply saying this is a poor way to organise that material. Keep in on articles and off lists.--Scott Mac 22:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "is quite frankly barbaric" is as close to a textbook WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote as they come. If you think the list needs more "context" then that's a suggestion for content improvement, not deletion. Colin°^Talk 23:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whatever. The "IDONTLIKEIT" is response is tired - it just avoids you answering the point. Lists don't allow for context, you are either off or on. You either get labelled and chucked in, or you don't. That's crude, useless and offensive - and no, I don't like it, and nor should you. There are better ways to organise this information and so we should use them. Not keep an utterly useless list.--Scott Mac 23:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Since when do lists not allow for context? Are you sure you're not thinking of categories? Lists can be formatted in any way suitable to the best encyclopaedic presentation of the information. This one has a whole field titled "Comments" specifically for presenting the context and significance of each entry's inclusion on the list, and if that's inadequate the list can be edited to provide whatever means of displaying the context the community deems suitable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. That amounts to a bunch of people create a contextless pointless list, and then say "if people object they can do all the work of filling in the context" - knowing it will not happen. Sorry, not buying it. The list is useless and ought to be removed. All the information can be retained elsewhere.--Scott Mac 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even though I cleaned up this list, I am not a huge fan of it. That said, barbaric is just hyperbole. What I do find surprising is that people object to this well referenced list but don't seem to mind Category:Deaths from AIDS-related illness and Category:HIV-positive people. Garion96 (talk) 00:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , for those people where it is a significant part of their biography, & unmistakable evidence. (I estimate this might be 1/3 of the present list) There is really no justification for keeping it otherwise, any more than any other medical condition. really see difficulties with this--it basically is not a list of notable people who are HIV positive, but of notable public personalities who are HIV positive--and it is those individual in particular where there is no adequate referencing in their Wikipedia articles , and a few of those with no adequate referencing are living people. I normally support lists of people by [whatever], but this is one of the truly borderline ones. I would have much less trouble with the list if it were of people who have dies of AIDS, analogous to the other lists at Lists of people by cause of death. What people have died of is a more controllable grouping than those who have had a disease. I find it remarkable that nobody has attempted to make such an article--I searched WP & AfD with a variety of possible words, but did not find it. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP was created by Wales for save himself of being sued. The list is encyclopedic and according to its star in the corner, well-written. It is recently at AFD for a simple issue of a stupid kid who was playing and/or attacking someone s/he hates, it's ridiculous nominate it for that issues, if the problem is "BLP issues" indef-protect the page and put it an orange lock Tbhotch^™ and © 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to be sued was part of it. Showing basic human decency towards other people was part of it too. Just because a list can be made, doesn't mean it should. Trebor (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – a quick google brings up loads of these types of lists, and famous people who have died of AIDS have been the focus of many reliable sources. I think a list of people who have died of AIDS has a stronger claim of notability, so maybe a shift in the focus of the list rather than outright deletion is preferable. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per much of the above, the majority of these people are not notable for HIV. Also, I hope that arguments of the nature "it's a featured list, so can't be deleted/must be good" will be disregarded; this is not true, and ignoring the issue. Trebor (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or convert into List of people who have died of AIDS. --JN 466 00:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTPEOPLE. It says that lists of people require that "the person's membership in the list's group is notable in some way (in other words, a person should not be included in a list merely because they happen to be a member of the list's group)." Nearly all entries on this list violate this guideline, because they are about otherwise notable people who happen to have (had) AIDS. Suffering or dying from AIDS is unfortunately so relatively common that the list of people who are (mainly) notable for having AIDS is probably very short, and can (if it is at all necessary) be integrated into the main AIDS article or a subarticle thereof.
In addition, the following caution in WP:BLPCAT, part of the policy WP:BLP, must be borne in mind: "Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation ... These principles apply equally to ... lists". This caution applies here because in many parts of the world having AIDS is still a severe stigma and/or is widely associated with sexual practices that are considered objectionable (see the list's introduction and AIDS#Stigma). Our BLP policy therefore provides another good reason not to have a list article about this topic unless it is absolutely required for encyclopedic completeness. Our notability rules are an appropriate yardstick for answering whether this is the case. While AIDS itself is obviously notable, the topic "List of HIV-positive people" does not seem to be – I don't see references to reliable sources dedicated to this specific topic –, and so Wikipedia can do without it. Sandstein 00:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely if the list topic is appropriate, but the content does not match content policy, the appropriate outcome is Keep and Edit, rather than Delete? (I note you also have an argument that the list topic is also invalid, but you'd almost have to be wrong about that, as there are people on the list who are verifiably notable for being HIV positive, and there's nothing in principle wrong with a list of people who are notable for the same thing.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that the list content, if reduced to the few people who are notable mainly for having AIDS, would likely be so small as to make a standalone list unnecessary. You can disprove this contention by removing all other people from the list and adding a sourced explanation to the remaining entries about how these people are notable for having AIDS. Even if this leaves a list of ten or so entries, per WP:BLPCAT, we would need a compelling reason for keeping this reduced list either as part of an article or as a standalone list. Such a compelling reason can only be that reliable reference works have decided to publish similar lists of AIDS-infected people – that is, that the topic of this list itself is notable. I don't see any evidence for that. Sandstein 00:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're underestimating how many entries on the list are valid entries as people notable for being HIV positive. For example: Rock Hudson, Ilka Tanya Payán, Robert Reed, Vasily Aleksanyan, Sean Strub, and the entirety of the AIDS Activists and Criminal Transmission sections are all valid listings. That's 35 names, and I've stopped before I've gotten more than a fifth of the way down the current list. Yes, it needs a trim, but there's no question there's sufficient content for an encyclopaedic list. I'm not going to trim it now as it would be a substantial and controversial change to an article under discussion, and hence impolite, but I'm more than happy to do it after it gets kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: Hudson and Reed are mainly notable as actors, Payán and Strub as AIDS activists, Aleksanyan for his legal and political issues. None of these people would be notable (that is, get an article) only because of the fact that they are or were infected with HIV. Only Payán and Strub might conceivably feature in a dedicated list of AIDS activists, while with the other three the link between the disease and their notability is too tenuous. I suppose that this needs to be determined case by case, but the only way for us to do this easily is a field in the list that explains why a person is on that list. Even if there should be many such entries, which I continue to doubt, my other argument about BLPCAT requiring its deletion because reliable sources do not publish similar lists still stands. Sandstein 01:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical lists are not limited to only those facts for which their subjects are notable (i.e., why they have articles). The guidelines say what they say, but they expressly note that there are exceptions, and the overwhelming practice and documented consensus in AFD after AFD is supportive of lists that document significant biographical facts regardless of whether they are why the subjects have articles. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of kidney stone formers for a recent example of a medical condition list. postdlf (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deaths from HIV might make a notable list, but as a list of living people this is inappropriate. Will Beback talk 00:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is indisputably a highly significant biographical fact, and it is very informative to index those notable people who are HIV-positive, both to cross-reference those with that shared fact as well as to provide information about HIV in the form of notable people who have tested positive for it. It is completely irrelevant that most of those listed are not notable for having HIV because that is not a standard for biographical lists or for inclusion in them, as is evidenced by a multitude of extant biographical lists, which deal with place of origin, university attended, etc. And such lists are consistently kept at AFD (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of kidney stone formers). Nothing in BLP compels the deletion of this list, and complaints about how difficult the list is to maintain are completely speculative, and even if substantiated such complaints would not establish anything more than the need for protection. postdlf (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Not only is such a list inappropriate and unethical, it exposes editors and wikipedia to legal issues. Several people have been included on the list who do not appear to have HIV. For instance Naomi Russell (a pornographic actress) was listed due to some internet rumors. It was even sourced, but the article cited said nothing about her having HIV. Make no mistake, including someone who doesn't have HIV on a public list as a person who does have HIV is defamation of character. Further, if this article isn't deleted, I will personally contact every person living who appears on the list, to inform them that they are listed on wikipedia's "People with HIV" page. It is only fair for them to have the opportunity to respond or take legal action. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is very well referenced, so there are no BLP issues. The subject is encyclopedic and still very relevant. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC for the "encyclopedic" comment. In what way, exactly, is it meant to be "still very relevant"? Trebor (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment the article is not well-referenced. The very first entry I checked had an invalid reference and needed removing.--Scott Mac 01:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Providing the article is CAPABLE of being well-referenced, and would still have valid entries after having unreferencable entries removed, AfD doesn't care how well sourced it is. Adding and checking references can be done through normal editing; AfD is not for cleanup. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some keep voters are arguing that there's no BLP hazard due to excellent referencing - I'm simply pointing out that isn't true. Even with the care that's obviously been taken here, some entries are poorly or invalidly referenced. With the best will in world, that's unlikely to change with a list that includes so many subject that scrape into Wikipedia's notability for reasons unrelated to HIV, and thus the sole source for their inclusion in this article is some chance passing remark on some website or archived news article. The article is a liability.--Scott Mac 01:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be small slips. This was a dead link which was fixed in 10 seconds. This list is better referenced then many of the individual articles. Garion96 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An unsourced accusation that someone has HIV is not a small slip. Trebor (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That a link changed from http://www.rebekkaonline.com to http://rebekkaonline.net is a small slip. Garion96 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[35] - a number of dead links, some of which have been so for a long time. Trebor (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? This example was fixed. But that a New York Times article is now a dead link, or a Reuters article is not so bad. The link should be removed but the reference can still stand. Garion96 (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had problems the entire time its been up. But those issues aside a master list of people with HIV/AIDS not appropriate. It is not encyclopedic and it is not ethical, plus it is a major legal liability. It doesn't matter if you defamed someone for two second, two months or two years, it was still libelous; and even when not libelous it still presents legal issues. I don't see how anyone could seriously argue otherwise. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC) For those making the BLP argument, this isn't a biography page. It is a listing of people with a medical condition. I think most people don't have an issue with including a person's HIV status on a biography page, when it is well referenced (interestingly I found a number of biography articles where a person who does not have HIV was said to have it). However a master list of people with HIV/AID, strikes many here as unethical. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. You can sue someone for that kind of slip. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, some kind of glitch duplicated my comment; it was not aimed as you. Trebor (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did it accidentally trying to fix an edit conflict. Sorry. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' – by shifting the focus of list to people who have died of AIDS would nullify the potential legal problems. Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per everyone above. This is the dumbest of the dumbest of lists, it has no value other than to lump together poeple based on one variable. It can never be completed; it can never even be nearly completed; it can only ever be a dumb list of some people with HIV and some falsely labeled as such. John lilburne (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP-nightmare ukexpat (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about closure moved to talk page.--Scott Mac 09:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would much prefer that this list were converted to those who have died from AIDS. It would remove most of the valid BLP concerns, and some form of protection should deal with most of the rest. Sadly, refraining from !voting and suggesting a logical compromise at AfD would probably be a waste of time. As I believe that it is possible to deal with the BLP ~~issues in~~ concerns with this list without deleting, it should not be deleted until that avenue has been explored. I do not believe that it could be explored while an AfD is open, and therefore feel that in the meantime the list should be kept. —W F C— 04:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC) (comments by User:WFCforLife restored by User:Betty Logan after they were removed by User:Beyond My Ken)[reply]
Comment – I believe all the relevant information can be found on the articles Timeline of AIDS and Timeline of early AIDS cases. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on legal threat. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs) has now made WP:LEGAL threats here and is apparrently contacting all the people on the list so they can sue Wikipedia (see here). Colin°^Talk 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re WP:BLP A number of people are citing WP:BLP. Indeed it seems to be the only policy issue raised. However, it is a false argument. If Wikipedia articles can claim person X has HIV then this information can also appear elsewhere, such as a list, provided it is sourced. As I noted above, categories are unsuitable for this very reason. Where is the policy that says sensitive information can only appear in the main biography page? It has been suggested this is a privacy issue, but the article is cites published sources so the information is already public. We don't cite hospital records. But more fundamentally, if this list is to be deleted because it is a list of information that may "suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation", for example, then it would imply we delete all lists of possibly negative information. If we can claim people are members of a UFO cult then this is small beer. I would certainly be keen to open up a community RfC if that were the case as it has big implications. Colin°^Talk 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles contain this 'factoid' and the list has the 'factoid' then if the 'factoid' is actually a 'lietoid' there are now two places where the information has to be removed from. Experience shows that is unlikely to happen, which is why databases try to ensure that each piece of information is only recorded in one place. John lilburne (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the same is true of articles and articles. Would we say the article on the famous wife of a famous man with HIV was unable to mention this "factoid"? There's no policy against duplicating information, even sensitive information. Colin°^Talk 13:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Related lists and AfDs Similar Featured Lists (some of whom have undergone AfD attempts), are Articles for deletion/List of people with epilepsy, Articles for deletion/List of brain tumor patients, Articles for deletion/List of people with hepatitis C and List of poliomyelitis survivors. I contend that the lists are actually better sourced that most of their linked bio-articles. Colin°^Talk 08:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about list maintenance doesn't hold either. I help to maintain "List of vegetarians" and the "pooling" of the claims makes it much easier to maintain the integrity of the information. Names are commonly added without sources and I can either track a source down or remove the name; similarly, names are sometimes pulled without reason. I can reverse this straight away. Everyone on the list has an article on Wikipedia, but some are poorly sourced and not maintained; I daresay such claims are added and removed from articles at whim. Having a list is an efficient way to maintain the integrity of this particular type of information and apply a common standard to referencing, something which I personally could not do if the list was deleted and each and every claim had to be maintained on the individual articles. I would say in relation to something as contentious as HIV, a list could be very helpful if you are going to include this information on the respective articles. If claims are made on articles then they should be added to the list, and if the claim doesn't hold up for whatever reason on the list it should be removed from the article. If an editor wants to add a claim to the article, the person may already be on the list backed up by a high quality source which can be ported into the article. So if this information is to be recorded on individual articles it is well worth keeping a list since I believe they do reinforce the integrity of information. Betty Logan (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on patrolling - The list currently contains a link to an entry that is a clear BLP1E violation - Veronica Prego. If her entry is correct, then the event is clearly notable, but per WP:BLP, she should not have a biography. The fact that her birthdate was not specified on the list tipped me off, rather obviously, to check out her entry. If the list is so vigilantly patrolled for BLP issues this kind of thing should not be missed. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nothing to do with patrolling. Both Veronica Prego's article and this list pre-date WP:BLP by years. You can be sure that if someone (you?) puts her article up for AfD then it will be deleted from this list as soon as the link turns red. Colin°^Talk 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either people are vigilantly patrolling the contents of the list or they are not. Are you seriously saying that any BLP entry to the list made before WP:BLP was on the books should be considered a BLP concern until checked, but that you all can't be bothered to check them out because they are grandfathered into the "I don't care about those entries" group? Your response makes me even more worried.Griswaldo (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I interpret "patrolling" as "checking edits and additions". Checking existing content to make sure it meets all our policies is another task, just as important, but not "patrolling". The fact that Veronica Prego has had an article for five years without anyone raising BLP issues shows just how huge the "find existing BLP issues on WP" task is. And just undermines whether that argument is helpful to an AfD discussion. And before you question whether people can be "bothered", why haven't you put that article up for AfD since you discovered the BLP issue. Colin°
      - I haven't nominated it for AfD because the event is clearly notable, which is what BLP1E concerns in case you missed that. As soon as I caught it I started a thread at WP:BLPN to ask for input on how best to proceed. If you care to join the discussion it is here - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Veronica_Prego. It's best to look into all matters thoroughly before slinging around accusations. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I did and and can't see why you asked the noticeboard when you're so adamant the article shouldn't exist and therefore the entry shouldn't exist in this list and therefore the folk "patrolling" this list are so un"vigilant" that the list should be deleted. Either it is a "a clear BLP1E violation" as you state (and the article should be deleted with haste), or it isn't. This is getting off topic... Colin°^Talk 16:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is off topic but you should read WP:BLP. All BLP problems are not necessarily solved by outright deletion of content. The idea in this case is to delete the entry, as in there shouldn't be an entry with her name on it, but to save the notable event content in the form that doesn't violate BLP. It is a clear violation in its current form and it is being dealt with in the appropriate manner. Just because you say otherwise doesn't make it so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I have read it. And the article should be deleted by creating an AfD on it. Not all AfD discussions are resolved by "by outright deletion of content". Perhaps you should read our deletion policy. Colin°^Talk 16:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, WP:BLP1E suggests something quite different from AfD, but you're going to continue to say whatever you want clearly. Cheers mate.Griswaldo (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        For once I agree completely with Griswaldo. The article violates BLP1E but information about the event is notable and oughts to be kept/merged in some form. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, I take your point. However, if the article claim that she was the first needlestick->HIV doctor is true (or at least, the first to sue, I can't find it in any source) then there is still a case for including her in this list as a "Scientifically notable case", albeit unlinked. Again, this BLP issue is irrelevant to whether the list should be deleted. Colin°^Talk 17:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

^Talk 14:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Collin: I am not threatening legal action myself. I am pointing out that libel was committed on the page. I am also pointing out that people who are on this list, have a right to know. So I am informing them so they can either take legal action or lodge a complaint with wikipedia. This is common decency. And I am sorry but in this case, US LAW trumps WIKI GUIDELINES.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- only if an admin is willing to leave it indefinitely FULLY protected so that only approved edits reach it by talk request, with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrill Stubing (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep : multiple reasons:

No true BLP issues. Like every article dealing with persons, this needs special attention and problems can always lurk. But like in many cases, people ask for deletion as an easy-but-destructive solution for something that can be fixed by much more constructive means: what we need is to watch the article and keep all entries well sourced and double-checked. That's it. Once that is done, let us remember that BLP allows us to write about potentially negative stuff if such stuff is properly sourced. Some entries may be contentious and some pruning may be in order, but we do not delete what we can fix by editing, per deletion policy.
Once entries are sourced, ethical concerns also become moot, since if someone is publicly known to be HIV positive, issues of privacy etc. become irrelevant.
No policy or guideline-based deletion rationale
Inclusion criteria are clear-cut. Entries are well sourced (and if some entry is not, it can be simply removed without putting into discussion the existence of the list).
List is a strong navigational aid and has real-world use, as also above mentioned. The list provides a context that categories can't provide; moreover it provides a much better centralized place to check for sourcing than categories.
Procedurally, it is true that consensus can change, but as someone has stated above, the review standards for FA go usually deeper than discussion at AfD; I feel therefore not proper deciding do delete a featured list at a simple AfD. If policy doesn't provide a mechanism for dealing with this kind of special situation, perhaps we should create one. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have addressed all the policy based reasons for keeping the article, very well I might add. However, I don't see the "right thing" or the problematic aspects towards living people addressed at all here. Not everything is policy based, that is, policy is not a hard, fast rule. Does the article comply with Wikipedia based policy, yes, for the most part. What say you to those concerns I addressed in my request at the very top of this AFD in my deletion rationale? Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regaring your first two points in your rationale. Do you mind Category:Deaths from AIDS-related illness and Category:HIV-positive people as much as this list? On this list at least it is all well sourced and it is much easier to maintain than a category. Regarding your third point. According to Wikipedia these are all public figures since each entry has a corresponding Wikipedia article. I had a hard enough time to keep red links of this list. Garion96 (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, here we go:

I fail to see the encyclopaedic value of listing even a small subset of those people.: WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy. I personally find such lists exactly the kind of stuff that encyclopedia articles should contain -a structured compendium of information linked by a common thread. That you do not like it is not a reason to remove it for everyone.
I don't think this is the right thing for a responsible project to do: A responsible project should balance the need of protecting living people with the need of providing a comprehensive documentation, including navigational aids like such lists. A responsible project therefore can for sure discuss which entries can belong to the list or not, be sure to check thoroughly the status of the entries related to living persons etc. but also shouldn't fall prey of moral panic and decide of pre-emptively remove everything because it could be remotely dangerous. There is also a duty towards our readers to provide information, an ethical duty as well.
Also, ethically, we don't act as a responsible project by imposing our personal choice of ethics on others, wildly, but by compromising the tensions between opposites on a consensual set of rules that describe a shared set of norms. That's what civilized societies do and that's what also WP does. That's why we painstakingly discuss here, why we painstakingly build consensus to have policies and guidelines and we attempt to follow them, even if nobody of us agrees 100% with all of them. Therefore sticking to policy is not a mere legalistic shortcut, it is the way to ensure that what we do is following the most consensual path.

I hope it helps. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there's certainly no ethical duty to our readers to provide this list. Ignoring policy for a second, this fundamentally comes down to what sort of project we want to be. This list can be made, sure, and it can be sourced reliably, but that doesn't mean it should be made. Remember, this particular collection of information does not exist outside of Wikipedia, we are choosing to group these people together because they share a particular virus. And we are grouping them irrespective of whether having HIV is what makes them notable or not. Wikipedia is full of information, which we can arrange in a thousand million different ways; I'm yet to be convinced that this is a good idea. Trebor (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding because I'm not sure I'm explaining myself very well. Wikipedia is full of articles about notable people, the vast majority of whom don't have HIV. The world is full of people who have HIV, the vast majority of whom aren't notable. We are drawing a Venn diagram, with a circle for notable people and a circle for people with HIV, and creating a list out of the bit which overlaps. Why is this bit notable? The people are notable, and the virus is notable, but that doesn't mean the people with the virus are notable and should be grouped. The article should really be titled "List of people who Wikipedia considers notable, and who also have HIV". Because that's the standard for being on it. Trebor (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"this particular collection of information does not exist outside of Wikipedia" Not true, although I suspect this is the largest and best sourced of such lists. Colin°^Talk 19:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there's certainly no ethical duty to our readers to provide this list : Your opinion. Mine is that once a sound,good,informative articles/lists like this one, that even went to featured status, have been provided, it is an ethical duty to our readers to maintain and take care of them, not to remove them.
but that doesn't mean it should be made. : But we're not asking for reasons for it to be made, we are asking for reasons it shouldn't be made.
I'm yet to be convinced that this is a good idea. : And I'm yet to be convinced that this isn't. Example: If I want to research, say, how the AIDS epidemic impacted the visual arts, having available a list of HIV-positive visual artists could be very useful as a start point (e.g. to see how their life/work was impacted by the disease). Being useful is normally not an inclusion criteria, but lists are different: they're meant to help the reader navigate the encyclopedia information. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The article should really be titled "List of people who Wikipedia considers notable, and who also have HIV". Because that's the standard for being on it." Yes, that is the standard for this list, and many other biographical lists, and it's only a matter of naming convention that they are not titled "List of notable people who..." List of people from California only contains people who merit articles, as does List of Georgetown University alumni, List of kidney stone formers, List of people born in 1920... The fact that no one is notable for being born in 1920 does not mean that there's no encyclopedic value to listing together those who were. Further, the creation of lists for real life groups that do not wholly consist of notable members, but are limited in practice only to members that merit articles, is in fact done across the board in Wikipedia: lists of companies, films, websites... That this is an appropriate practice and standard has been discussed ad nauseum, both in repeated AFDs and in numerous policy and guideline discussions regarding lists and notability criteria. They function both as navigational indexes of articles grouped by shared significant facts, and as supplemental subtopics to the fact (here, HIV) that the list is organized around. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do either of you think there's a limit to what we should list? Would either of you find anything wrong with the article List of rape victims, for instance, or List of people who have had miscarriages or List of child abuse victims? Trebor (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, no. Could you elaborate on why such articles should be intrinsically "wrong"? --Cyclopia ^talk 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Okay, it's clear we won't agree on this then. It comes down to a matter of personal standards. If you feel that BLP is only about covering ourselves legally, then those kinds of lists are fine (assuming they're maintained properly). Personally, I feel we should be setting ourselves a much higher standard. I think that, wherever possible, we should be trying to avoid doing any harm. And I think it's highly likely that some of the people on this list will not be happy with what we've done. The idea of having an ethical duty to our readers is rubbish; this is a community governed by consensus, so if the majority don't want to do something (for whatever reason), we don't do it. The decision will be made by the community, not the readers. If the consensus is that this kind of stuff is fine, then I can't do anything about it. Trebor (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think at all that BLP is only about covering ourselves legally. I think BLP means that we have to take more care in doing stuff when it deals with living people, because doing things wrong in this case can have direct real life consequences. This is fine. But we should not cry BLP when there are no real concrete BLP issues. There is a lot of stuff in our biographical articles that surely makes their subjects unhappy, but it stays and it is fully BLP-compliant, because it is properly sourced, verifiable and relevant to the article. If we only want to "do no harm" we then should shut down Wikipedia for good. As your opinion that "having an ethical duty to our readers is rubbish", I'm baffled: if you don't care about our readers, what are you doing here? --Cyclopia ^talk 17:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the legal issue. Someone said its moot for some reason. We know of one person (Naomi Russell) who was on the list for 2 days). Whether or not wikipedia has sourcing guidelines, this woman was subject to a libelous claim within the article for two full days. That is not something for us to gloss over. The fact that it was up there at all was a major problem. And ther reason it stayed so long, was because the person who added it, sourced it. However, the sourced article contained no mention of her. Editors simply didn't bother checking the source. And this is just scratching the surface. If we did a thorough review, who knows what would turn up. - - Also, I don't see the encyclopedic value of the list. This information can already be included in individual articles. But having a master list just creates two opportunities for innacurate material. The argument that its a valuable reference source is bogus, given that wikipedia articles themselves are not a proper source. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also was put a few times on the Naomi Russel article. Shall we delete that too? Wikipedia articles are not a proper source but of course are a valuable reference. Otherwise we could just shut down Wikipeida if it's not a valuable reference anymore. Garion96 (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off, wikipedia is not, nor has it ever been a reliable source (in fact the founder has made such a statement himself). Second, there is a big difference between innacurate content in a biography page, and a master list that is clearly going to be an ongoing problem because 1) Ethical issue of having a People with aids list, 2) the legal issue that arises, because the liklihood labelling someone as having AIDS/HIV is greater than on other pages (because the focus here is people with the virus). Others have noted the problem of devoting a list to people with HIV. Most of us are fine with that info being on a biography page. We're not okay (morally or legally) with a master list of who has the disease. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for it being a valuable reference, I don't think so. You shouldn't reference wikipedia articles while working on other wikipedia articles. There is a very good chance that the reason it ended up on her biography page twice, is becuase it was listed on the Whos got HIV page.Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1 and 2 I don't know for sure if I agree or not. That's what this debate is about. Regarding Naomi Russel. No, actually I think it was the same anon IP who did it on both pages. And the person did not sourced it. The IP just put a irrelevant newspaper article to it. Basically vandalism, not sourcing. That you shouldn't use Wikipedia as a source does not mean it is not a valuable resource. Those are two completely different things. If you don't see Wikipedia as a valuable resource, what are you doing here? It just is not a reliable source (like using it as a reference) which btw, I never said it was. Garion96 (talk) 19:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the ethical conlusions I am making are subjective, but I honeslty think they reflect the feelings of most people. Imagine tomorrow there is a NYT article that wikipedia has a list of people with HIV/AIDs. What do you think the reaction would be? I think there are serious ethical problems with such a list. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few of those lists have been used as a reference for this list actually. Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garion, that is sourcing it. It may be a flawed source, but for all intents and purposes, when people visit the page, it looks sourced. It wasn't until you followed the link that you realized there was a problem. And it wasn't the only item on the list with a questionable source (see discussion on the page for more). Further I don't think it was vandalism. It was innacurate, but I think it was from someone who simply believed the internet rumors were true, and the rumors were based on the article he included as a source (the rumor started because she retired soon after or around the time that the case in the article occured). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could as well state myself a billionaire and use the forbes list as a reference. That also is sourcing? Garion96 (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It is bad sourcing. But it is sourcing. The requirement isn't just that an item be sourced, but that the source be reliable and relevent. However, when someone opens the page and sees an item is sourced, they rarely check to investigate the later two points. And this is exactly how Naomi Russell was listed as HIV positive on this page.

If you do think my example is also considered sourcing. Than it's safe to way we will have to agree to disagree. :) Yes, the requirement is that the source be reliable and relevant. Ergo, there was no sourcing in this case. Garion96 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if a listing of people who have suffered from something unfortunate is encyclopedic, we might as well start a list of notable peopl who have suffered miscarriages. Or notable people who had colon cancer. There is something very sinister about list of People with HIV/AIDS. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Lists of people by medical condition. Tried to AFD some but didn't worked. Garion96 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because these pages exist, that doesn't mean they should. I for one believe they should be deleted. However, given the stigma associated with HIV, it is clearly even more problematic (and as a real world editor, I can also say confidently unencyclopedic). Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Deliciousgrapefruit, could you elaborate what's "sinister" about such a list? It's not like we're outing people, it is meant to be a list of already publicly known HIV infected people. About your editorial experience, well, WP is quite different from a classical old-school encyclopaedia and in any case WP:UNENCYC is a known fallacy. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is sinsiter about it? If you have to ask then maybe that sheds light on the problem. You have a disease that has a serious stigma attached to it, and you are creating a master list of all known people with the disease. Imagine if the new york times ran an article "100 people with HIV". If you can't see the difference between that and simply including it as an additional fact in someone's biography, I don't really know what to say. And again, the additional issues of people being on the list who shouldn't be are an issue. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be treated as a BLP page, and editing didn't do a good enough job in this case. Someone was on here for two days who doesn't have the disease. That is a major problem. Not a minor one. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You probably want to say that this should be treated as a BLP page -and indeed it has to be. But yes, what happened is a major problem, I fully agree. It is called vandalism and unfortunately it can have bad real-life consequences. However when the John Seigenthaler page was vandalized, in the most known incident that led to current BLP practices, we didn't react by deleting his page. This is a publicly editable site, so every page is a potential hazard. If you think that shutting off hazards is the only way, then you want to shut off WP for good. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant to say it shouldn't be treated as BLP. It is a list, not a biography. A biography can express nuance (such as "it was reported that so and so has HIV"), but a list like this is binary: the person is listed as simply having the disease. Sure every page is a potential hazard, but one specifically intended only to list people who have HIV is going to be more problematic. And again there is no encyclopedic need for the list, nor is ethically advisable to have such a list. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- And no, that wasn't vandalism. Doesn't even come close. I am assuming the person who posted that believed it was correct, and believed the article was an adequate source. It wasn't vandalism, it was bad editing. Something that is frankly, all too much the norm on wikipedia.You guys keep citing wikie guidelines, I will continue to reference US law. When my magazine trends into libel, I don't show prosecutors my style guide. People must begin to understand, this isn't a game. The rules have changed for online publishing. People are subject to the same laws as print publishers now. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it was an honest mistake or vandalism, it's the same. In the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, these things will forever happen. We have to do everything possible to keep open eyes and avoid these situations, but the only way to be sure is shutting down WP for good. In any case, if your fear WP being sued, contact Mike Godwin, Wikimedia lawyer. --Cyclopia ^talk 20:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, Cyclopia, it is not the Wikimedia Foundation who would get sued. They are not liable for editors' contributions (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act). It is the editors themselves, personally, who would be sued, and there is nothing that says the Foundation would have to support them in their defence. The Seigenthaler editor for example was identified eventually, and so have been editors in another couple of cases. Mike Godwin has not been the Foundation's lawyer for a few months. --JN 466 23:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Any BLP issues can easily be fixed by editing, therefore there is no need for deletion.—Chris!_c/t 20:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm proud to have made several edits to this page because I think it is important information and because I think it is important for good people to pay careful attention to the sourcing for every entry on the page. I admit that I don't come to look at this page every time I see an edit to it, but I didn't realize that "only" 73 people had it watchlisted (that number is surprisingly small). Protection would be a good idea in view of the potential for harm, but pages should not be deleted simply because they are targets for malicious mischief. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You people should be ashamed supporting an article like this. Wikipedia is a terrible source for information, and I can see by the editing guidelines it is destined to remain a third rate source. I am going to make sure everyone on the list has a chance to know abou it. And I will right about it on my wikiwatch blog. Looks like the wikigeeks win again. This has to be the worst encyclopedia I've ever read. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking you seriously but not necessary agreeing with you. But after seeingthis edit and this edit it does make that much harder. Garion96 (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Oh dear, and after these edits he is giving us lessons. Let's stop feeding this troll. Thanks for the heads up Garion96. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs) has now been blocked indefinitely. Colin°^Talk 22:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject is notable - I recall magazines and books detailing lists of creative lives lost through the illness, especially in the 80s and early 90s. I think with semiprotection and judiciious watching it can be safeguarded. Having all people on it referenced helps as well. I am open to the idea of reframing as deaths from HIV too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

back in the 1980s and early 1990s there was great interest in AIDS related deaths by the media as a way of outing gays, and disparaging celebrity sexual excesses. SHOCK HORROR Rock Hudson was TEH GAY! Personally I thought we were beyond that by now. You can see that happening in the first name on the list Amanda Blake where the doctor is keen on telling the world it wasn't cancer, and the referenced news article is keen on pointing the finger of blame on her dead husband. John lilburne (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its all quite disgraceful, and I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a pro-tobacco lobby influence in that particular reporting/outing either. John lilburne (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's disappointing how individuals' perceptions of these issues are tainting how they evaluate the validity of this list. "I don't like how this information is used" is not a valid deletion rationale; really no more substantive than IDONTLIKEIT. Where you only see outing and disparagement, many others saw (and see) in publicizing HIV/AIDS victims a vital need to communicate information about the disease, and a need to make its victims visible when much of the world would have rather ignored it or pretended it was a disease only certain kinds of people could get. Or is the AIDS Quilt also an act of morbid media disparagement? Rock Hudson himself disclosed that he was dying of AIDS in a press release, and if you don't know why his case was significant you have some reading to do. postdlf (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If People want to be a poster child to advertise HIV/AIDS then fine. But that doesn't appear to be the case with many on the list, where there HIV/AIDS death was mainly an outing from the pages of prurient celebrity gossip mongers. RH may have made a press statement but he also denied that it had anything to do with him being gay. It was also 25 years ago and I doubt that today there are many people in the at risk groups that know or care who he was. His poster child days were a couple of decades ago. As is most of those on the list how many care about or have ever heard of some daytime American soap actor, or a news anchor from the 1980s? In fact if one scans the list it reads that it was all something that happened 20 years ago - about 25 in the last 10 years. There is hardly any mention of any new modern recruits to the list, which probably reflects that the real world is no longer that interested. John lilburne (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is beside the point. Deletion is a policy-based decision. Colin°^Talk 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy was outlined by sandstein right at the top of this page, which hasn't been countered. Down here at the bottom of the page we are dealing with the BUTILIKEIT brigade. John lilburne (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I disagree (that it's beside the point). Policy is, in theory at least, descriptive of community opinion and debates like this help form it. I don't see anything directly applicable to this kind of article (correct me if I've missed something) in policy yet. The issue is not sourcing, it's that some of us feel that the grouping and listing of people who have HIV, regardless of the significance of HIV to their lives, is inappropriate and could hurt living people. And that Wikipedia should try to avoid doing that, even if we aren't legally required to. You may disagree that the list could be harmful. You may disagree that Wikipedia should care if it is. But I don't think it's fair to say that these concerns should be ignored. (Incidentally, do you feel there are any lists which would be inappropriate?) Trebor (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those concerns aren't ignored; they are the basis for requiring careful sourcing in this list and in any other article. You can justify your deletion opinion out of concern for harm to others all you like, but how is your rationale anything other than "I don't like this list"? You have not claimed that it is POV, or unverifiable, or that the entries are not notable...or any other concern relevant to editing an encyclopedia. You have only asserted a subjective feeling that doesn't support your position any more than its opposite. As noted elsewhere, concern for harm to others could also favor keeping this list, for those who publicly disclosed their HIV-positive status to help educate others and to fight the perception that it was something to be ashamed of, or those who publicize notable victims of the disease to illustrate to a vulnerable and often ignorant public that it can affect any demographic, regardless of sexual orientation, wealth, or other quality.

As for what lists that would be inappropriate, if a fact is noted and verified in most or all of the individual articles for qualifying members and nontrivial to most or all of them, then it is potentially fair game for a list, unless the compiled information is somehow defective, such as for lack of a NPOV definition. We don't restrict lists, or facts in individual articles, only to subjects that don't make us uncomfortable, or to subjects that reflect accomplishments or other positive things. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Delete, partly per The Hand That Feeds You (particularly in his later comments on why a cat would be better than a list), partly per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: Everyone dies of something; we don't have List of people with high blood pressure ~~or anything of that sort.~~ We do, but that's another issue. I would support deletion of most of these lists as well. What illness certain notable people have (had) is in all but a few cases totally irrelevant even if it can be referenced. For the majority of the entries HIV was not the reason for encyclopedic inclusion, and if this list was trimmed to those, it would still need a new name. --Pgallert (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deleting the other lists as well. Over the last few days I've been thinking along similar lines. There's no way we could ever list all of the people who have ever contracted this disease, nor is there a need to. The list as it is seems to exist for titallations sake, as it is a list of famous people with AIDS not a list of people known for having AIDS.He iro 00:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that categories are more often not checked for BLP violations, this is. The result is still the same, with both you have lists. Except this one is referenced, the category entries often not. Garion96 (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really perplexed by the claims that the categories are somehow less BLP-problematic than a list; that the formatting limitations of categories prevent direct sourcing of category tags, nuance or qualifiers in the category name, or annotation of entries on the category page is entirely what WP:BLPCAT is all about. I think this confusion illustrates well why it isn't productive for the BLPCAT standard to leak into other areas of content as some would like, because then it just obscures the concrete concerns that are unique to categories to the extent that some have come to see categories as somehow less problematic than lists, which completely turns BLPCAT on its head. postdlf (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But The Hand... explained it really well, BLPs are watchlisted (listwatched?!) by editors who have a clue about those people whereas a list of HIV positive people is probably watchlisted by editors who have a clue about HIV (ideally). I have some really obscure BLPs watchlisted, people in my very limited field of expertise. Someone inserts Category:HIV positive people to any of them without giving a source, I revert, type "rvv", and warn. Someone does it to any of the lists that fly around, and I won't notice. Of course you cannot add cats that are not supported by the article prose, and a ref. --Pgallert (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speak from experience. If there are 100's of articles the chance that not all are being carefully watched is quite high. You have no idea how many times I had to remove Category:HIV-positive people from articles when I cleaned up this list. Garion96 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just a marginal observation for whose who think that such a list cannot be encyclopedic or useful in any way, well, it seems this very list has been used as a reference in a book [36]. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm pretty neutral on this article, that link very frightening. It's good evidence that improperly-cited subjects in the article could have their lives damaged by what we write. Then again, if all of the entries are cited beyond a doubt... Them From Space 21:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Provided that the sourcing is adequate, this list is, in my opinion, quite "encyclopedic" (though that's as bout a poorly defined term as you can get). There are clearly people who would be interested in knowing a list of people who are (were) HIV positive, and such a list provides a way to find them without having to know their name ahead of time. Are there people on this list who shouldn't be, either because the sourcing is not adequate, or because the fact that their HIV is unimportant to their biography (and thus shouldn't even be mentioned in their article)? Probably. Is this list a big BLP concern? Absolutely. But neither the fact that an article isn't perfect, nor the fact that it is potentially problematic, are grounds for deletion. Buddy431 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some have voiced concerns over the subjects' privacy, which ignores the fact that 1) we only repeat information that is already publicly available in reliable sources; 2) their own article will state, if verified, that they are HIV-positive, and if not then they should not be in this list; 3) many, if not most of the people on this list publicly disclosed their HIV-positive status; 4) many of the people on this list would further find it more hurtful to have such information deleted than preserved, because they want the scope of the epidemic fully public and don't want their status made invisible just because some people are squeamish. So concerns for harm to article subjects, to the extent those are relevant at all, certainly do not favor deletion but instead can cut both ways.
But the point that undercuts every deletion rationale presented here is the acknowledgment that this is an appropriate fact to mention within individual bio articles. Some have even gone so far as to support a category for the inclusion of those articles. I think it's safe to say that if a notable individual's HIV-positive status is verified by reliable sources, then it would absolutely be of utmost relevance to their own biographical article. The nature of this disease is such that you can't have it without it seriously affecting your life. Yet somehow a list that cross-indexes articles based on that highly significant, shared fact magically transforms that information into something inappropriate. In other words, it's okay for separate Wikipedia articles to note that notable people are HIV-positive, but we should require people to use Google or sift through "what links here" if someone wants to find multiple Wikipedia articles on notable people who have this in common. If it is appropriate for an individual's article to state this as a verified fact, then it cannot be simultaneously inappropriate for a list to restate the same fact, unless the list is subject to some additional fault, for example if the list's information is trivial for most entries (obviously not true here) or there is no workable NPOV inclusion criteria (again not true here). postdlf (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said, Postdlf. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, excellent comment. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a difference between "Oh, this medieval poet was born around Nottinghamshire, what other poets were connected to that area?" and "Ah, this actor contracted HIV, who else shared this fate?". Maybe I am lacking imagination; what (serious) endeavour might lead you to the latter question? Does an encyclopedia need to entertain this type of curiousness? I am not convinced it does. --Pgallert (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comparing and contrasting notable case studies of a highly publicized disease at the forefront of public health concerns worldwide for nearly thirty years, and a disease that has (whether we like it or not) been widely portrayed to the public by means of its notable victims. Comparing and contrasting who contracted it and how, whether and how they publicized their infection, how their HIV-positive status impacted public perception of them as an individual or perception of the disease, how they coped with the illness, how their health subsequently fared. And it would aid in article writing for those who want to research and flesh out the experience of each individual listed with HIV within their separate biographical articles. It's certainly no less serious than comparing how a place of origin impacted different people from there, how being an alumni of a particular educational institution influenced different people, or any other shared significant biographical fact that we list. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)We have proof that at least one serious endeavour has used this very list as a reference here. But we can also imagine. Let's suppose I want to study the impact of HIV on the arts. Specifically, I may wonder how the experience of being HIV positive can have changed the perspective of artists and influenced their work. This sounds quite plausible to me -I wouldn't be surprised if such a study already exists. Now, the first thing I'd need to investigate this cultural issue is... a list of HIV-positive notable artists. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No we do not have proof. We have a reference in a book to the list, but we don't know why it is being used as areferenced. For all we know it could "Some people still insist on marginalizing women by extracting out the fact that they died of HIV/AIDS and list alongside criminals and sex workers."^[1] John lilburne (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to extract an objective principle from this comment. Is it that we shouldn't make lists based on facts that are also true of criminals or sex workers? In which case, this list (which includes Jeffrey Dahmer), this list (which includes Sunset Thomas), and this list (which includes Pretty Boy Floyd) should also be deleted. Or are you saying that HIV/AIDS is and should remain known as a disease defined by criminals and sex workers? In which case, you've helped to personally illustrate why this list is informative and useful. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably safe to say that being HIV-positive has more impact in the present day than place of birth on most careers and the content of one's work, artistic or otherwise. Unless Magic Johnson retired from the NBA because he was born in Lansing, Michigan; David Wojnarowicz's controversial work is about Red Bank, New Jersey; Rock Hudson was the first major American celebrity to disclose that he was born in Winnetka, Illinois... postdlf (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can I ask that those who insist this article is well sourced to take a look at the accompanying article for Mason Wyler? It seems to be sourcing his HIV status to Twitter, and much of the other detail comes from a (NSFW) gay porn website. At least the list seems to be using a more reliable source for his HIV status. If an argument is made that the list is useful to find articles on HIV+ persons, one would hope that those articles would at least be properly sourced too. Actually, on a more general point, can I suggest that it might be better to look at the actual list content more when discussing it. Contrary to its title, it seems overwhelmingly composed of male US citizens, frequently from an arts/media background. Furthermore, there are relatively few on the list who are still alive, which rather negates the suggestion that it could provide inspiration for HIV-positive readers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with the fact that this list is well sourced? The source used for the list is this, definitely a reliable source. Garion96 (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If there are inadequately sourced entries, fix it. That's not a reason for deletion, not where there are indisputably many entries that are well-sourced and the list as conceived is certainly sourceable. Your other comments (re: "provid[ing] inspiration") are...well, irrelevant to whether the list should be deleted. I'm not going to restate here the myriad reasons why publicization of notable HIV/AIDS victims has occurred, but it clearly has, and it clearly has had great educational and cultural value to a great many groups and individuals. That you personally don't get it is not a reason for deletion. Your observation on the list's demographics indicate either that it is incomplete as far as applicable Wikipedia subjects, in which case (again) fix it, or that those are simply the groups of notable people that were hardest hit (true to some extent; men more than women, certainly; and artists more than, say, physicists). postdlf (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixed now. The source on Mason Wyler was a lousy source. The source on this list however was a good source and is now added to the Mason Wyler article. Garion96 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above "No policy or guideline-based deletion rationale" - it is not a collection of notable information. The fact that X or Y is HIV positive is not notable enough for a separate article (which, in essence, this is as there is also no encyclopaedic reason for having such a list, again for reasons of notability, these people don't congregate or associate any more than any other group of people. In fact they are not a defined group anyway.) The policy arguement, or at least mine, is WP:NOTABLE S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're saying that any list should be deleted for which you could not write an article about each entry's inclusion in that list (for example, don't list anyone in List of Georgetown University undergraduate alumni unless you could write a separate article about their schooling there?), that's thankfully not a recognized standard, nor a good one. On the other hand, for many of the entries there have been multiple reliable sources giving significant coverage specifically of their HIV-positive status, so even if that were a valid and consensus-supported standard, that would not even compel deletion of this list, only its pruning. postdlf (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Usefulness" is a criterion for whether to keep a list. I can see the usefulness of keeping this information in biographies; if someone wishes to have a relationship with a person this would be relevant information which they would like to know. But under what circumstance would I want to find lots of people who are HIV-positive? To send them spam mail? Merely for prurient interest? I know I could collect this information from categories or Google, but there's no reason to make it easy. Has anyone here used this list for anything? What was their purpose in using the list? A list should have a purpose other than "We can make a list of this". Dingo1729 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a probably real use case and sound theorical ones above. --Cyclopia ^talk 01:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the same token, Dingo, it can be argued that you !voted "delete" because the list isn't useful to you. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia: I think you would have to agree that your real world case is extremely flimsy when not even Wikipedia would use such a reference. I didn't see any sound theoretical uses unless you count "navigational aid" or "historic and educational use". Perhaps I missed something in all the chatter.

(added later) Ah, now I see your suggestion of a study of the effect of HIV/AIDS on the arts. Yes that might make the list useful as a start point. Of course I couldn't rely on it and I'm not changing my vote because I still believe that there are too many negatives outweighing the positive.

@Erpert: It's not so much that I don't have a use for it, more that I have suspicions of how it might be used. It could be used to target people on the list. I don't think we should facilitate that. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the policy and ethical reasons articulately expressed by postdlf and by Casliber. The information is publicly available, well sourced, and treated as relevant and important in reliable sources. There is no good reason why Wikipedia should make access to this information more difficult. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what information would that be? Its a mantra often repeated yet not one of the 'keepers' can actually point to a reason why the list is useful. I'll ask you directly why is this list useful? Now I can understand that a HIV/AIDS campaign group may want to keep a list of relevant people that contracted HIV as part of an awareness campaign and in accordance with wishes of those involved. But this list does not even do that, it has people on it that died 20 years ago. Most of the people on it the current at risk group won't have heard of, and inclusion on the list isn't approved of by the people involved. So again WHAT PURPOSE does this list have. John lilburne (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been asked and answered ad nauseum. For a basic answer, it serves the same function as any other list in Category:Lists of people by medical condition. For a more detailed answer, you can reread any of my comments above. "I don't get it" is not a valid deletion argument; you're not advancing or developing your position by repeating that. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Lilburne, you're being disingenous. Examples of legitimate use cases have been discussed above and there is even a real book that probably used this list as a reference. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the least. The book references the list but we don't know why it does so. The subject of the book is on the marginalisation of women. This list is in itself a marginalisation, a separation of people from the rest of society based on a disease. I may be wrong but I suspect that the reference isn't because the text is praising this list as a good thing. John lilburne (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This list is in itself a marginalisation, a separation of people from the rest of society based on a disease. : Oh dear. Is the war on lists the next battle of politically correctness? --Cyclopia ^talk 00:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists where the notability of the thing listed is directly related to the list GOOD. Lists where the notability of the thing listed is subsidiary to the thing listed bad. So list of Nobel prize winners good. List of people who have spots on their back bad. This list falls into the later group. Yah know that a Google for "list of people with aids" brings up mirrors of this list, sites that say its a horrible and intrusive thing to do, and a site where people are adding names on the bases of "He added me, so I'm adding him". John lilburne (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your last WP:IDONTLIKEIT rant. (By the way, the answers.com link doesn't say anything of what you attribute to it, but even if it did, it wouldn't change anything -we don't delete content because it is considered unpleasant to some). --Cyclopia ^talk 22:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well composed list with references, however, entries that don't have articles but have references should be allowed to be added to list.--XLR8TION (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot find any of our policies that this article contravenes. I don't like it and it makes me feel like a voyeur – but this is my problem. Some of the sources are questionable, but this again has nothing to do with a deletion discussion. I saw a question above regarding what purpose the list serves, but again having a purpose is not a criteria for inclusion. From now on I will watch this page, I think this is all that is needed from responsible editors. Graham Colm (talk) 13:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish more editors would prioritise their ethical concerns above Wikipedia guidelines. That way we might end up having more ethically responsible guidelines. --JN 466 23:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not totally sure what you're getting at or whether this is a positive or negative remark on Graham's comment. But the implication that either some editors aren't ethical in their behaviour or don't regard ethical concerns as important (if that is what you are saying) isn't fair. This information is in the public ___domain already and I haven't seen anyone raise any concerns about the information being noted in the person's bio article. For what it's worth, if a person indicated (either to Wikipedia or otherwise) that they wished the information wasn't in the public ___domain, then I for one would be happy to remove them from this list, though I suspect some editors would resist removing it from their bio. I completely fail to see why making a list, and one that is better sourced that the average bio, raises further ethical concerns. If there were genuine ethical concerns, we'd be disabling "what links here" from the HIV article. Colin°^Talk 08:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Postdlf's rebuttal of the "privacy" argument of 16:24, 7 January 2011. The well-annotated list is clearly relevant to the coverage of HIV, because many of the entries on the list represent examples who gave HIV infection a face. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing discussion by sockpuppet of blocked user. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: I am striking through the following discussion. It started with a comment made by a banned user, and then continued as a discussion about that user, not about whether the article should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to delete this article. I vote as decision method in order to decide whether to keep or delete, to be used the strong majority(2/3) decision method. I vote for the keep_or_delete decision to be valid for 12 months then reconsider. I vote for this Vfd poll to be legitimate only if after 7 days voters' participation will exceed 4% of the List of Active Vfd Voters. Iasson3 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What a curious second edit, particularly when you consider that this hasn't been called Vfd for years. I vote that this is not a vote. postdlf (talk)
  - Vfd should be a call for votes. Otherwise there is no respect for people who participate here. You are saying to them, tell whatever you want, vote whatever you wish, but we decide finally.This is a parody, and this is why Wikipedia has a somehow bad reputation. The way I voted above, is a also a vote. If everyone votes the way I do, a result can be extracted. Iasson3 (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions [37] Graham Colm (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that my contributions are much more than yours. The reason why you cannot see them, it is because I am anonymous, and I change my account frequently. Please read and comment on what I am saying here,and stop spying at my contributions and beliefs, like a secret agent. Iasson3 (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically telling us you are a sockupuppet? Cool. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppets. Puppeteers are using more than one accounts at the same time. I am using only one account, but because I want to remain anonymous, I frequently destroy the old account it and I create another one. But I use only one account at a time, and I never vote or talk using two or more accounts concurrently.Iasson3 (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson. He was then indef-banned for sockpuppetry. This is either an impersonator or a sockpuppet, but either way, the account is indefblocked. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle is a liar. Iasson's case closed April 4 2005 and Iasson was banned for just 1 year. Sjakkalle himself, without asking anyone, banned Iasson forever (seen in Iasson's block log [38]). Is there any wikipedia policy that punishes liars? I dont think so. Threat redacted GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Iasson4 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per AndyTheGrump. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many of the arguements above, this list is no different than lists of people with other conditions. Just because they have HIV doesn't mean they are a special case compared to other conditions. -DJSasso (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which other lists are you referring to? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This entire category for example, there are more than that as well I believe but this category illustrates my point enough. -DJSasso (talk) 15:25, 12 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 Mandsford 20:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams and Shadows

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

Articles about a straight-to-DVD film and its maker, posted by SPA user Filmwalker (talk · contribs), which I have blocked as an obvious role account for Makonnen's Filmwalker Productions. I do not find enough independent reliable sources to suggest that the film meets WP:NF or that Makonnen meets WP:CREATIVE. (Searches for the film are confused by a book of the same name). JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the film exists, and has screened at festivals, neither the film nor the filmmaker[39] have coverage or awards that would allow either the film consideration under WP:NF, or the filmmaker under WP:BIO. Simply WP:TOOSOON... if ever. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my delete in light of active work to address issues. I still feel it probably a bit too soon, but for now, I'm willing to give the editor the benefit of the doubt.... and heck... this article can always be revisited if not further improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve, the article is within the scope of the WikiProject and is supported by the American Cinema Task Force. It's also listed on Imdb.com and Amazon.com. The film was recently reviewed on www.Wearemoviegeeks.com and premiered at the American Film Institute. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artlines478 (talk • contribs) 08:06, January 4, 2011

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) 03:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Could do with more than one reference in it, so if there are reliable ones add them now. I'm probably out on a limb here - but this might stir things up a bit. Peridon (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help Need help with removing Cite error in Reference section of article. Artlines478 (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at it before, and it looked like you'd pasted your name in instead of the ref. As I'm hopeless with refs myself, and didn't know what you were trying to add, I left it well alone... Peridon (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it. Artlines478 was apparently tring to expand a quotation and wished a cite back to the source of the quote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking much better. Peridon (talk) 22:44, 11 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. Most of the rest of the comments, despite what would seem to be overwhelming consensus, are worthless. AfD is not a vote, it is a place to bring coherent, logical, policy-based arguments, or, in those rare situations where policy should not apply, simply cogent rhetoric. "Did you try Google Books? No, you obviously didn't" is sarcasm, not an argument. Threatening to leave unless it's kept is blackmail, not an argument. Going "As a handicapped person myself, I have used this term" is WP:ILIKEIT, not an argument. "This term is used by those in the disabled communitys" is certainly not an argument, although it does succeed in being grammatically incorrect. The only things saving this article are the similarly low quality of the delete comments and the work of User:Gimme danger, whose attempt to provide sources is commendable (and certainly more than most of you did). The weight given to users' comments at AfD and in other areas is based on the strength of their argument, not the strength of the emotion behind it. If people could please remember this in future, I would be most grateful. Ironholds (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ableism

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was proposed for deletion back in March 2007 and kept at that time. However, since then, it continues to appear to be a neologism with no general adoption — indeed, no adoption at all — from the legal community, of which the article claims to be the key area in which this concept is involved. (What I mean is this: I've just re-run Lexis searches for databases available to me: 0 California cases use it (even though California is a leading jurisdiction in the disability rights movement); 0 United States federal cases use it; and 0 non-California American state court cases within the last 10 years (that is the extent that the databases are available to me as far as non-California and non-federal cases are concerned) use it. Among legal journal articles available to me on Lexis (which is limited due to the package I get, but it's not a particularly small package), it's been used once in the last 10 years (Carrie Griffin Basas, "Back Rooms, Board Rooms - Reasonable Accommodation and Resistance Under the ADA, 29 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 59 (2008)). Without adoption by the community, I think it is simply unsupported and is essentially original research. Delete (not merge) and then redirect to Disability rights movement. --Nlu (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disability discrimination is a real part of society, whether anyone recognizes it or not, despite any legal reference here. NorthernThunder (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And you think that disability discrimination isn't dealt with in the law? Of course it is, everyday -- but the courts and the legal community call it disability discrimination, not the made-up term of "abelism." --Nlu (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any justification within the article for restricting the search for reliable references to legal sources (although of course they are relevant too). The article does not mention "law" or "legal" in the lead (although perhaps it should) but does mention social sciences, and there are sections on architecture and ideology before the section on the law. --Mirokado (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do not mean to suggest that the term is only justified if commonly used in law. However, the utter lack of any reference to it in the legal arena is strong evidence is that the term is not an accepted term of common usage. --Nlu (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did you try Google Books? No, you obviously didn't. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, I think the fact that books mention it is irrelevant. It's not used in the arena that the article claims that it is used and therefore is a neologism that has failed to receive common acceptance. --Nlu (talk) 03:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonetheless, Roscelese is quite right. You obviously didn't even try to see what was written in books about this subject. That you are dismissing books as "irrelevant" is worse still. As an encyclopaedist, you are supposed to be reading what books say about the subject, not outright dismissing books as irrelevant. Your approach to encyclopaedia writing is completely wrongheaded. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically, in contrast, even just using the phrase "disability discrimination" (without searching also for inflected forms or split forms (like "discrimination against the disabled")), there are 136 California cases and more than 3000 federal cases (so much so that Lexis refused to give me a complete number due to the sheer numbers). You mean to tell me that in contrast "ableism" isn't just a made-up neologism? --Nlu (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (As an example, you are going to find references to "iCrime" in Google Scholars as well.[40] But Wikipedia does not and should not have an article for "iCrime" it's a failed neologism as well.) --Nlu (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are quite a few hits in Google books and Google Scholar, enough to satisfy me that it's a relatively widely used term. The article is in a poor state, but that doesn't mean that an article shouldn't exist. Adpete (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only reference in this article after five years or so is a link to a google search result of a book review the text of which does not directly support the content it purports to reference (perhaps the book does but there is no page number given and no ISBN so quite possibly the original author never actually read it.) The article content is mostly unsupported rhetoric. It is also riddled with weasel words which give it a false appearance of authority. The article title is a ridiculous made-up word which I have never once heard used in real life (usage by pressure groups pushing their agenda does not count in my view towards establishing the notability of a term, it must be in widespread general use or the subject of reliable third-party historical reports to be an article title: it obviously is not or it would have been referenced already). In case this seems a bit negative, I would like to point out that I think there may be a place for an article with a sensible title covering Discrimination against the disabled (the actions of those doing the discriminating and their effects) as distinct from that covering the Disability rights movement, parallel with other articles on discrimination. Those who wish to keep the article should start adding references. To help you, I have tagged the locations which most immmediately need a reference or rewriting and may have another look after completing this post. It is the responsibility of the originating author (or anyone who wishes to retain unsourced challenged content) to provide references, not a subsequent reader, and, if the article is retained, I will delete tagged content, particularly with the who and whom tags, for which no references are provided (although I may also look for references myself as well). --Mirokado (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You should not only look for sources yourself, you should treat your remit as an encyclopaedia writer (which is what you're here for, remember) as involving the writing of an encyclopaedia, not just the tagging and removal of other people's work. Do some writing yourself. Research the subject. Don't go down Nlu's highly erroneous path of not looking in books. Build the encyclopaedia yourself. It's not as if there are no academic sources discussing this subject. Roscelese found some with ease. I found some with ease. You should have found some with ease, too. Nlu's wrongheadedness here is indeed an example of how not to be an encyclopaedist, and how not to do the proper research.
  Yes, people wrote a whole load of drivel without citing sources. (I was highly tempted to use "Drivel" as a section title to separate it off, but I resisted and chose something else.) That's your cue, as an encyclopaedia writer to fix the problem that you see by picking up the literature on the subject, reading it, digesting it, and writing an enyclopaedia article based upon it. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. And AFD is not Cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Wikipedia is not supposed to be a depository of every term there that has failed to gain common acceptance, either. I don't think "proper research" requires me to (given the results that pop up when "ableism" is searched for — which, as noted, in Google searches yields non-neutral sources that are completely outnumbered by, for example, the number of sources you would find by searching "disability discrimination" and, in legal sources, yields virtually no source at all — in order to see that "ableism" is a made-up word that has no common acceptance. I don't think I am required to throw common sense out the window and conduct a fruitless and counterproductive fishing expedition on the encyclopedic value of this term just because there are some sources somewhere using the term. When a major field that the article claims uses the term actually doesn't use it at all, the term doesn't deserve an article.
  - And while deletion is not a substitute to cleanup, right now, the content has no redeeming value and is close to complete garbage. Throwing the garbage out facilitates a proper encyclopedic treatment of the subject rather than hinders it. You state above that "[w]riting the encyclop[e]dia is not [s]omeone [e]lse's [p]roblem." Terrific idea. But neither is it our problem somehow transform garbage into gold. If the subject is to be treated properly in an article, its editors should not be laden with the burden of trying to transform a rubbish pit into Taj Mahal. Writing an encyclopedia does not require that you try to catch every paper airplane and try to incorporate it into the encyclopedia. --Nlu (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - "You should ... look for sources yourself". I most certainly should not if other editors have been adding unreferenced content wholesale, presumably on the assumption, if they care at all, that somebody else will waste his time tidying up after them. They must learn to do things properly and if they do not the unsourced material must be removed to avoid misinformation being mirrored all over the world. Having said that I do in fact sometimes add references myself (recently The Horse Whisperer for example) but not at the expense of any new (referenced) content. --Mirokado (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is in more of a mess than I had at first realised. Following a bungled attempted move which seems to have been made without discussion or consensus (nothing on the talk page) the talk page has the original title Talk:Discrimination against the disabled whereas the article has the title Ableism as above. The main related actions were cut-and-paste "move" of article only and history merge. If this article is to be kept I expect the original title (which I mentioned independently above) to be restored. Anyone who wishes to do so can then initiate a properly managed contested move request if they see fit. I would correct this myself in any case, but it may be better to leave things as they are while this deletion request is active. Any comment from Nlu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirokado (talk • contribs)
- It looks to me that the copy-and-paste issue was solved back in November and really isn't an issue (as much as I hate to admit it). It is still my opinion that the article should be deleted and rewritten on a clean slate (under something like "disability discrimination," which, as I noted above, is what the courts and the legal community uses) if at all (I am still not convinced that this is not something that is adequately covered and coverable under the disability rights movement article). --Nlu (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is because, as noted, not only have you not bothered to look in books, you have actively resisted looking in books. It is questionable whether other people should work to convince someone who is making a basic error in how to write an encyclopaedia of the encyclopaedicity of a subject, rather than to convince them to stop making that basic error and start being a proper encyclopaedist first. Go and read books. Do your research properly. And when you want something rewritten, pull out your own editing tool and do what an encyclopaedia writer is supposed to do: write. Nominating things for deletion as a substitute for cleanup is completely wrongheaded. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion request. By the nature of my work on it, on WikiProject Disability generally, and by my comments here, my reasons for keeping this article should be obvious. I won't restate them or I'll be going on forever. Good luck all. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Threats are not good arguments. If your commitment is that tenuous, you shouldn't be going around threatening people. It just makes you look like a bully rather than a contributor. --Nlu (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to be clear, I saw no threat to me in the doubts expressed in the linked response and would ask you to drop that concern. Mr K and I have known each other on-wiki for some time (it's clear we have different opinions about nearly everything except breathing regularly but that just makes our conversations interesting). --Mirokado (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In light of Mirokado's clarification, my initial interpretation of this as a threat is withdrawn. --Nlu (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Merge to some article about discrimination against disabled people. My Google searches of books and scholar show the word "albeism" is used, but never in a neutral way. That would make it unsuitable for an article title. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your Google searches have been inadequate. Not that you needed them so much at this point. You could have just read some of the sources cited in the article, which discuss the subject perfectly happily and "neutrally", whatever you thought that might have meant, and which are written by people with credentials in the field. Uncle G (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a handicapped person myself, I have used this term. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This term is used by those in the disabled communitys. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/redirect This article should not be deleted. However, it seems clear that the primary term used to describe acts of discrimination against the disabled is disability discrimination rather than abelism (though is does seem that this term is more infrequently used). The article should be moved to Disability discrimination and abelism turned into a redirect with alternate title. Ajbpearce (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The primary term in academic and education contexts for describing the attitudes and institutions of society that disadvantage disabled people. The term has a wider scope and different focus than "discrimination against the disabled", much like sexism has a wider scope and different focus than "discrimination against women". Sources abound. --Danger (talk) 02:47, 13 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, due to failing to meet the general notability guideline. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Craig

(Find sources: "Anne Craig" – news · books · scholar · free images)

does not meet notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 5 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Alfano

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

does not meet notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well known TV personality, and now is the founder of a popular lifestyle website. She is also well known as a presenter and host on the speaking circuits. Sources support notability. Geofth (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second discussion I've seen you at, making these grandiose claims. Not a single "source" there is RS, where do you get that she is well known and popular?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:25, 10 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viera Schottertova

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

No significant coverage to be found. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Schottertova placed second in the world finale of the Elite Model Look in Nice, 1997. I found an interview in the newspaper SME [41], and a profile published by Slovak news server zoznam.cz [42]. I'm not sure whether this is notable enough. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 5 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) 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Script-a-thon

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

Contested prod. No evidence that this competition is notable. E. Fokker (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm trying to address the concerns raised as the process goes on, although I'm not sure if I'm writing these messages in the correct place. I believe the contest is notable for it's high profile judges, and it's marathon aspect. Thanks for your patience as I bring the quality up to speed! Mattgieg (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's notable if knowledge of it is properly documented and published by people independent of the subject who have good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Since you aren't telling everyone else where you got your knowledge of this subject from, as you properly should be from your first edit onwards, you aren't demonstrating that you are, indeed, writing down properly, and already, documented knowledge, rather than making things up out of thin air or documenting the undocumented. Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources (or any sources) cited to show that this event is notable per WP:N. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And what did your searches for sources turn up? Uncle G (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The event's own site and Facebook pages, blogs, and this Wikipedia article. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wait! I can prove it! Mattgieg (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Editing article to provide citations. Namely http://www.thescriptathon.com Mattgieg (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need sources outside of the scriptathon site for this to be approved? Do blogs suffice or no? Mattgieg (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see our reliable source guidelines. Nakon 02:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viewing guidelines. Apologies for poor preparation. Will review and post links within the next few minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattgieg (talk • contribs) 02:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having trouble with ref tags. Searching for example. Can ref tags be for a web address? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattgieg (talk • contribs) 02:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are the references found by Nawlin Wiki inappropriate to include here? Mattgieg (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are not appropriate. The event's own site and Facebook pages are not independent. Blogs are not reliable sources. Please look at WP:RS again. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 5 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) 00:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia Kavanagh Dodge

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

I'm not sure her role in the US government merits an article. She was director of the Office of Affordable Housing Preservation and received the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development distinguished service award, but does that make someone necessarily notable enough for a page on Wikipedia? Alex (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability made, no evidence of notability through a Google search. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally no coverage of her at all except for a brief obit at the Washington Post, on which the article is apparently based. She was a career bureaucrat; her titles do not seem to rise to the level of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 02:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tritagonist

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

Delete: This article's content is essentially summed up by a single sentence and so could enjoy a Wiktionary but not a Wikipedia entry. No sources are even cited and it currently falls under a single category. The article is constantly being removed and added back to the Narrative template ("Template:Narrative") perhaps as an aesthetically pleasing follow-up to protagonist and deuteragonist, but without being a major topic worthy of placement on such a template. Rarely, if ever, does the term seem to be used on other Wikipedia articles under the category of "drama." Little does the article seem to be have ever been expanded upon by editors, leading one to conclude it is not a truly meaningful article. Wolfdog (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search at Google Books (3,330 hits) shows that this concept, its history, and its usage, have been discussed in numerous works of literary analysis. For example, [43][44][45][46] And here is one that expands the concept to Indian prose.[47]That the topic hasn't yet been expanded on Wikipedia is not a reason to delete it: this isn't a BLP, WP:NODEADLINE still applies.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOEFFORT. Definitely an encyclopedic subject with numerous sources as shown by Arxiloxos ^walk victor falk^talk 02:03, 3 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) 02:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources of Arxiloxos. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have made a modest improvement of the article to add sources, and to illustrate how the article can be expanded out beyond a dictionary definition. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep new sources are convincing this is more than just a dictionary concept 74.50.113.31 (talk) 00:47, 10 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every Which Way But Zeus

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

Contested prod. I doubt that episode is notable, this article has no sources or citations, and it currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 04:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Almost every episode of the Venture Bros. has an article. Is this a test-case or is there something specific about this episode? I would say delete, but I think it would be more appropriate to discuss all the articles as a group. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the other articles on Venture Bros. episodes lack sources or citations, and aren't any more or less notable than this one, and yet haven't been flagged for deletion. Salmanazar (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists is not a good reason to keep an article. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize it Make season articles out of the too-long List of Venture Bros Episodes, and merge most of this into the to-be-created Season 4 article, intelligently trimming in the process. Repeat the process with other individual articles that lack independent notability, per our best practices elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the article interesting, though I agree it needs citations. If there is not enough people who want to keep it, then I like Jclemens' idea of creating season pages, and moving the citable/notable information to that page. Cmcnicoll (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Olazabal

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Spiderone 14:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without fully pro appearances, and significant coverage, he fails all notability guidelines relevant to footballers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eros Olazabal

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom Spiderone 14:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The CSL is not fully pro, and there insufficient coverage for this article to be notable under WP:N. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Campanella

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability claims made Spiderone 13:23, 4 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) 02:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given that two of the three clubs he's played for don't have articles of there own, and that all three are non-fully pro, he is quite clearly non-notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Oran

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Without significant coverage or appearances in a fully pro league, he fails all notability guidelines relevant to footballers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the article, he plays for the North York Astros of the Canadian Soccer League which the article says is the top soccer league in Canada. Wouldn't that make it "fully professional"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily. "Fully professional" is usually understood to mean that the league contains only full-time professional athletes i.e. people who earn their living solely through their sport, not people who have day jobs and train/play around that. A league can be the top league in a given country without being fully professional. For example, the Welsh Premier League is the top football/soccer league in Wales, but almost all the players are only part-time footballers, holding down day jobs and training in the evenings. If players in the CSL are in a similar boat, then it is not fully professional..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:FPL confirms that the CSL is not fully-professional. GiantSnowman 13:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no longer a source for this. www.canadiansoccerfederation.ca which is listed as a source for CSL's entry at WP:FPL no longer exists. Also, according to this, the Canadian Soccer Federation seems to be an alternate association set up by people who were upset with the Canadian Soccer Association. The (now non-existent) document it pointed to was entitled "a new way forward" which would seem to be a "mission statement". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - One of the teams, Brampton Lions, says that the team wants to ""bring Professional soccer and Amateur soccer as one" in order to "provide an environment of professionalism" - my interpretation of this is that they are semi-professional. Giant Snowman 14:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not sure how CSL qualifies as the top league in Canada given that CSA has also sanctioned both MSL and whatever USL/NASL will be called next year. At best they are the 3rd league ... and far from fully professional. Nfitz (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ATH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiderone (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Ramsey

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

Contested PROD. This player is non-notable because he has never appeared in a fully-professional league (therefore failing WP:NFOOTBALL), and has not received "significant coverage", therefore failing WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-pro level. Also lack of significant coverage, meaning he fails WP:GNG as well. --Jimbo^[online] 01:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 07:11, 10 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) 15:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Andy4226uk (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Day

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

This player seems to fall short of WP:Athlete because this person does not seem to have played any games in professional football. He also has not had a notable college career. Andy4226uk (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plenty of drafted players do not end up playing a fully professional game. Being on the practice squad doesn't constitute passing WP:ATHLETE. 2 says you, says two 15:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, never played in an NFL regular game. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ article needs a re-write, but instead of focusing on his quite non-notable professional career, the article should focus on his highly notable college career that would pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain it appears that there's a lot more information and a possible two different players here. I don't have time to research this particular one (I'm working on another!) so from here on count me out on this discussion because as Sgt. Schultz says, "I know nothing, I see nothing, and I say nothing!"--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:35, 10 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) 01:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Mediocre college players don't get drafted into the NFL. Per PMD I think more discussion is needed on his college career. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Mediocre college players don't get drafted into the NFL." Tim Day didn't get drafted into the NFL either. As the article points out, he was an undrafted free agent. But even if he had been drafted, we don't have a policy that assumes notability for the 200+ players who get drafted every year. His college career isn't notable. He broke his team's record for "completion percentage in a single game", but there are hundreds of students who have broken a school record of some sort at the University of Massachusetts, and hundreds of schools where people hold a school record of some sort. Even in a major college football program, holding one of the school's records is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It's a stretch to call his college career notable, let alone "highly notable". He's just another nice guy among millions of athletes. Mandsford 03:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article conflates two different individuals. Timothy Sean Day played quarterback at UMass, Timothy Gene Day played tight end at Oregon. The tight end was on the Bengals and Eagles rosters, but never played in a regular season game. Strikehold (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Strikehold. You are correct. I've addressed that by omitting the information about the Oregon player. Based on news coverage, the UMass quarterback appears to be somewhat notable. I figured better to focus on him. If anyone disagrees, perhaps they could find verifiable sources and create an article on the "other" Tim Day who played for Oregon. Cbl62 (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So this Tim Day is the one who didn't sign a contract with the NFL? I still can't figure out what he did that would fall under what WP:BIO describes as "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." If he'd done something like taking his team to the I-AA playoffs, I could somewhat understand the assertions of a remarkable college career, but I don't see it. The best that I can say is that U-Mass had a winning record in his three seasons there (8-4, 6-5, 7-4) but that was a team effort that no one man could be credited for. Mandsford 17:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thurian Age

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

The article is mostly a a plot-only description of a fictional work that lacks references independent of the subject from third-party sources so it doesn't have verifiability to check notability. The article is written mostly with an in-universe perspective without real-world perspective. I believe that it's an unneeded content fork that doesn't meet the criteria of the general notability guideline or the appropriate topics for lists, fulfilling instead the criteria of reasons for deletion. Jfgslo (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Jfgslo (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge to Kull. Jclemens (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: plot only description of fictional work incapable of providing any encyclopedic out-of-universe information. Basically a content fork of the encyclopedic main article, without the encyclopedic content. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 5 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) 15:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blackjack (Transformers)

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

Reliatively minor Transformers character, no assertion of notability. Macr86 (talk) 20:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. Article is well referenced and meets WP:STYLE and WP:CITE. If the issue is if its a minor character and its not well known as the others, has anyone notified the original author of the article or discuss it in the article's talkpage or the WP Transformers. --Takamaxa (Talk) 02:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Micromasters, Mathewignash (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- plot summary about a minor Transformers character sourced entirely to the comics and to fansites. Fails our notability requirements through having no coverage in reliable, independent sources. Reyk _YO! 05:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 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) 01:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Micromasters. Pretty much every other Micromaster already redirects there. JIP | Talk 06:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per the five pillars A Nobody Has Returned From The Sea (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as entirely sourced to self-published sources or sources affiliated with the creator of the character. Need independent sources to WP:verify notability in a reliable way. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:32, 12 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) 15:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Global Research

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

This article seems to exist primarily to support a section on a federal investigation of the company. An editor has been repeatedly removing the information on the investigation, which is well-sourced material, and adding press-release puffery instead. The puffery doesn't belong there, and the material on the investigation does not establish the notability of the company, especially since it is only an investigation and not any sort of criminal conviction. Since there doesn't seem to be anything to say about the company except these two things, just having an article with a bunch of allegations in it is probably serious undue weight. As the company is only marginally notable at best, deletion seems like the best approach here. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 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) 01:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. There's no showing in the better version with the sourced material about the insider trading allegations[48] is anything other than a routine such investigation. The current version is unreferenced patent nonsense, deliberately written to be rosily meaningless: an independent investment research firm that provides financial institutions with primary market intelligence generated through a global network of industry experts. PGR provides its clients the ability to generate primary or fundamental industry research through a number of channels including carefully matched, direct consultations with experts; primary data with additive insight and analysis generated by PGR's in-house analyst staff and interactive archival industry information via a proprietary digital information portal.

Not surprising to find out that this consulting business is involved in an insider trading case. This is who spammers are and what they do. The current version qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising, patent nonsense, and given the fact that this firm apparently promoted itself to acquire access to confidential information which was then misused, likely vandalism as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the sake of argument, I show that your invalid, under PoV, rationale: 'The article should be deleted because they are villains', is countered by another: 'The article, and its "Insider Trading Investigation" section, should be retained to show their villainy'. Note that due to the subjective nature of PoV and N, more valid arguments which sound similar to these two can be constructed. Anarchangel (talk) 20:12, 10 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. Courcelles 00:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anna and the french kiss

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

Contested prod. No evidence of notability. E. Fokker (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A sound publisher. However, that's no indication of a successful book. Too soon, perhaps? Peridon (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 1 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) 01:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and give it a chance to breathe and grow. As the article notes, already picked by NPR as one of the ten best of the year: " love interests whose chemistry sparks off the page, tantalizing pacing, sparkling repartee, vibrant supporting characters". See WP:NBOOK. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A popular book by a major publisher that has been recommended by many authors, including John Green and Meg Cabot. Keep the article. scmavl (talk) 13:59, 10 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. Courcelles 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ilona Yusuf

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

One book of poems and various other activities don't add up to notability IMO. Nothing in this bio suggests otherwise. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. GNews serch suggests she is getting some attention from media in Pakistan, but I didn't find any articles directly about her or her work. Should someone find articles that cover her in detail, that would make a difference. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Qworty (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - She apparently is an artist who works in multiple mediums. The article refers to a review of her book of poetry. The article is no longer online but there's no reason to doubt its existence. Her exhibition of art was covered three times by the same paper close together for some reason: [49], [50], [51], and there is some minor mentions like this. Not a lot, but enough for me to say it puts it over the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 4 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) 01:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the links provided by Whpq do prove some notability, there really shouldn't be a solid reason for deleting the article. Mar4d (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Functional Area 59

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

Some of this articles problems are, NPOV, unreferenced, possibly WP:MADEUP, Lacks Notability (as in, why is 59 so important), needs cleanup Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have an opinion on whether or not to delete, as I am unsure of the topic's notability. However, it is not "made up". Google Books shows one reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability has nothing to do with fame or importance; AFD is not cleanup; and a deletion nomination for within 4 minutes of the article's creation bespeaks of little to no effort made to determine whether sources in fact exist. {{subst:afd1}} is not the only tool in the toolbox, and you are supposed to put in the effort to apply deletion policy properly before using that tag. Uncle G (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources are you referring to? Winner 42 Talk to me! 11:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm referring to your actions, where you clearly didn't have enough time to look for sources to see whether they exist, which is what you are supposed to do per deletion policy. Look for yourself, and only if you don't find any sources existing nominate the article for deletion for being unverifiable. (If you do find some, add them and help build the article.) Follow the procedure in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, which is taken directly from policy of long standing. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how you didn't look for sources either. Also you certainly aren't aware of all of Wikipedia's policies either (WP:CIVIL).

Delete. This is not made up; it's U.S. Army terminology.[52] However, while there may or may not be an argument for Functional Area, FA59 certainly does not merit a whole article to itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also referenced in Basic Strategic Arts Program. See Chapter 36: Strategic Plans and Policy Functional Area by the way. Uncle G (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Could possibly be notable, but I don't have time at the moment to dig for refs to swing one way or the other. I have to agree with Uncle G, though. Don't instanom an article for deletion. Not only is it rude and probably bespeaks a failure to follow the process of WP:BEFORE, but it's biting the newbies, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable organisational minutia IMO. A search of google books reveals very little, as does a web search. As such this subject seemingly lacks "signficant independent coverage" in reliable sources and therefore fails WP:MILMOS/N. Anotherclown (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and incomprehensible. Reading it, I feel like its trying to describe a military occupational specialty, but it's not. From what I gather, it seems to describe some sort of nebulous and poorly-defined staff concept. I think we might be able to afford a redirect to staff (military). bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:16, 7 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 delete. Mhiji 11:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KLAS Enterprises, LLC

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP Nakon 00:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was originally listed as a speedy. Does not meet WP:CORP. Admrboltz (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:CORP. Mhiji 00:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently not notable, and even if it were this reads like an "about us" blurb and would need to be completely rewritten anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite It's a large company, so it would be worth the rewriting. It probably is large enough to be a leader in its field to pass WP:CORP, but someone will have to look for the references. DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we keep this, which is word for word identical with the "about us" blurb that this company puts at the bottom of its press releases, in the meantime? This is both advertising, being a straight copy of a company's own promotional blurb, and (as such) probably a copyright violation as well. Uncle G (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hadn't noticed that. Definitely falls under G11 IMO. Mhiji 01:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. E. Fokker (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious advertisement. Soewinhan (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G12; tagged as such. Article is taken word-for-word from here. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:19, 5 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.

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_HIV-positive_people

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_HIV-positive_people

[1]