The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As ^demon says, Wikipedia isn't a game guide, which large parts of this article seem to be. The only way in which it would be respectable enough to fall outside this criterion would be if it were strictly cleaned up. Even then, we'd be left with the issue of the notability of this non existant entity, only ever found as a collection of pixels on a system's screen. If we decide to keep all articles about every pokemon (and pokeball, and other equipment (it's been a long time :)), then we would have no reason not to have an article on every Smurf, Womble, Teletubby, walk-on actor. To give further weight to my feelings on this, I'm going to furnish you with a simile: having an article on every Pokemon is very much like taking a notable workplace (Microsoft, perhaps) and creating an article on every employee/associate, from Gates himself right down to the caretakers. I would say that having this number of articles on notable-only-by-association people/characters/entities is ludicrous, and would suggest that all but the most notable Pokemon (ie Pikachu) have their artcles merged into one list. Of course, there are too many dedicated pokemon editors here for that ever to happen, so I would suggest the stubbification, or better still deletion, of the article mentioned in the nomination. Martinp2317:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - if you're going to nominate the article for a single Pokemon out of multiple hundred articles on individual Pokemon, the gap in the list would be unacceptable and would single out this particular Pokemon for no good reason. Either nominate the articles for all or most Pokemon (you could probably keep Pikachu and a few others like Mewtwo and Charmander), or don't nominate any at all.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it is (if you'll excuse the sarcasm). WP:POINT is for disruption of Wikipedia to prove a point, and I see no disruption here ;). The pokemon test is specifically for non-Pokemon releated articles of low notability, and the view given there of the notability of Pokemon is not exactly flattering. If you take a look at the related discussion of the past, such as the results of the poll at Wikipedia:Poképrosal, which says that Pokemon articles fall under WP:FICT (a statement of the obvious, if ever there was one). This notability guideline dictates that minor characters should be amalgamated into one "list of characters" article, as I have suggested above. If you wish to do a mass nom of all non-notable Pokemon articles, then I invite you to do so, and this debate can probably be closed. Martinp2318:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - no, I'm not going to do that, not least because I can't be bothered adding the AfD tag to 450+ articles. I'd prefer all the Pokemon articles were just kept for the moment. If it were really an issue we should have some sort of centralised community discussion about whether the minor Pokemon articles should stay or go, and a broad community consensus could be achieved which could then lead to the deletion of these minor Pokemon articles.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h19:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I don't necessarily believe that Pokémon are inherently notable, I think that it would just be a big mess if we started to zap some of the articles on the individual Pokémon. Maybe Camerupt isn't as recognizable as, say, Pikachu, but I believe that, per WP:FICT, "minor" and "major" status are relative terms -- and because of those intentionally vague terms, I'll grant every Pokémon the benefit of the doubt as a non-fanatic of the game. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))20:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable cartoon character. Even taking into account game/animated series/trading cards, difficult to see where this character has been the subject of multiple independent third party sources. Mentions in passing and as a list yes, but main subject of a source no. This and any other article has to stand or fall on it's own merits. If it doesn't pass the notability criteria bar, and leaves a hole or a red link in a series, that's too bad. - fchd20:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is an important question here, that nobody has ever provided a coherent answer to. WHY can we not delete one particular article in separation from everything else? -Amarkovmoo!22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In a way, we do it all the time. We have to do so, otherwise no sub-standard article would be deleted as long as comparable articles remain. But the Pokemon articles are difficult to deal with appropriately; where do you draw the line? I'm in favour of restricting them to a list, but it's never going to happen. AdrianM. H.22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There may or may not be a well-defined line. The fact that there isn't one is not grounds to keep things which are clearly below the line. Having said that, I do avocate keeping until the merger is finished. -Amarkovmoo!04:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of course most pokémon are nonnotable, that's why the merging is going on. Please let the merging finish before deciding to remove this. TheBlazikenMaster23:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending the merger. As TBM says above me, there is a project underway to merge the individual characters into a list format. It's underway and should be allowed to continue. JodyB talk23:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This needs to be discussed as a whole. 491/493 (Pikachu and Mewtwo are commonly-named exceptions) of the articles are all in the same boat. I suggest a larger debate instead of one AFD on one of the 491 problematic articles. hbdragon8817:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - no that's a bad idea. You would undoubtedly get a train wreck, with some contributors saying this one or that one is different and deserves to stay, which would lead to a "no consensus" decision which helps no-one. fchd19:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm not convinced that this list is very encyclopaedic; it is unsourced (presumably the sources are the films themselves) and could arguably constitute original research for that reason, but moreover a list of deaths in Disney films sounds like an indiscriminate collection of information not worthy of its own article. Mithent00:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am biased in that I just like lists, but I think that this article could be expanded. Perhaps it can be considered noteworthy in that Disney has a tendency to kill at least one character in almost every one of their movies in spite of their kid-friendly image. Useight01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we don't do cataloging for its own sake, only when there's some value in it. If there's something to be said about killing off a character in every movie, say that in the main article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as intrinsically indiscriminate. There used to be an article (IIRC) on something like "Disney absent parent syndrome", which at least has been noted by reviewers and even scholars as a notable aspect of the studio's oeuvre. It's barely possible that Bambi's dad, et al., have inspired similar scholarship, but I've never really come across it. --Dhartung | Talk03:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Despite all the valid reasons above, you have decided to give a "keep" without a valid reason. Could you please explain your reasoning. WP:JUSTAVOTE is hardly a reason for any opinion. Answered. Cool Bluetalk to me11:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see no enyclopædic merit in keeping this article; it is unreferenced, poorly written and I have a feeling that it could never be exhaustive or well-referenced. Max Naylor14:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 quick Ghits indicate that the topic is a trope (Disney death = character like Baloo or Winnie the Pooh appear to die but spring back to life) and a source of academic study - DEATH IN DISNEY FILMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR CHILDREN’S UNDERSTANDING OF DEATH , a College of New Jersey, Ewing study. However, a list of deaths in Disney films would only be justified AFTER the topic proves notable enough for an article. Canuckle02:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: At this stage, the site lacks the content and participation levels to be considered a notable website in my opinion. --bdudeTalk00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sources are missing, and I am doubting the notability of this author. The publisher of his book Eats, Roots & Leaves, a company whose name strikingly resembles that of the author, seems to have published exactly two books. And I haven't been able to find any reviews of the "world premiere" or mentions of the lectures for which he is supposed to be "known by teachers" online.
I am also nominating the following related page because (see above):
KEEP As far as I know, Nicholas Waters doesn't advertise online. There is life outside the internet and he has always contacted teachers directly by direct mail. However, being one of very many (there were 117 of us in Gothenburg, Sweden on the 16th April who paid around $150 to attend a brilliant day's lecture) teachers who have enjoyed this guy's work since 1987, I can certainly vouch for him. I have been to all the lectures listed! Sorry If I don't know all the conventions of replying to mails. Handy Andy 33 Småland, Sweden PS. He was on swedish radio again last week!Handyandy3301:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
"high-brow nonsense": You seem to have misunderstood something. You are right, new authors have to start somewhere. However, the way to "get noticed" is definitely not via Wikipedia, because Wikipedia only describes facts, things and people who already "got noticed" outside Wikipedia - that is the essence of Wikipedia:Notability (which I had linked above for your convenience). There is nothing wrong with starting a new publishing company or self-publishing books. However, if you want to argue that such a book is notable enough to merit its own Wikipedia article, you need evidence like reviews in respected newspapers, literary awards, sales figure... see Wikipedia:Notability_(books)#Self-publication. The deletion of the Wikipedia article about this book does not amount to a quality judgement about the book, only to a judgement if it has satisfied Wikipedia's internal notability guidelines.
Personal accounts like your statements above can unfortunately not be used as sources for Wikipedia articles (see WP:RS and also WP:NPOV). But thanks for the link. If you could cite more media reports, and not just in local media, the articles would be closer to satisfying Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability.
KEEP Goodness knows what a Ghit is? Is it something American? Eats, Roots and Leaves was conceived 2 years before Lynne Trusses dreary coffee table book. We were told about it in 2001 at the different Englishes lecture. This book is in every way vastly superior and quite different. Handy Andy 33, Småland, Sweden Just for the record, I wrote both articles and got permission to put the picture of the book up. Handyandy3301:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing. If you look at the user page of this objector, TenPoundHammar, you will see that he is obviously doing this out of a grudge against anyone who disagrees with his prescriptivist grammar line. He writes: "This user considers singular they substandard English usage." Handy Andy 33, Småland, Sweden Handyandy3301:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where the hell did you get that concept from? I'm not "doing this out of a grudge against anyone who disagrees with my prescriptivist grammar line" -- whatever that freaking means. I simply stated an opinion on the page -- and I'm not the only person on Wikipedia who considers singular "they" substandard English. You'd better hold your tongue and avoid the personal attacks, and I mean now. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold my tongue? That's exactly what you want isn't it? Censorship! At least be honest. So welcoming to a first time user.Handyandy33 03:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said a word about censorship. Wikipedia is not censored, and I have no reason to believe that it should be. And I'm sorry if you're offended, but your behavior right now isn't exactly making me want to greet you with open arms... Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))03:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What other interpretation can there be for "You'd better hold your tongue...and I mean now? You wrote it! And as for "I'm sorry if you're offended, but" Doesn't 'but' mean disregard everything in the sentence before but? Handy Andy Handyandy3303:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just trying to steer you from the possibility of getting banned from Wikipedia. When I said "and I mean now", my implication was that if you don't stop attacking me this way, then it's rather likely that you could get blocked. I'm going to stop exchanging words on this discussion for now and give you a cooling-off period; if you still think you've got something bad to say about me, then I'll try to resolve the dispute -- and if that fails, then we'll see what happens next. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individual does not pass WP:BIO. What is relevant is whether a subject is notable, whether the information in the article can be attributed to multiple independent, non-trivial third party references unrelated to the article subject, and whether the article conforms with Wikipedia policies concerning the biographies of living persons, conflict of interest, copyright matters, and the like. This article does not make the subject appear notable enough for Wikipedia, and searching on Google (what "Ghit" means) does not reveal sufficient non-trivial independent third-party references to this. Hard-copy references from non-trivial sources (from books other than his works, for instance, or magazines) talking directly about this individual would also make acceptable references, but I don't see any of that in this article. Dreariness or the lack thereof does not matter with respect to Wikipedia policies, nor do personal opinions about things. Anti-American sentiment and sarcasm will not bolster your argument, even to fellow non-Americans such as myself. And yes, the article is not written in an encyclopedic matter - it looks as if it had been written for a promotion. Wikipedia is not for getting attention for non-notable subjects. The subject has to already be notable. (Edited.) --Charlene01:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Asking if something is American is hardly "anti-American". I like America, I have been there 3 times and boosted the US balance of trade in doing so. However, please do consider that native English speakers are only 4% of the world's population that use English. I wouldn't know how to write an encyclopaedic entry. Would you like to help me draft a better article? Handyandy3301:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of evidence of notability. HandyAndy, you don't get to "vote" (they are not really votes) more than once, so I have struck through your later comments to forestall any confusion. --Dhartung | Talk04:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that you are one of the mods that Ten Pound Hammar threatened me with. I had no idea that the keeps and deletes were votes. Thanks for putting me right. A first and possibly last time user of Wikipedia.Handyandy3304:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to examine the article on the book, but instead I found: "Sorry, this page has been removed after just a few hours. Grammar fascists don't want any discussion. So much for the bill of rights. Maybe, one day, you will be allowed to find out about this book on Wikipedia." So much for trying to give the benefit of the doubt. I tagged that one for vandalism instead. No sources per WP:RS or WP:BIO to confirm or deny any claims beyond this one book. The news coverage of that book gives some hint of notability, but I'm afraid that one news piece is not sufficient. DarkAudit04:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is rather obvious that the article would be deleted anyway. Wikipedia seems to be so unfriendly to new posters. So I got rid of it to save anyone the difficulty. What I left could be regarded as my "away message". PS It is so odd that the threat that Ten Pound hammar made keeps disappearing. Is he now ashamed and keeps removing it?
Only thing obvious to me was that you chose vandalism instead of letting the article on the book rise or fall on it's own merits. Rather than try to improve the article by citing more sources, you decided to claim ownership of the article and take any criticism as an attack. I've had articles I'd worked hard on deleted myself. Even after I tried to improve it. Don't take it so personally. DarkAudit04:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a lost cause. Without getting the author himself to send me all his links and references, I am unable to do much more. Although I could mail several hundred teachers and ask them to sign on to Wikipedia just to say keep to see what kind of democracy is then practised. I too hope that the author does become notable enough for Wikipedia. I shall keep coming back to check to see if anyone else puts up something to him. I have also mailed Nicholas with the full text of this debate in the hope that he can use it in some way.Handyandy3310:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book is not available at Amazon and, according to them, they don't know when it will be. This suggests it to be rather trivial to begin with. Second, there is one newspaper article which is now listed but it stands alone and certainly does not meet the multiple, non-trivial requirement of WP:N. Sorry. I see the book is also up for AfD and it should go too. JodyB talk12:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This was previously prod'ed by someone else, but I see no evidence that the standards of WP:ORG have been met, or that there are reliable, third-party sources for this club. FrozenPurpleCube00:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the page previously said 1966, so I'll assume that the 2037 is just vandalism, and prefer to concentrate on the notability of the subject instead. That's the real problem here. There's no third party coverage of this club outside of a few directory links. FrozenPurpleCube01:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking at Bearsden I'm dubious about that "Things to do" section, let alone the idea of merging this there. Seems more like something for a travel guide than an encyclopedia. Thanks for pointing that out. FrozenPurpleCube22:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - their history could render them notable as an organization but there seems no verification here. Maybe a weak keep if there could be improvement of the article's verified content. Agnetha123415:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this the technology used in mobile phones (texting) etc, if so then it's surely notable Guycalledryan08:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're referring to Predictive text, which might actually be a decent redirect target for this article (which appears to refer to a particular flavor of that technology as developed by a particular company). I'll give it some thought. JavaTenor08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, non-notable, conflict of interest - take your pick. This is not the same as Predictive text so not even worth a partial merge there. - fchd20:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no sources to establish notability and there is a strong COI issue. COI does not demand deletion but it explains the POV in the article. JodyB talk23:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article does not assert its notability under WP:CORP. Vaguely advertisement like. If notability cannot be established by then end of the AfD discussion I recommend the article be deleted. MidgleyDJ01:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Google turns up a Financial Times article about the company, which isn't loading at the moment, but indicates they have been the subject of nontrivial media coverage. This isn't just some small business promoting itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hikari is a company notable in Japan for producing innovative specialty fish food and ornamental fish.Dragonbite 02:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hikari is even being used in Ranchu breeding by Dr. Erik L. Johnson, D.V.M., author of Fancy Goldfish: A Complete Guide to Care and Collecting. Dr. Johnson is a world-renowned veterinarian with clinical specialty in fish medicine. He is also the author of the book/producer of videotape "Koi Health and Disease".Dragonbite 02:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep plenty of refs and external links to prove notability. Consider renaming it though, the (fish food) suggests that Hikari is fish food, not a company that makes fish food. Mr.Z-mantalk¢20:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a brand catering to hobbyists who have an extensive literature on their hobby, it should not be hard to find even more independent and reliable sources that discuss this product line. - Smerdis of Tlön21:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I came across this when I was in Loughborough town, I live in South Wales and was therefore interested to understand what it meant. Naturally I inputted it into Wikipedia. Is this not what Wiki is for? How else would I be able to discretely understand what the term meant? Dylan Davies
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
"All of the essays are of a deeply personal nature, giving insight to a controversial mind that playfully embraces all that is rotten and maladjusted.". Not as rotten as this promotional piece though. Delete. Lankiveil05:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DeleteWikipedia is not a dictionary and I do not think this is used widely enough to be in wikitionary. --Banana02:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a comparison of Google News Archive results for industrial.launch (366) and industrial.launch -airbus (39) indicates this is a term in use primarily by Airbus, with some minor currency in the aerospace industry beyond that. Some of the latter results intriguingly suggest that the term is translated from a non-English language, but that's not enough to make it notable.--Dhartung | Talk04:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE - there is a clear consensus on the two previous deletion discussions and the previous deletion reviews for this article to be deleted. This procedural nomination is making a mockery of the whole process - it seems multiple deletion reviews and multiple deletion discussions can be used to overrule consensus by attrition - well not on this one. Nick10:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some minor cleanup, refocusing on the phenomenon rather than the kid. (just getting my comment in before this one can get closed prematurely) Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Launching a website and thousands of parodies sounds like a significant impact. Historical importance is not a criteria for inclusion. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable? Check. Verifiable? Check. Fair and balanced? Check. Problematic? Nope. It's fine, a discussion as to whether to move this to something about the meme or some cleanup may be in order, but there is no reason to remove this article. --badlydrawnjefftalk02:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the content-focused comments at the first deletion review should not be ignored simply because they happened to be made on that page. Both those in favour of keeping and those in favour of deleting the article raised some new perspectives there. Their comments ought to be considered, or alternatively all of their comments could be copied here, or all of them contacted to give them opportunity to comment here. --bainer (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While people keep saying that this is a notable topic, simply repeating that does not make it so. How is this biography notable? Will Qian be remembered in three years from now, never mind in three months. Is this the greatest that this kid can ever aspire to achieve in his life--being the butt of a joke? If he does do something great and important, what role will this incident play in his overall biography? Verifiable? Yes--but then again so is anyone who ever got mentioned in the local rag or appeared on a guest on Oprah or Jerry Springer. So is everyone who won a local pie-eating contest. But that does not make them notable. Danny03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't think that would be appropriate. "Little Fatty" is not the name of the internet meme, it's the nickname of the person, so that would still really be an article about the person, and if we're going to have an article about the person, this is the proper name for it to have. Of course, part of the problem here is that there is no other possible name for an article on the meme... but we do already cover the meme at List of Internet phenomena. Mangojuicetalk04:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So move it to the name of the meme, whatever that is. It doesn't mention any name other than 'Little Fatty'. That is what's notable, not some otherwise anonymous Chinese gas station attendant. DarkAudit06:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there are numerous reliable sources discussing this issue, which distinguishes it from some Internet memes that are unverifiable. The article meets WP:BIO. And to respond to some of the objections brought up previously, WP:BLP doesn't say we can never have anything in an article that might reflect negatively on someone; it says that "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material [...] should be removed immediately". All the facts in this article are indeed sourced. We're not making fun of the kid; we're documenting an observed and well-sourced phenomenon in which other people did. It's no different than discussing any other prominent scandal. If nothing else will do, then, as DeLarge suggested, we could switch to a version that discusses only the meme and has no biographical details and put that at the title Little Fatty. *** Crotalus ***03:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Internet phenomena#Images. I don't think there are real BLP issues here. I will complain, however, about depth of coverage. What we have is 4 sources, all of which came out around the same time as each other, and which, if you read them, duplicate each other quite extensively. This is, fundamentally, a human interest story that got some coverage in a couple of places once, and will in all likelihood never be heard from again. Although there are sources on this, that only proves we can possibly have an article on this topic if we want to. But Wikipedia is not indiscriminate, and it is not a summarizing of all secondary sources either. Unlike, for instance, Star Wars kid, there is no actual lawsuit, no promotional efforts, nothing that would establish some kind of reason that there would be permanent interest in this person. That said, we can and do cover everything really relevant about this story elsewhere: in fact, the coverage at List of Internet phenomena#Images pretty much sums up the whole story without going into unnecessary detail. Mangojuicetalk04:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly meets WP:BIO. Sure, internet memes may seem insubstantial to some, but when they generate interest in the mainstream media (and in this case, that has happened, though mainly in China), the notability bar is crossed. I beg for no procedural hiccups this time; this is, what, pretty much the same AFD as two times back, with two trips to DRV in between? --Dhartung | Talk04:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good god, not again The 15 minutes is over, people. If not for the meme, this would be an anonymous Chinese gas station attendant. If he does something notable beyond the meme, then let there be an article about him referencing that. Until then, Merge with the meme and let this discussion die. DarkAudit04:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers both the meme and the kid. Changing it to focus only on the meme is an editorial action, not an afd decision. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, focus of a fifteen minute internet fad. Possibly have an article for that fad itself, but no reason to have one for the otherwise non-notable kid as well. Lankiveil05:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Rename to meme Meme is notable. He is not, except as the meme. He does not need an article under his name, the meme needs an article under it's name, with the biographical information already here merged with the article on the meme. That will allow focus to be placed back on the meme where it belongs and away from the person who clearly is otherwise not notable enough. DarkAudit05:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are numerous Reliable sources -- major chinese news sources, no less -- with multiple stories showign that the noteiety and coverage extended over multiple years, not "15 minutes of fame" Pleanty of people becoem notable by being caught up in a single incident, somtimes an unfortunate one. Some people have alleged that WP:BLP mandates deletion or renaming or drastic cuttign of thsi articel. Not so. In the first place, BLP propvides that "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source" and continually speaks of "has it been published by third-party reliable sources?". All the content in thsi articel is well-sourced to such origins. Secondly BLP speaks of "derogatory" and "contentious material". By setting up his own website to publicize his "internet fame" the subject of this article clearly indicates that he doesn't consider it derogatory or contentious. No BLP concerns apply, as long as the article is kept well-sourced and on-topic, which it currently is. DES(talk)07:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion either way but I'd certainly like to see this matter settled at some point. Is this the first 'sticky' AfD? Nick mallory08:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite what a lot of people are claiming, the reliable sources make the boy himself the subject of their coverage, although since the meme is his only reason for fame, that's also covered in depth. It's also possible to redirect to Little Fatty, which is the most common English language translation of the meme's name, although my first choice would be to leave it where it is since I think it's more in keeping with the spirit of the BLP.
Recommending that this be deleted outright seems to be taking a step away from being a tertiary source and starting to make value judgements about the content of the mass media at large. What constitutes good subject matter for the BBC, Reuters or The Times to cover is best left to their professional journalists and editors to decide, not a bunch of internet volunteers. But even if you disagree, whether it's good or right that some of the biggest and most respected news outlets in the world are giving space to an overweight teenager from Shanghai -- and whether we should be expected to reflect that -- is a discussion for the WP:NOTE/WP:BIO/WP:WEB talk pages, not this AfD. He meets our current and longstanding criteria for inclusion by a country mile, and in my view is not violating WP:BLP either. However, in light of the vehemence of some of those at the previous AfDs and DRVs, I'm going to be bold and edit the article as per a request at my talk page. If people oppose this they can of course revert back to the current version. --DeLarge09:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment On the author's talk page, they wrote ". . .But I just found another article saying buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. So I'm writing in reaction to it." This looks like part of a bigger dispute. --Banana02:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it doesn't seem to be intended to inform but rather support one side of an argument. I'd say that some of the points are salvagable and could be used in Buddha from the Hindu perspective, but for the most part it does seem to be a subtle attack. bwowenT/C03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Several parts of the article are taken from Buddha from the Hindu perspective, where this content could be merged into a new section Refutations against belief of Buddha being an avatar or Arguments against Buddha being an avatar or whichever heading is most appropriate. In a stand-alone article, it is terribly POV, but within Buddha from the Hindu perspective it could be a useful addition. xC | ☎19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How do you "refute a belief"? We can have a section on why some (notable) people believe Buddha is not an avatar, but I am afraid that hardly any arguments from this article qualify to be retained for that section because much of this article is factually incorrect. deeptrivia (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that, however much nonbelievers in a faith may disagree, believers will often claim that they have logical reasons to believe the claims that their religion makes. Some of the arguments presented here may be widely held by Buddhists to logically refute Hindu belief in Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu. In this case, they would qualify as notable. Robin S21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Of note, playing in an entirely professional league is notalbe per WP:Bio. Still, this appears hoax per DarkAudit's research —Gaffταλκ22:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that, but Cleveland did not make the post-season in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. Can we please just kill this now? DarkAudit04:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, book ad, and indiscriminate genealogical information. Nobody named Schalliol is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, so this can't even serve as a disambiguation page. --Dhartung | Talk04:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the history of the family name might just push this over the line. Still need to get rid of the ridiculous promotion for the book though. Lankiveil05:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Pray tell, anyone, why is a family name history worthy of an article? Please provide sources showing the notability of this particular family name versus other family names. All names have "history" and as an encyclopedia we are not indiscriminate.--Dhartung | Talk09:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Okay, after reviewing some work done on the article, I can see where the weak keeps are coming from, but still am keeping my vote. This is a tough one. Still, the book references appear to be published by a lesser known house Belle Publications specializing in geneology (vanity press?). This dubious bit, along with my concerns about conflict of interests here make me wonder. —Gaffταλκ20:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I understand the delete arguments too but think this name seems to have some slight uniqueness and may be worth keeping. Agnetha123414:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An interesting history. although I'd like to see more of the historical content. UPDATE: I added additional content. Aosxseedx
Removed the promotion of the book per others' comments and added, along with another user, a significant amount of new content and references. I would say Keep, although I recognize that as one of the principal authors I may be baises. Nonethless, there seems to be a good degree of signifcance in the entry, and searching worldwide wikipedia shows many more valuable pieces that need to be translated. --Schalliol05:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable name for documented single-point converging lineage and historically significant background. Article quality signicantly improved since deletion suggestion. As such, the article now meets WP:RS and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Metroblossom14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-- Thank you, Gaff. I thought that would be clear based on the record of the article. My apologies. That said, I believe this article is wholly different from my initial creation. It is much improved and I stand by my comments. It's too bad additional people haven't reviewed this improved version. Metroblossom06:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Husond, can you please be more specific? Clearly, there are a number of people who believe it qualifies as a keep or a weak keep, even before the improvements. My initial comment above stands. Metroblossom14:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for starters, it has no definition of "Schalliol" (all encyclopedic articles start with a description of what the subject is). It doesn't say why is this particular surname so notable that justifies having an article of its own. Trivial content. People stated as "notable" do not have Wikipedia articles. They should, and only if they survived notability concerns should they be included as notable on this article.--Húsönd15:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coat of Arms (blazon) added. I will add reference text from the referring book noting reference to "one of the notable families of the Dauphiné" when I have a chance and noting the significance of this particular blazon.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep Must be suitably referenced to prove notability, and rewritten to remove the peacock terms and autiobio slant. Blue chip clients are not enough on their own. AdrianM. H.23:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reference, cleanup, and all of that good stuff, and the article should be just fine. The article has notability since it is an international law firm, and the single reference proves it. *Cremepuff222*23:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Evidence for notability is still missing. Being the web master of a state section of a labor union organization does not justify an encyclopedia article. He has founded his own web agency, but we don't learn anything about the notability of the company either (no hard facts about revenue, number of staff etc.) The claim "Dondley is also regularly interviewed and quoted in news articles on or about the labor movement" boils down to having been briefly quoted in two different articles, one from 2003 and one from 2007, according to the Google News archive. The statement "Dondley is actively revolutionizing the way in which the labor community organizes and communicates with cutting edge technology" is very fuzzy and not sourced at all. Sources are also missing for basic biographical facts like his birth date. High on a tree03:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Doesn't seem to meet WP:V/WP:RS as it lacks credible, third-party sources - I haven't found any, and the article's recreator has been unable to provide them either. He still insists that the artist is notable and seeing that the content is different than before, I figured I'd bring it here. See the original AFD which yielded a delete verdict here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Ricci. Wickethewok04:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If notability cannot be established, get rid. Apart from a few sources for purchase/download of his material, I could not find anything usable. AdrianM. H.23:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wow, I'm surprised this article made it through AfD the first time! I could find no suitable references through a google search, and the author obviously couldn't find any either. *Cremepuff222*23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Has been marked unreferenced since October. I see no evidence that this is a universal or even widespread phenomenon, although references to the contrary would of course be appreciated. JavaTenor05:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like Adrian said, it could be notable, but the article has no sources and I doubt that there could be much more information added to it. *Cremepuff222*23:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Prod contested with no edit summary. This article fails Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. The article cites no sources, a google search reveals nothing to indicate that any of this is true, and on its face sounds like something made up in school one day. Darkspots05:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Speedy deleteG1. From Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, G1 includes "Content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." Serpent's Choice06:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:BIO, no googles, fails NPOV by a mile, furthermore it has an attack flavor and if you read the talk page that's made pretty clear. Was a speedy but the tag was removed and a hangon added. It needs to be gone. Paloma Walker06:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep important software of it's kind. First of all GUIs for PanoTools, the only commercial app that can keep pace with the fast development of hugin (which takes part in Google's SoC) Einemnet20:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably the best example of this category of software. Absolutely invaluable and definitely deserves a place in Wiki. Recent beta version adds important new functions. It is actively and frequently upgraded.--User:Roger
Keep Invaluable software it is the leading edge of professional software for panoramas, and not only. It is a swissknife that allow the use of all the opensource and free module. it is *the* panoramic software. It has also a great relevance in panorama history, being one of the first GUI for the panotools --User:Luca Vascon
There are many GUI front ends that spawned from Panorama Tools. PTgui is a commercial venture, Hugin (software) is a work in progress, and what about PTAssembler, Panorama Factory along with others that have used Panorama Tools as a core. This is why the Panorama Tools software has a page of it's own because of notability and contribution to the industry that grew from it. Lets try and work together to clean up the mess of random pano posts (like the PanoTools wiki) and work toward a resource that has a good chance of people finding. John Spikowski11:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The author appears to feel that all subsequent fictional rebellions are reworkings of the American war of independence. It's just a yoking together of unrelated items. BTLizard08:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources can be found for the featured authors saying that their books were inspired by this event then it's all just speculation. Nick mallory09:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many wars of independence in Science Fiction. The article does not deal with aliens trying to get indepenent from human rule or humans trying to get independent from aliens who conquered Earth, only where the war is waged by colonists who speak the same languge (usually English) as the "mother country" or "mother planet". There are many overt hints in the stories and books themselves (for example, in the Jerry Pournelle story which is mentioned, the asteroid seeking independence in named "Jefferson".Adam Keller11:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The books themselves contain many references to the American War of Independence. For example, in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress book Two is called "Rabble in Arms", which is what Burgoyne dubbed the American rebels and is the name of a famous historical novel by Kenneth Roberts a term taken from the. The sentinent computer Mike who has a central role in the Lunar uprising in that book is called by the narrator "Our Swamp Fox", refering to a gurrilla fighter from the American War of Independence. Andreas Kaganov10:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we as Wikipedia editors cannot make those connects. We are a tertiary source; we must rely on other, reliable, secondary sources. To do otherwise, rightly or wrongly, is original research. Besides, solely on the strength of primary references like these, I could claim (for sake of argument) that Pournelle's asteroid Jefferson is instead an homage to Jefferson Davis and her story about "outdated, hopeless nationalism" a metaphor for the American Civil War. Serpent's Choice10:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are applying the "original research" criteria far too stricktly. By your standards, more than half the articles in Wikipedia should be deleted and the rest reduced to bare bones. (By the way, Pournelle is a man).Andreas Kaganov11:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia is not a menu. What is contained on their secret menu is laughably unencyclopedic. Article also contradicts itself at several points, for example the line stating A few of these variations are detailed on the company's web site for all to see. In that case, how is it secret? Also as per the WP:RECENTTen Year Rule, such information would never be notable ten years later. Regards, xC | ☎07:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As WP:RECENT is not policy nor a guideline, it cannot be used to justify AFD. No opinion on this article either way. 23skidoo11:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I wasn't using WP:RECENT as a justification for deletion. I was simply stating my belief that this article has no long-term encyclopedic value, hence the example of the 10 Yr Rule.xC | ☎14:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Psst, it's a secret. You're not supposed to tell anyone. Trust me, if they find out they'll place you on double-secret probation. Better hit the delete button before anybody sees it. On a more serious note, as 23skidoo pointed out, WP:RECENT isn't policy (nor do I think it ever should be). This article suffers from three main problems, as far as I can see. First, it's inherently not notable. It's about a lunch menu that doesn't even physically exist (no doubt that it's real as a concept). You could sum most of the content up with "if you're nice, even most fast food place will prepare your food the way you like it; here are some ideas". Granted, this isn't your average NFT article and in a way, it's actually pretty sapid, if you'll forgive the double entendre. Second, some parts are just way too trivial. In fact, that goes for most of the 'Items on the menu' section, which is the very subject of the article. "Fries light", "Fries well"? Please. Unless they're making a fresh bash, you're getting the ones they have. And if you get your fries just like you want them, that's plain and simple good customer service which most likely doesn't have anything to do with some 'secret menu'. In any case, whether you can get your fries regular or extra-crispy is trivial and shouldn't be the subject of an encyclopedic article. Third, there's only one source which is the company's website. And even that explicitly mentions 'just plain [excellent] customer service', which is exactly what this is. The thing is, parts of this are appropriate for the main article, provided that they're (re)written in a neutral tone and condensed. Since there's already a section about the 'secret menu', there isn't really a whole lot of information that could reasonably be merged into it. For those three reasons, I think deleting the article is the way to go (kind of a shame since it looks like a lot of work has gone into this article). -- Seed2.013:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While a page on this Burger company's menu may be reasonable (see McDonald's menu items which was kept in a recent AFD), I think calling anything a "secret" menu is a bit much. Perhaps removing the secret from the title and moving some content on their "basic" menu into the article? Or maybe just coverage in the basic page on this burger company? FrozenPurpleCube13:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you did mention, there's already a section in the main article that deals with the In-N-Out menu which specifically mentions the 'secret menu' (the company itself uses that term in PR material, by the way, so while it may be somewhat cheesy, it's definitely not made up). -- Seed2.013:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know McDonald's menu items existed :P If this page was converted to that form, that might still be alright, perhaps... most of the content could be shifted into In-N-Out's menu items alongwith stuff from the basic menu. Genuinely, it does seem like a lot of work has gone into it so it would be a shame to delete it, but I nom'd it for AfD since I thought such articles weren't supposed to be there. Agree with Mister Manticore, if its alright to have a menu items list for McDonald's, I guess In-N-Out could have a similar listing as well (its well illustrated too :P) xC | ☎14:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since nobody else has said to delete, you can withdraw this nomination and move the article yourself, or just propose it on the talk page. FrozenPurpleCube14:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, sorry but this very clearly not speediable (unless you mean to imply that my comment above can be discounted -- in that case, I'd ask you to please explain your rationale). -- Seed2.015:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean nobody has said to delete? Seed 2.0 above !voted delete (I think deleting the article is the way to go). However, looking at the page McDonald's menu items, I believe this page could be reformatted, and with a cleanup might even be a good addition to the main article. I offer to do the cleanup and merging, could someone guide me how to withdraw an AfD (unless anyone objects to withdrawing it)?xC | ☎16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My pardons, I'll explain. I read Seed's comment as partially a joke, given that in the context, it seemed well, to be a humorous start to an otherwise extended comment that was concerned with listing the issues with this information, but open to use of it, given the statement that it could be rewritten and used on the main article. But doesn't matter now, other people are saying delete, though I think they might want to look over the situation again. It seems they're taking this as "secret" as opposed to "low-profile" . FrozenPurpleCube17:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll say Delete - if this is a secret, how can there be sources for it? Besides, isn't this likely to vary by outlet and how busy they happen to be at any given time? Doesn't warrant an entry any more than the Burger King article needs separate sections for Whopper, Whopper (no mayo) and Whopper (extra cheese, no pickle) — iridescenti(talk to me!) 15:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC
Delete A secret menu? The thing is, the only reliable references for this article probably would be locked up in a safe somewhere. IN-N-Out may be a notable burger chain, but speculation of their food's contents hasn't reached notable status as that of Coca-cola.--Kylohk17:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge back into the main article about this restaurant chain at In-N-Out Burger#The "Secret" menu. This "secret menu" article is unusually redundant, in that it lists and describes most of the items and then describes them again in prose. Also, there is no real "secret" to these menu items, since the main ones are listed on the official corporate web site [8]. There are potential references for the content although they are not necessarily consistent as to how "secret" the menu is; see the New York Times and American Public Radio's Marketplace for example. --Metropolitan9017:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, WP:RECENT is completely inapplicable here. The idea of a "secret menu" at In-N-Out Burger has already existed for more than 10 years. The New York Times article cited above is from 2002, and here is a Usenet posting from 1997 referring to the secret menu. (And here are more reliable sources: the Washington Post and Business 2.0/cnn.com.) --Metropolitan9017:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my nom I just gave the ten year rule as a reasonable way to judge whether a piece of content has long term encyclopedic value or not. I linked to WP:RECENT since the idea of the 10 yr rule is mentioned there, even though I am aware that WP:RECENT isn't applicable here. The idea of the 10 yr rule and trying to decide whether or not this secret menu would be applicable a decade or more later, that is what I was trying to propose, not WP:RECENT per se. The idea of this secret menu may have existed since before 1997, but I am only wondering whether or not these permutations of the basic menu deserve place in an encyclopedia article or not... xC | ☎18:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it's acknowledged that WP:RECENT isn't grounds for an AfD. Last time I checked "Wikipedia is not a menu" is not one of the listings in WP:NOT. So, what's the grounds for deletion here? As above, it's been on Marketplace, and I assume the NYT reference is OK. While it might benefit by having the article pared away from simply In-&-Out and providing them free marketing, and into a more generic topic on secret menus in general, I don't see why this is an AfD. Keep. LaughingVulcan02:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know of Secret Menu, been around since February. Right now the In-N-Out is split out as a link from that article. Maybe this article needs to be pared back and integrated into Secret Menu. At any rate, there's one, and now I'll dig a little further to see if there are any others. I hope that addresses your point. I haven't seen that mine has been: By what criteria is this an AfD nom? I can see that you might feel that the article is borderline not encyclopedic, but is there an AfD cat that you can fit that into? LaughingVulcan21:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a reference on the disambig page for 2x4 which references the In-N-Out 2 by 4, without a link. The Jamba Juice article references their secret menu in the article itself. -Forgot to add this was me, sorry!- LaughingVulcan21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your having a look at that. Honestly, I don't do much AfDing so I don't know the exact criteria, but I was thinking lacking notability and/or long-term encyclopedic value. Genuinely I don't know which cats that would fall under, your guidance would be appreciated.
I raised the notability issue, since I believed we don't need to have all their menu items, let alone secret menu items. But now that I've seen theres something of that sort (list of mcdonald's menu items), I'm left wondering...
The list of secret items has another problem - theres no guarantee that all these variants are available at all outlets. But then again, this might also be applicable to their basic menu.
Like I said above, I believe theres no need to have an article about secret menu items as such. We could have an article In-N-Out's Menu Items (following McDonald's example). In that, integrate the content related to menu from the main article, and have a section Secret Items in that. I offered to withdraw this AfD nom earlier (see above), but now that some editors have !voted delete, that can't be done(?). xC | ☎05:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That might be possible, though it could be handier to simply re-integrate it into the main In-N-Out article, where there's already a subsection on their Secret Menu. Someone else would have to answer whether or not an AfD can be withdrawn-by-nominator after discussion (AFAIK I believe it can, under Be Bold if nothing else - though I don't know the mechanics of closing an AfD out.) I'm not sure that action is best, though, given that once nominated, the idea is to work towards a consensus. You never know, maybe on the fifth day someone comes through to make a clear argument against the flow that converts everyone else.... Besides, you can always let the debate play out and let the conclusion become No Consensus. That doesn't mean the question wasn't worth asking in the first place, either.
At any rate, the best case I'd make for deletion is Not Original Thought // News, except that I was first introduced to the Double-Double and 2x4 prior to 1997, and it was described to me at the time as a "secret menu," so I doubt that WP:Neologism applies either. That's my best case for, and I can't actually support it, so that's why I went with Keep, though I'd be happy to see a Merge instead. LaughingVulcan02:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you. Although I was the nominator for this AfD, I'd support a merge as well now; whether to a seperate page In-N-Out's Menu Items or to the main article itself, I'm fine by it either way. xC | ☎07:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Relocate Sounds right; changing my input from keep above. The more it comes to me, the more I believe it should be rolled. It seems like it would be weighty as it is if rolled back to the In-N-Out article. I like the "Menu Items" idea of yours. I think we should take this over to the talk pages of the main In-N-Out article and this article to see if there's any consensus there with which way to roll it. LaughingVulcan00:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I live in California, where the secret menu is a big deal. Also, employees know of the secret menu, and they know how to ring it up on the register. Therefore, they are sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.210.196 (talk • contribs)
Delete Note, this idea appeared in an article this week on secret menus at fast-food and other restaurants. I can't find the print version (I thought it was in the WSJ but am not certain) but I thought In-N-Out was mentioned by name. Here's a radio version transcript: [9]. JJL19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Having been to In-N-Out and having ordered from the secret menu, I can say without a doubt that this is an article Wikipedia needs to have. Were it not for this article, I wouldn't know about "protein-style" burgers... Isn't furthering knowledge what Wikipedia is all about? 24.0.147.17323:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A whole bundle of unconvincing arguments here, on both sides, but ultimately this is a classic POV fork, and it's also original synthesis. While there are plenty of "references" provided, the vast bulk of them are irrelevant to this term's notability and significance, and have been strung together to constitute a POV synthesized narrative. MoreschiTalk14:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're googling it wrong. The search of [10] yields around 19,600 hits. (Note the subtraction of Palestine-related issues. Also note that this particular search string also subtracts every article explicitly comparing Soviet occupation denialism to Holocaust denialism, so the actual number of relevant articles is greater. Also also note that a great number of studies of this phenomenon has been done in languages other than English, and that identification of denialism as a distinct phenomenon is relatively new and, as such, not explicitly mentioned in many of them.)
And your point in selecting one Googlelink is...? Also, everything you don't like isn't "hate speech", which are you denying this time - Soviet crimes or Russia's official stance on them? DLX09:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We write an encyclopaedia in English, not in some obscure dialiect you quote. You should go with established terms in English scholarly discourse, rather than coining them when inspiration strikes. --Ghirla-трёп-10:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The deletion request is politically motivated and improper attempt to get rid of an article discussing a notable, sourced point of view necessary to understand a number of current events in Eastern European politics. Digwuren09:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the phenomenon is or becomes notable, as is the phenomenon of Soviet occupation denial, certainly. It does not matter that extremist websites might quote Wikipedia on that. Your implication to the contrary constitutes appeal to consequences, a logical fallacy. Digwuren10:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that the phenomenon is notable or "comparable to Holocaust denial" as you term it. The Soviet Union officially condemned and denounced the secret protocol to the Soviet-German Treaty. President Putin repeatedly referred to that act to underscore his position on the issue. If you have something more to say on the subject, please go to Soviet-German Pact, rather than inventing or "translating" new terms of inflammatory nature. --Ghirla-трёп-10:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The title is a bit clumsy but it's a legitimate topic and indeed the crux of the current dispute between Russia and Estonia. The Baltic states were invaded, annexed and occupied by the Soviet Union and there's nothing 'neo nazi' about acknowledging that fact. The Russians still see themselves as liberators of the countries they occupied and are genuinely amazed that this position isn't held by the native populations of those countries. The place to sort out a NPOV on this is the article's talk page, not AfD. It can't just be subsumed into articles on Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania because it's also applicable to the Ukraine, Georgia, Czech Republic, Poland, East Germany etc etc. Nick mallory09:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure what to say about the AfD yet, but can someone point out the alleged Neo-Nazi Overtones to me? This may very well be my own ignorance, but I can't really pinpoint them. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic: I apologize if my tone offends.) Charlie09:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All that talk about "denials" (e.g., Holodomor denial) involves belittling of the Holocaust and the Holocaust denial, because it basically implies that the Holocaust is comparable to some other events in history. We know it is the fictitious under-pinning to the present anti-Russian campaign to rewrite history so that the Commies were much, much wickeder than the Nazis and their sympathizers. --Ghirla-трёп-10:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The USSR saw its 'liberation' of the Baltic states from the Nazis as its justification for everything that followed. This ignores the fact that the USSR invaded and annexed the Baltic states in 1940 when the USSR was allied with Nazi Germany as part of the Nazi Soviet pact. The USSR also attacked Finland and Poland before Hitler turned on his former allies in 1941. Nick mallory09:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that's the point isn't it? Improving the article by adding relevant information is better than simply airbrushing it from Wikipedia. Nick mallory10:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because the page consists of nothing but original research. In the lead, it states that the neologism invented by its author is "comparable to Holocaust denial". Ergo, the Soviet occupation is comparable to the Holocaust. That's what makes it so absurd. --Ghirla-трёп-10:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding another perspective here. It has been typical of Soviet Union's treatment of history, and of the post-1991 Russian treatment of history, to view the World War II (see also Great Patriotic War) as a black-and-white battle of good Communists versus evil Nazis (typically called 'fascists' (Russian: фашисты). In light of this ideology, every claim that can be seen as casting disfavourable shadow upon Red Army's heroism, or the motivation of the 'good' Communist Party that directed the army, is seen as an act of allegiance with the 'evil' opponents, an attempt to heroize the Nazis. Accordingly, a number of the historians researching in 1980s and 1990s the Soviet crimes against humanity (committed mostly in 1940-1949) have been accused of neo-Nazism, mostly by Soviet and Russian authorities. Digwuren10:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with the present article. Do you deny the Estonians' involvement in the WWII massacres against Russian and Jewish population? Where have all the Latvian Jews gone during the war? You forget that in a few weeks a country as small as Estonia created 22 (!) death camps with the guards being almost all Estonians; that in 1941 9,000 Russian PoWs were "executed" by "Estonian Self-Defence"; that Estonian police battalions were particular murderous against Estonian Jews (out of the flourishing community of several thousand only around 12 had survived) and civilian population in Russia and Belarus completely burning down several villages with all their citizens, mostly women and children. It wasn't happening at the end of the war as a desperate attempt to get their, Estonian, hands on arms in the face of the coming Red Army as some try so hard to convince. It was happening right from the beginning. But do we have the article about the Estonian collaboration with the Nazis? No, we don't even have Soviet-Japanese War where my grandfather and great grandfather were killed by the way. Have the Estonian officials ever acknowledged their guilt in the Holocaust? If not, why do we have no article about the Estonian Holocaust denial? --Ghirla-трёп-11:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stalin killed or deported 5,000 Latvian Jews during the first occupation, including the entire civic and political leadership. (And proportionally the highest number of any ethnic group.) That seems to have been conveniently forgotten. With its head cut off, the Jewish community was ill-equipped to mobilize itself when the Nazis invaded. Oh, and did I mention, of all the peoples Stalin deported to Siberia, Jews received the worst treatment of all? — Pēters J. Vecrumba01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The supposed Dzyatlava massacre is under serious doubt by historians, and may be fictitious or misrepresented.
See, for example, an overview in [13]. As an illustrative example, Leo Pihelpuu, who, if the accusations were true, directly participated in the massacre and was so charged, was not executed, as the Soviet law of the time proscribed for crimes against humanity; instead, he was sentenced to 25+5.
I'm planning to work on the article, but given the delicacy of the matter, it needs thorough preparation. Do not hold your breath. Digwuren11:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Estonian websites you quote are a fine specimen of Estonian Holocaust denial. The perpetrators of the Holocaust in Estonia were partially absolved, because the government of the Estonian SSR asked the matter to be suppressed. It was one of many mistakes of the Soviet government which encouraged the Estonians to believe that they had nothing to do with the Holocaust, while the Estonian (and Latvian) Jews simply evaporated, without any assistance on their part. --Ghirla-трёп-11:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. So you're suggesting that the "Government of Estonian SSR" were actually neo-Nazis?? But remember, they were directly appointed by the communist party of USSR -- so the party leaders must have been Nazis? Eventually, maybe communist party itself was secretly a Nazi organization? On the other hand, Holocaust was not openly discussed in USSR. The history textbooks for schools did not specifically mention Jews; students were left with the impression that the main crime of Nazis was that they attacked USSR. Lebatsnok09:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, well referenced for an article that was just started. Needs more time to be developed and polished -- perhaps the title should be modified (is denialism really a dictionary word?). Also, if we talk about Soviet occupation of neighboring countries, and the denial by some of certain actions that took place during said occupation, how about mentioning the Katyn massacre? I quote from that (featured) article: "In March 2005 Russian authorities ended the decade-long investigation with no one charged. Russian Chief Military Prosecutor Alexander Savenkov put the final Katyn death toll at 14,540 and declared that the massacre was not a genocide, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, but a military crime for which the 50-year term of limitation has expired and that consequently there is absolutely no basis to talk about this in judicial terms. Despite earlier declarations, President Vladimir Putin's government refused to allow Polish investigators to travel to Moscow in late 2004 and 116 out of 183 volumes of files gathered during the Russian investigation, as well as the decision to put an end to it, were classified." Sounds like a belated admission to me, not a full admission of responsibility for the massacre committed at Katyn forest in 1940. And this is not just my opinion; to quote again from that article: "Because of that, the Polish Institute of National Remembrance has decided to open its own investigation. ... The Sejm also requested Russia to classify the Katyn massacre as the crime of genocide". — Turgidson11:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's an ancient tactic to bury the real issues in an immense pile of historical grievances. The so-called "Katyn denial" was discussed many times before and classified as another attempt to blur the uniqueness of the Holocaust. If you want to discuss Russia's attitude towards Katyn, you should go to the appropriate talk page. It's an immense topic which cannot be treated summarily here. And it has nothing to do with the subject of this page. --Ghirla-трёп-12:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be making the peculiar argument that the Katyn massacre (and other Soviet atrocities) should be swept under a rug because if that is not done, Holocaust might be viewed by some as non-unique. Is that correct? Digwuren12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "demand" anything to be "swept under a rug". I demand the articles to conform to WP:NOR. I don't think Wikipedia is a proper venue for introducing one's own neologisms and "research". If you are interested in researching "Soviet atrocities", please publish your findings in some reputable journal, prove that their denial is "comparable to Holocaust denial" and then return to Wikipedia. --Ghirla-трёп-12:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I apologise for misunderstanding your position, and express the point of viewhope that if you browsed through the references, you would see that this article conforms to both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. I especially recommend [16] which is very thorough, and takes a somewhat novel approach to the assessment of differences in interpretation of history, but all the references are worth reading. Digwuren12:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ghirla: Please assume good faith -- what I said is not a "tactic", but the way I think. And, the issue of Katyn may have been discussed, so what-- I was not part of that discussion (I only joined WP about 6 months ago), and this article seems to be a good place to put certain aspects of the Katyn massacre into a wider perspective, to wit, the refusal by some (including officials in the Russian government) to admit full resposibility for certain actions done by the Soviets in occupied countries, some decades ago. And, beg your pardon, why would the Katyn massacre committed by NKVD troops on occupied territory have "nothing to do with the subject of this page"? — Turgidson12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad -- I got carried away with the geographical location where the massacre actually took place. I was thinking of the Polish officers being rounded up in Poland by Soviet occupying troops in 1939 -- that was the occupied territory I meant to refer to. Turgidson19:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All this demonstrates why I think we should not keep this page. There are people pursuing a revisionist agenda and others opposing them. Until there's a more settled view of events the page will simply be a battleground of reversions where editors with axes to grind come to take a poke at their opponents. BTLizard12:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this is mere handwaving. There is nothing in WP:NPOV that would suggest refraining from creating articles on controversial topic out of concern that they may become battlefields for edit wars.
As for revisionist agenda, this particular revisionist ideology is quite notable, being part of the Russian Federation's official interpretation of history. It needs to be covered, under the very rules of WP:NPOV, as neutrally as we can manage. Digwuren13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not mention anything about the part that local (non-Russian) Soviet/Communist cadres played in the annexation/incorporation of the Baltic countries into the Soviet Union. - Francis Tyers·20:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have currently trouble envisioning the relevance of that. Could you add the missing information, or at least suggest its scope and place in the article? Digwuren07:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Legal continuity of Baltic states or delete. Denialists of Holocaust deny that the mass killing of Jews took place or insisted that it was on much smaller scale. "Denialists" of Soviet Occupation do not deny that Baltic states were incorporated to the Soviet Union by the treat of military force or that it was followed by many unfortunate events. The only thing they argue is that occupation is the wrong term and say annexation or incorporation is the better term (e.g. that a Secretary of Tartu Raykom of CPSUAndrus Ansip should not be charaterized as an occupant or colloborator but rather as a Communist functioner of Estonian SSR). The discussion on the proper wording for the event does not worth a separate article and it is an original research. The only thing why the argument is present is because of the Legal continuity of Baltic states, the question whether the Baltic states share the assets and liability of the Soviet Union and the most importantly if they have any obligations to their residents. I think the theme is important and can include the legalese over occupation vs annexation vs joining Alex Bakharev13:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, the legal continuity of Baltic states is already discussed elsewhere. This article is about the POV that they (and other occupation victims) were not occupied, or that occupation-related atrocities did not take place.
Denialists of occupation have denied a number of things over the various years, and typically only stopped at any particular point when it became too embarrassing to not do so. Take, for example, the very existence of MRP, denial of which was officially maintained for over 50 years; the Katyn massacre, which the Soviets for years attempted to blame on Nazis and only Gorbachev admitted to; or the genocidal forced deportations of many tens of thousands of Baltic citizens that were covered up until mid-1980s.
Your attempt to make sense of denialist claims is admirable, but your summary of these claims, not taking into account the evolving nature of such claims, is wrong. Digwuren13:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been planning to write the article on Legal continuity of the Baltic states for some time now. With the present atmosphere and the influx of one sided editors, I am however affraid the article would not stand a change.
With the most controverisal articles it is often best to leave them alone and let the war mongers add all the venom they want. That way innocent readers will not be fooled, and will recognice the article for the crap it is, even without a POV or totallydiputed tag. The best hope for this article is, that it will end up in that category. -- Petri Krohn21:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giving up so soon? There's little controversy outside the minds of valiant occupation-denial warriors like you yelling "Nazi!" here. Would you perhaps care to stop arguing with rhetorical flourishes and explain just how the Katyn massacre, the Holodomor, the secret protocols of the MRP, the mass deportations or any other well-documented crimes against humanity will be read as "crap" by "innocent readers"? Unigolyn00:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, not the crimes themselves, real or alleged, but the judgement the article tries to force upon its readers using suggestive and inflammatory language and even stooping so low as to actually underline the parts of text someone considers important. --Illythr14:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a valid article about the denial of crimes committed by soviet occupation. It has plenty of cited sources to make it worth of keeping and expanding. Pehaps taking the -ISM part out would make it more understandable as "Soviet occupation denial"?--Alexia Death14:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the -ism:s. Now, the article consistently refers to 'occupation denial', ready to be renamed. Digwuren15:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to do WP:OR, you could classify them separately. However, almost all the sources dealing with the subject I have seen treat the crimes as inseparably flowing from the occupation, and do not make this distinction. Digwuren07:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork and Nazi propaganda. Controversies should be reflected in the relevant articles where both points of view reflected equally.--Dojarca15:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork of what? And Nazi-propaganda? I see no Nazi views in this article. Could you substantiate the clams a little more deeply? --Alexia Death16:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First. There is no evidence that the term really exists and if exists, covers all the things mentioned in the article such as Katyn massacre. Katyn massacre as well as "liberation from Judeo-Bolshevist occupants" were the topics havily used by Nazi propaganda. In its essence the article is another revisionist attempt to reconsider the history and outcomes of WWII. The article labels such belief (i.e. denial of Soviet occupation) as denialist which according the denialism article is a belief contrary to the scientifically supported evidence. So the article describes denial of Soviet occupation to be a view contrary to scientific evidence, which is wrong as judical definition of occupation is a military control over foreign territory. The article covers problems already covered in other articles such as Occupation of Baltic States and we do not need another article covering the same topic or a new article yet another time citing Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.--Dojarca16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, Ive already proposed and it has been accepted that the -ism part should be removed as this was result of slightly too literal translation, the occupation denial however is very real thing. Soviet army was in the baltic states until IIRC 95... So occupation is a historic fact. This article is not about that fact. Its about this fact being denied. It does not talk about MRP either. It talks about the fact that the existence of secret protocols was denied for fifty years. As to nazy propaganda, Nazy presence in the Baltic states is also viewed as OCCUPATION and is not a topic of this article.--Alexia Death17:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No country can occupy its own territory so even if Soviet army units existed in the republics, it cannot be termed occupation. All points of view related the occupation should be covered in the relevant article Occupation of Baltic States. Existence of secret protocols to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact alreadey covered it the relevant article Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and we do not need another article on the same topic.--Dojarca17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide a reliable (i.e. not Estonial nationalist) source that the incorporation of the countries into the USSR was not recognized by such a number of states?--Dojarca21:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the online sources refer to works of Tunne Kelam or Mart Laar in the end. While the latter is a recognised historian, I feel you would still unreasonably deny his work claiming "unreliability" and "bias", so you will have to do with an offline source:
Obviously, you're trying to make one unreasonable "request" after another in hope that in the end, you can present a "failure" to heed such unreasonability as "prevailing" of your occupation denial arguments. However, here's a quote for you, from the conclusion:
“
The annexation of the Baltic States has served as a major precedent — one which has moved international law onto a plane much higher than that existing in 1940. For the first time in recorded history, the majority of the members of the world community have refused over a lengthy period to recognize the legitimacy of title acquired through conquest.
The annexation has helped to establish non-recognition of forcible territorial seizure as an important customary rule of international law and has had a major impact on the development of law prohibiting seizure of territory. The non-recognition of the Soviet annexation has pointed out the salutary aspects of the Stimson doctrine as a whole. Such positive aspects can be divided into the political, juridical and ethical spheres.
”
Quoted in [17]. If you want more, go to a library yourself, or ask your friendly neighbourhood professor of international law. Digwuren22:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A valid article. To say that this article is false and an AfD suggests that Western betrayal should go too. The accusations of Nazi undertones in this article is absurd. - 52 Pickup17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. Hard one. Ghirla is right that the title is ORish (but descriptive titles are OK if phenomena is notable). Whether the phenomena is notable, I am not sure - the current references are mostly non-academic, and while they speak about similar pheonomena, I am not sure if it is notable enough or not. Thus, I abstain: if better references are provided, I may change my vote to keep, but currently I am almost tempted to vote delete (and if no good references are provided, I may change my vote to delete if deletion arguments get better...).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and RenameMaybe it would be better solution simply to create a section to Occupation of Baltic states about it? I must say that im not sure if that article is neccessary. Anyway this recent confrontation between Estonians and Russians in many articles at wikipedia which was started by Bronze soldier dispute is quite annoying. By the way, I consider claims that Baltic states were not occupied simple stalinistic POV pushing, just I have some doubts if this current article is neccessary.--Staberinde19:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe there is an even better title, however the phenomenon is significant and warrants a Wikipedia article. What happened in Estonia, Latvia and elsewhere from 1940-1991 was an illegal occupation, and that is the official position of most major democratic nations of the world [1]. Conversely, if, and only if, the Russian Federation, and most of the Wikipedia fans of its current policies agreed with the assessment of the democratic world then, of course, an article on occupation denial would be rather redundant.--3 Löwi20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While neutrality of the article is questionable it is referenced and one of it's references [18] proves that such term acctualy exists. And as for suggestion to move this to Legal continuity of Baltic states - concider that each of Baltic states is independent entity and each has different laws ---- Xil/talk20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is controversy around this issue notable for Wikipedia? - yes. Do official positions and references exist that affirm both points of view? - yes. Do various aspects of this controversy deserve separate articles, provided there is enough material, there are enough references, and that the articles represent NPOV and are non-OR? - yes. But the article in its current state doesn't represent NPOV and is an OR, therefore, delete. --BeautifulFlying21:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is definitely not neutral point of view. There are a lot of web sites where you can argue or represent your political opinions, but not here. Vicpeters22:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Firstly, it is a classic POV fork of the Occupation of Baltic States with the latter article in a current stated being itself far from NPOV. There cannot be any more fitting article to exemplify the very term of POV-fork. Secondly, the article is OR. Thirdly, it is started purely to grind one's ax. Fourthly, even if we are to have an article on such topic, it would have to be a totally different title and be written from scratch. As such, even if we would have agreed that this is a valid topic for an article, the current content would be useless. As per that and othe arguments above, a very strong delete. --Irpen23:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mea culpa - I provoked my nemesis into creating this article. To me it seems like preemptive rebuttal of something I was planning to write (not in the article space but in my user space.)
I believe that the use of the word “occupation” in reference to, or instead of Estonian SSR or Latvian SSR is in most cases hate speech (or even worse, it is state sponsored hate speech.) This choice of words is motivated by what I would call the “Baltic occupation myth”, and cultivated by what can be called “occupation theorists”. The myth exists for the sole purpose of denying the rights (including citizenship) of Estonia's and Latvia's Russian minorities. (Myth supporters will naturally argue, that no rights were denied, as these people had no rights to begin with.) This myth was created after 1991 and has all the features of a Big Lie. Its central premise is that Latvia and Estonia were occupied territory until 1991.
The use of the word “occupation” is directly related to use of the slur “okupandid” for members Estonia's Russian minority. As a comparison (using the original metaphor for self-determination), one could say that the Estonian Popular Front in 1989 demanded divorce from the Soviet Union. The Congress of Estonia in 1990 demanded annulment of the marriage. Occupation theorists see the whole relationship, up to 1991, as rape. Use of the O-word has the same power as calling the non-citizen Russians rapists.
If this really is a case of hate speech, Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms will not solve the problem. By definition, hate mongers are aware of the fallacy of their arguments. Counterarguments, however well prepared will thus have no effect. We will have endless revert wars and never-ending talk-page battles.
From the talk pages, it will be easy for an outside observer to see, when hate mongers are present. It will however be very difficult to see which side of the argument is hate speech. Hate mongers are not stupid; they may mimic the argumentation of a good-faith editor in every detail. The only way to tell the sides apart, is to “follow the money”; who are the victims that will suffer from the adaption of the lie or half-truth?
(Next we will hear accusations, that Soviet occupation denialists aim to victimize the Baltic people.)
I really do not know what to do with this article. It is valuable in bringing out some of the argumentation of the occupation theorists. As such I do not however believe it as any place in Wikipedia 's article space. All I can do is invite people who share my views, to work together in preparing the counterargument. -- Petri Krohn01:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Occupation theorists"? Please refrain from using such inflammatory language if you possibly can. Contrary to your neo-Stalinist fantasy world, the illegal occupation of the Baltic states is an accepted fact in the real one, and it resulted in the well-documented death, deportation or refugee status of a third of my country's population. "Occupation theorist" is as vile a weasel-word as "Holocaust theorist". But thank you for wearing your blatant biases so obviously on your sleeve. Unigolyn00:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopelessly POV essay. The complex politics of the situation aside, I'm not convinced that this is a widespread phenomenon like Holocaust Denial. I think this page exists primarily as an attack against ex-Soviet interests. Lankiveil01:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The subject is now very notable, thanks to Putin's propaganda machine. The article is referenced. It can be improved. No reasons for deletion.Biophys 02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC) This article could be a part of a wider topic, Denials of Communist crimes. No reason to focus only on Soviet/Russian topics. There are good recent book by Robert Conquest on this subject: "Reflections on a Ravaged Century" (1999) and "The Dragons of Expectation" (2004).Biophys02:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNot only this is not original research, but this concept was taught to me and others in all old Soviet history textbooks! Yes, I would tell there is absolutely nothing new and original here.Biophys02:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This can be a place to review the basis (based on published sources, so NPOV and topical from the article perspective, though the source itself may not be NPOV) for Russia denying that occupation took place and that the current Baltic republics are discontinuous with the first--without other issues being brought into it. This should be allowed to develop before branding it a POV fork. I do agree that "...denial" is better than "...denialism"--former is a factual description, latter classifies it as a phenomenon (which it may be, but need to have reputable source outside WP call it that). — Pēters J. Vecrumba03:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose "Basis for non-continuity of Baltic states" might be more academic, but based on what's been presented elsewhere so far, this would just become "what Russia says" with no further evidence. Aside from plenty of statements from the Russian press/politicians/authorities that the Baltics are not continuous (ergo, not occupied), there's been no other evidence provided. The classic if enough people say it, it must be true syndrome.
P.S. If one wanted to characterize this as an "anti-Soviet" article, that does not equal "neo-Nazi." Characterizing this article as neo-Nazi and therefore worthy of deletion is a POV assertion; moreover, the reasoning that anti-Soviet = anti-(anti-Nazi) = pro-Nazi/neo-Nazi is in fact the official Russian contention--and so the very request to delete the article in fact proves the necessity for the article's existence. — Pēters J. Vecrumba03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dear Vlad and other users of 'Nazi propaganda' label here. Nazi propaganda was very much in line with Nazi Germany's 1940-1945 official position which held that the sovereign states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania had ceased to exist in 1940 when they became part of the Soviet Union. In simple words, according to Nazi propaganda there was no Soviet occupation after 1940. Hence, one should a bit more careful with the labels. Calling the Western democracies' position on the Soviet occupation and Baltic legal continuity 'Nazi propaganda' really means rewriting history by making Hitler, Goebbels and others look better, and giving too much undue credit to Nazi Germany. --3 Löwi06:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Very well referenced for such a recent article, more references will probably be found. There might be some POV, but no "Nazi propaganda" in current version. Also, it is clear that writers of that article have tried to stay NPOV, but on controversial articles such as this, there are bound to be people who find it POV. Highly noteworthy subject, that unfortunately seems to become more and more relevant daily. DLX06:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete. The current title of the article is very misleading by intention. It leads to a mixture of two ideas:
denial of the fact that this occupation took place
arguing that it should not be called occupation, but rather annexation.
The article states that a "denialism" is the official position of Russian authorities. I would note that it is a "denialism" in the second sense.--Ring006:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer Denial of Soviet crimes over Denial of Communist crimes, as the subject matter deals specifically with USSR, not, say, crimes committed by Pol Pot and his followers. While the latter were also denied, it does not strike me as reasonable to lump these topics together. (In fact, even most sources, including studies, on Communist crimes and their denial, only deal with narrower topics, such as crimes committed and denied by the occupying Soviet Communists in the region of Latvia.) Digwuren07:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will also support Denial of Soviet crimes over the current title. It's far more neutral. As for "occupation", nobody (almost) denies that Baltic states were incorporated into the USSR against the will of the majority of their population. But calling it "occupation" or "annexation" is a political issue, not historical. So, this controversial term shouldn't be at the title of the article if we're striving for NPOV.--Ring012:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I would also note that the official position of Russian authorities is the denial of the fact that this occupation took place from 1940 until 1991 (and Ring0 and others are mistaken in assuming that Putin's official Russia is only arguing about what the occupation should, or should not, be called) -- which reinforces the need for such an article. Regards, --Klamber06:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is nothing POV in describing a well catalogued phenomenon in Russian and Eastern European politics and media. Some of the delete votes here seem to not grasp the irony of their own occupation-denial viewpoints being supporting evidence of the topics existence. Furthermore, the hyperbolic accusations of "Nazi propaganda" are simply shockingly bald-faced, giving me reason to believe their authors have been drinking too much Kremlin Kool-Aid. Also, the Crusader-in-Chief Ghirlandajo's statements regarding the "obscure dialect" of Estonian, an official language of the European Union, are a reprehensible example of chauvinism. Unigolyn08:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The official position of Russian government of denying the occupation and other Soviet crimes is well known and documented, thus this is an important article which describes a notable phenomena. Martintg08:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And labeling unpleasant history "rusophobia" and trying to censor it is policy of wikipedia? I thought wiki was striving for neutrality...--Alexia Death08:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Deleting it would be another victory of missionary Russian imperialists. The article is well sourced and neutral. On the other hand, denial of Soviet crimes (e.g, Katyn and Holodomor) is a different issue than denial of occupation. I'd suggest splitting the article. Lebatsnok09:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In spite of the contentiousness of this debate with comments like, another victory of missionary Russian imperialists, deleting an article without even giving it a chance for development, strikes me as wrong and bordering on censorship. So let's see where this goes. I'm not against a name change if it comes to that. BTW, what is the purpose of an "abstain" vote? Are people who are able to vote in these matters so convinced that their vote for or against something is so important, that they need to "abstain" from casting a vote. When I have no interest in casting a vote, I don't abstain, I just don't vote. Dr. Dan14:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep As I can see there are attempts to push the topic ad absurdum - "Nazi" Baltic states, "fascist government" and "history revriting", the Putinjugend propaganda claiming that Baltic states are only "interchangeable card", they were fake from the start, or regaining independence "only changed their master", even "Russia can do anything to protect it's national interests, and it's a right thing". And there is whole load more. If we would judge international politics this way - yup, this aticle is POV. If we wold accept the fact that not only major nations have rights and small nations isn't only "быдло" that should be destroyed or used of bigger ones wellbeing, and have a right to live their democratic way - this article should be kept as a reminder what happens, when democracy closes eyes for small losses in sake of peace. All the citations are from my expirience reding variuos Russian internet sites, and most of them could be easily found in variuos Russian forums. And yes, the article needs more work to do - write an readable essay not some sort of seemingly harsh thesis summary. P.S just noticed Paukrus comment - no, this is not about phobias, this is about recognising that someone has doone wrong. Only accepting past it is a way to find a better future, otherwise there will be revanchism, and Hitler has quite clear shown where it does lead. Best regards to everyone--Lokyz14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)P.s - Renaming this article to Soviet Occupation Denial would resolve few things - non English title for an instance.[reply]
So what you're saying is that because this may provoke anger a part of history should be forgotten and never discussed on WP? So Holocaust should not be discussed because it provokes anger against Neo-Nazy movements? This is absurd!--Alexia Death17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but sure needs cleanup - too one-sided as it is, so its NPOV is rather suspect. A valid encyclopaedic topic though, with quite a few references, so I see no valid reason for deletion. -- int19h16:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article needs a lot of work. For once it should be renamed to Denial of Soviet occupation rather than “Soviet occupation denial” (which doesn’t say who’s denying whose occupation: Soviets were never “occupied”). Some of the sourced material is of great value, like the statement made by foreign minister Sergei Ivanov: “It is impossible to occupy what already belongs to you.” A rare find, almost hard to believe in today’s day and age. --Poeticbent talk 17:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a "Historiography" section of Occupation of Baltic states. The topic is notable, as indicated even by the reaction of those who consider it propaganda, but given its contentiousness, we should try and keep the subject matter together in a manageable number of articles. Sandstein05:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What,exactly, are you considering POV there? It seems that everybody, who cry "POV!!!" fail to show what exactly is POV in that reasonably well-cited article. DLX10:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps rename to some better title. The article is ok, but the title is definitely OR. Oh, and keep up the good job sourcing it. //Halibutt11:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The arguments presented by Nick mallory, Lysy, Turgidson and Biophys are absolutely logical. The article cannot be merged into Occupation of Baltic States, of Bessarabia, of Poland, etc, etc, because it is a wider topic in history, it is about Soviet Union's legacy and communist system propaganda and nostalgia, not about Latvia, Poland or East Germany, for which this is a detail in their history. Likewise, I believe Holocaust denial is more relevant to Germany, Poland, Romania, Russia than to Israel. It is not a problem of Israelis if a German denies Holocaust, but of Germans. Similarly, it is a problem of neo-communists, and unfortunately also recently started becoming a problem of Russians, not one of Estonians or Poles. I also support Poeticbent and Halibutt's suggestion to rename it into something like Denial of Soviet occupation. The topic is widely present in historiographic debate, and therefore is by far not original research, IMO. However the user who started it apparently translated the name from Estonian, hence the linguistically strange name. That can be easily corrected. The negative reaction of many Russian editors of WP to an article started by an Estonian is sentimentialy understandable in view of recent political events, but feelings appart, I think people should regain their coolness and rethink their position - otherwise it looks very "don't mess with our history", something which civilized people shouldn't say. (Russification is a completely different topic, just as Germanization is not equal to nazism. One is national, other is political. It can be mentioned as a consequence of occupation, just as knowing French is mentioned as a consequence of colonialism in north Aftrica.) :Dc7614:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what should be said about Poland in your vision? Is Polish territory still occupied by Ukraine? If to call Soviet control over Baltics "occupation" then why not to call contemporary Ukraine's control over Galicia and Bukovina "occupation"? Is Moldova an illegal occupant state?--Dojarca15:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some users insist the topic is related not only to Baltic states, but also to Poland. So the question is what part of Poland was occupied and its occupation was denied by the USSR? And is it still under occupation?
All of Poland was occupied, as well as the entire Eastern Europe. What is more relevant to the article is the denial of the Katyn massacre, for one example. Western Ukraine was indeed occupied (from Poland) by the Siviet Union in 1939, and was under its occupation until 1991. The local Ukrainians did not wish to change a Polonization policy in an otherwise democratic state with mass killings and deportations. They wanted to change it with something better not worse! And they, not the Poles, took arms against the Soviets in the region. Ditto for northern Bukovina, which was equally Romanian and Ukrainian in 1940 with important German, Jewish and Polish minorities. It was a cultural jewel of the former Austria-Hungary, totally distroyed by the Soviets in 1940-56. To not cover those crimes because the territory is now in Ukraine is a least very strange. (Soviets killed local Ukrainians just as they killed local Romanians or Poles - it wasn't eethnical, but political, how many times it is necessary to repeat?) The phenomenon of denial of all such crimes committed by the Soviets exists and is widely covered in the literature. That is what the article should be about, the policy of denial, IMO, while the facts of crimes should be refered to the respective articles.:Dc7616:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The consequenses of the above is like playing a record backwards - it can be done, but it sounds horrible. The Baltic occupation is quite straight forward compared to the very complex situation of Poland after World War II. If Poland was occupied, then large chunks of Germany was occupied as well (Eastern Prussia, Danzig, Silesia and Pommerania). It sounds like a slippery slope to me to get that issue NPOV. --PhilawebT-C16:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Galicia and Bukovina were occupied by the USSR until 1991 as you say, they are obiously remain occupied by Ukraine, dont you think so? As well as parts of Germany are occupied by Poland and Kaliningrad oblast is occupied by Russia whith parts of East Prussia also occupied by Lithuania (as you insist at the end of WWII it was under Soviet occupation, so those lands were annexed to its illegal collaborating regime). This ideology leads us to re-consideration of all European borders established after WWII.--Dojarca17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I just wanted to hear it, that those who argues for the article here, in fact aim to revise the post-WWII borders established in Europe.--Dojarca17:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith, I would say you have either not read or understood the concept of Slippery slope. My point was that this could be the umwillingly consequense, I did not write of anyones intentions. --PhilawebT-C04:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change any border, you have to follow the Helsinki rules established in 1975, and make the whole process overviewed by OSCE. You can use any arguments you want, even the ones above, but you'll have to convince the other side. Until then, the borders remain unchanged. I thought this was well-known. Personal oppinions are nothing but personal oppinions otherwise. Even if we all in WP would agree, that would be exactly 0% relevant to the world.
If based on the fact that millions of Jews were killed in Eastern Europe during WWII, someone would propose to create another Jewish state there, people would just laugh. But if someone says that because people laugh at this idea, maybe there was no Holocaust, that would be very serious to me, that would be an argument twisted beyond any common sense, that would be seriously mean. If some crazy fanatic says that - whatever, if state officials - that's very worring. We must learn to separate calling historic facts by their names from current international status of a territory or another.
After 1991, Galicia is not an occupied territory. Just as after 2004 (after USA formally ended the occupation), Iraq is not an occupied territory.:Dc7618:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So why it was occupied before 1991 and is not occupied now? Was it returned to Poland? Were Helsinki rules not applicable to the USSR?--Dojarca19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) Just for the same reason that Iraq is no longer occupied, and it was NOT restored to Saddam Husein. The sovereinty was returned to the people of Ukraine in 1991, while until 1991 it stayed with the USSR autorities. Former Yugoslavia was the only socialist country in Europe that was never occupied by the Soviets. 2) Helsinki explaines how to conduct yourself in foreign policy, it is not a law by which you get property back! And territory (in the sence of the one over which some hold sovereignty) is by the way not equal to property.:Dc7620:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly? I don't know, I never asked myslef. I am under no obligation from God to hold an answer to every question, be it even personal oppinion. I think historians, not me should answer that. What I believe is irrelevant for what goes into public record. Scholarly works and citations from official documents - is and should be the only thing that matters. The case of Galicia and northern Bukovina is more obvious (1939, 1940), as there are tonns of documents and works. For the rest of Ukraine? I for one don't know enough about its history. And as a rule I do not form personal oppinion before knowing at least all the basics. If you know Ukraine's history very well - please share that with me, give me links to WP pages on those subjects, and I would be happy to follow you for improving my general culture. (you are more than welcome to use my talk page for that) :Dc7600:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know that occupation is the control over foreign territory? So you imply that Galicia and Bukovina were not belonging to the USSR in 1991, yes?--Dojarca07:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When Galicia and northern Bukovina were occupied by the USSR in 1939, resp 1940, they were foreign territories by all standards. The fact that USSR declaratively annexed them did not make the occupation stop. Just as Nazi-occupied and partially annexed Poland in 1939-45 was occupied, not liberated by Germany. If nazi Germany considered Pozan or Torun non-foreign in 1943, it's the problem of nazi Germany's self-induced illusion of reality.:Dc7610:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bukovina was definitely not "occupied". It was not even "annexed" as the term implies the unilateral action. Bukovina and Bessarabia were ceded to the USSR following the June 1940 Soviet Ultimatum. Only a takeover of a small Hertza region can be called an "occupation" but just the act of the takeover itself and not the entire 50 yr period of the Soviet (and modern Ukrainian) rule of the territory. Otherwise, good luck with creating and maintaining Occupation of Texas (1845 - present) to use a term to designate the entire period that followed the US annexation. --Irpen11:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are entitled to have your own POV. However, it is not what historians say. I don't want to discuss this any longer here, for it is irrelevant. The point here was for everyone to express his/her understanding and present the known to him/her arguments. We are not historians, and should not debate them. You give a perfect example of Soviet occupation denial, but you are just a private person, so it is not a problem. Similarly, there are many (IMO crazy) people who deny Holocaust, and the last thing I wish would be to debate them. I don't want to use any adjective for those that deny Soviet occupation, I leave it to them to call themselves liberators of Europe or whatever they want - it is your conscience that is being stained, and it is your hands that you poor into the blood of millions of inocent victims. I don't want to make it more harder for you than it will be when one day you will realize the heaviness of your words. I am perfectly satisfied that God will judge you, and I don't want to add anything on top of that. So, look, have it your way or whatever way you want. You, not me will eventually "answer" for that. My moral duty was to civilizedly tell you to think twice, and actually I already overdid that. Have a nice day!:Dc7612:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Noone can speak for the Lord. What I said was my understanding of the literature. Whether you would realize the graveness of your words in the future - maybe I was wrong about that, sorry. I surely hope you would. The last thing I wanted was to sound like a prophet.:Dc7614:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV-fork. A logical complement to this article would be "Baltic occupation myth" dealing with the other side of the story (as in Petri Krohn's post above). The frame of this article seems valid enough to return under a different (NPOV) name and differently styled content, but in its current shape it looks like a lame hate attack in place of an encyclopedic article. --Illythr15:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and while we're at it, let's create a "Holocaust myth" article, to get the "other side" of that story. The illegality of the Soviet occupation isn't some crackpot theory, it's accepted by every major government and NGO, aside from the self-proclaimed legal successor of the USSR and its few surrounding puppet states. Denial of this commonly accepted fact is both the official policy of the aformentioned legal successor as well as a widespread belief among pro-Kremlin civilians and ideologues in Russia and elsewhere. Erstwhile communist apologista Petri Krohn being one of them. Unigolyn00:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While evaluating the legality of most annexations is a pretty futile endeavor, the problem with the article is not that, but it's attack-style POV. Compare with a (recently deleted) List of Muslims involved in a crime to see what I mean. As I said, a total conversion (starting with the name) may make the article useful. Right now, I see no difference from a classic "List of <bad things> done by <people>"-type attack, that is used to imply that all <people> are bad. --Illythr13:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet is a regime not a people. The title attacks Russians no more than Nazi crimes attacks Germans. Any association by Russians of themselves with Soviet might and glory and not liking the dark side of "Soviet" is outside the scope of this discussion. — Pēters J. Vecrumba14:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muslims are not a people either. Nor are Democrats or Republicans. Or Christians. Let's start articles on THEIR crimes and THEIR denial of those, shall we? What I'm trying to say is that making every Soviet soldier who had died freeing the world from Nazism and every Soviet worker who helped rebuild the war-burnt lands responsible for the decision of their government to stay in those freed countries and boss them around instead it pretty low indeed. --Illythr17:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of the things you have listed are regimes! They are kinds of people. There probebly would be vaild ground for talking of Islamic regimes now and Christian regimes in the past and their crimes eg. Inquisition. Inquisition is not denied by anyone noteworthy so an erticle about denial those crimes is not warranted... It is your personal problem, if you fail to see the difference between condemming the regime and condeming people caught up in it. They clearly are two different things. --Alexia Death18:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Illythr, please, do read what Alexia Death has just written. Regimes, Illythr, regemes, not people. Also from your reply: "every Soviet soldier who had died freeing the world from Nazism and every Soviet worker who helped rebuild the war-burnt lands" countries are not "responsible for the decision of their government to stay in those freed" occupied "countries", but those that killed and persecuted the people of those countries which did not like the replacement of one totalitarian regim with another, and those who stole whole factories - are, as employees of the regime. Fighting nazis is not equal to start plundering and killing afterwards. I don't believe that you don't see this as obvious.:Dc7619:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, isn't Democracy or a Republic a regime as well? I don't see that bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrad, or that US prison camp business listed as "Democracy crimes"... Stole whole factories? Are you talking about war reparations, perchance?
No, not equal. Different things done by different people. That's why I'm voting for deletion of an article that lumps them all together. --Illythr21:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, it as your perception that is at fault: you and we agree that the two things are different, but you believe we mean to lump them together. Well, we don't! And I'm surprized that you suggest we would, b/c then you must have thought that we have a hidden nazi agenda. I expected better from you. :Dc7621:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bombing of chinese embassy in Belgrad is not a "Democracy crime", but a regretful unintentional incident, by ones, or a test of China's need for USA to be its friend, by others. :-) BTW, democracy is not an extreme regime, as fascism and communism were. US prison camps are POW camps. US has an obligation under Genneva Coonventions to treat the cases of those that do not posses operative information speedy, otherwise it might be liable for material payment for keeping someone imprisoned without due process. It would go to "Cases of US Judiciary System infinging on the liberty of individuals" or something like that, and will cover lots of other cases inside US, including common criminal kept under arest more than deemed allowable by law.:Dc7621:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about dismantling tens of factories (e.g in Braşov) years before any treaty detailing payment of war reparations is signed. I mean also things taken extra than in those treaties (only 10% of what was taken was written in treaties). 90% was stolen. :Dc7621:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all I see are "Soviet invaders", "Soviet crimes" etc. I suppose the word's gained lots of negative connotations due to all the Cold war propaganda (like the word "capitalist" in the Soviet space). Anyhow, my main concern is that "Soviet" or "Communist" describes a group of people united by a single idea, much like Democrats or Christians, and that listing "Soviet crimes" is an attack tactic that may be likewise used on any similar category. Hey, we don't even have a list of Nazi crimes (note the redirect)! I have already seen similar lists "of crimes by <like-minded group>" (Christians, Muslims, Jews...) speedied. I do not see how this one is any different. Thus the delete. PS: Got a source on that 90% in Brasov? --Illythr23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite incorrect. 'Soviet' does not refer to any particular person or a group of persons; it instead refers to a political ideology and a particular regime. There has been only one known Soviet regime in history, unlike, say, with Communism, which is why 'Soviet crimes' is sufficiently identifying while 'Communist crimes' (which *is* actually used in the literature) is not. This uniqueness is, by the way, represented in Soviet redirecting to Soviet Union. Digwuren23:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A political ideology that was shared by hundreds of millions (and still is, by quite a lot of people). That particular regime also includes a variety of leaders. Equating Stalin to Gorbachev or Beria to Sakharov (they are all Soviets) is ridiculous. It is unfortunate that the word "Soviet" is associated only with repressions and mass-murder in the "West", in part due to a successful propaganda effort, but also due to the fact that the crimes committed were grievous indeed. Still, I find this attempt at resurrecting the old "Evil Empire" label and applying it to all things Soviet by picking up all the injustices committed during its existence (thus "helping" the reader to make the "right" judgement)... well, wrong.
You're wrong at least about two things. First, being subjugated in a revolution doesn't mean all the millions of people subscribed to the ideology. And second, merely because people sometimes subscribe political ideologies is not referring to the ideologies referring to people. Furthermore, Sakharov was a dissident, certainly not a leader. Finally, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not grounds for deletion. A number of sources actually refer to the evil as Communism's crimes against humanity; I replaced it with Soviet crimes for greater neutrality as well as preciser identification of the topic. Digwuren06:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but many. "Subjugated"? It would be false to claim that the Bolsheviks were supported by all the population of the Russian Empire, but suggesting that Lenin et al fought the Russian Revolution of 1917 alone is ridiculous. Sakharov was Soviet, just like Gagarin, Sergey Korolyov and many many others. "Soviet" is an adjective that encompasses them all. Just like... American.
I have raised very specific concerns about the article: it is 1) A POV fork and 2) An anti-Soviet attack page (not against a single person, but a roughly lumped together category). Those are my reasons for deletion. That it is also hopelessly POV comes from the definition of the two main problems. In fact, the word "Communist" would be more correct, as there is no such ideology as "Soviet" (that would be Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, and whatever you may call the Gorbachev period). Of course, the deletion would be much faster, had you used that word instead. --Illythr13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even someone in Germany or USSR who actually believed in Nazi or Soviet regime is not automatically criminal. Many Germans were brain washed by Goebbels to believed that all their country did was defending itself from "Asian hordes", and in 1945 were certain there was no Holocaust. But then they realized how far that was from the truth. Blaming today those people is not correct, IMO, because once they saw the evidence, they did not continue to deny. But an official or a historian who today, having all the evidence at his disposal would claim that Holocaust wasn't, that is a mean idiology, the subject of Holocaust denial. The evidence of the crimes of Soviet regime has been around for decades, and many years have passed since the regime is defunct, hence no this is not a case of "victors" rewriting history, as some here try to portray. Denial of something for which there is unquestionable evidence, also freely available, non-censured, during the last 16-18 years, is a regrettable social phenomenon, certainly deserving an article on WP.:Dc7611:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
War crimes are a specific category, established by international tribunals, etc. They point out and convict specific perpetrators, by name. No overgeneralization there. I would also rename the "X occupation of Y" or "Y collaboration with BAD_GUYS" articles to something more neutral, like "History of Y (YEAR-YEAR)", as well. Existence of POV in other articles doesn't justify the creation of more POV articles. Again, I would not oppose the creation of a Soviet historiography article dealing with the subject, provided it will be written in a neutral way. It'd still be a POV fork, but not as blatant as this one, at least. --Illythr13:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, if your main objection is POV name of article then solution is not deleting but renaming(and that actualy has been proposed by many editors here, simply AfD needs to end firstly). There is no point in deleting article then you can simply move it to better title.--Staberinde14:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I voiced my objections here (second paragraph). Giving the article a neutral name while dumping the current contents into it, word by word, will achieve nothing. It'll still remain an attack page. Now, starting a new article under that name while adding content in a neutral, non-judgemental way to it might be a way out. It will almost certainly become a heated battlefield, but at least the potential will be there. Perhaps, in a decade or two (or three, or six), when all this hate subsides, someone will come around and do it right. (Yeah, I'm that optimistic about the Wikipedia project). --Illythr14:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is only the people who do not bring verifiable facts to the table who are categorizing this as a hate page. "Hate" is a wasted emotion. "Battlefield?" I am not the one hurling invective or labeling people fascists. I am quite content to discuss this all based on facts; however, that approach seems to displease a great number of people here whose empirical goal appears to be wholesale sanctification of the Soviet past. — Pēters J. Vecrumba21:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Illythr is a nice person, but he is seeing hate speech against Russians everywhere, he got an obsession. I believe he is dreaming hate speaches all the nights. Probabily he had some bad personal experiences in his native Moldova. We should treat him with understanding.--MariusM18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it my business, but in this comment you are suggesting the "[use of] someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Please kindly check the policy. Regards, Yury Petrachenko19:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud your principled stand against use of logical fallacies in discussion. Unfortunately, your judgment is slightly blemished by the fact that you never saw it fit to comment upon repeated suggestions above (and below) to discredit views of a number of people based on their imagined Nazi affiliation. Digwuren20:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these people (who are making these suggestions) are mistaken. The type of propaganda used in the article, while originally arising from the Nazi environment, has long since been adopted for the same purpose by many different groups of people.
Marius, your comment is uninformed: Soviets and Russians are two different categories, as you may see many of the supporters of the article state. About the only attack against ethnic Russians (among other Russian-speakers) is the listing of "organised colonisation by hundreds of thousands of Russophones" among the alleged and real crimes of the Soviet government. Still, I believe that this digusting thing is but a collateral of an attempt at piling every imaginable sin upon the Soviets. I think that it is also damaging to the article creators' POV as well, as it dilutes and discredits the significance of real crimes committed by the Soviet regime of the time. --Illythr21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you see propaganda in the article (outside the *subject* of the article, as this very article is about Soviet-centric denialist propaganda), why don't you point it out on the talk page so the article can be improved?
As for the underscores you mentioned above, I was quite perplexed about them, too. I believe they were added into the article by an editor who felt particularly irked off after a quite cheesy exchange on this very deletion proposal page, and I fully support reworking of the particular section in a way that makes the underscores redundant. Digwuren22:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can source "colonization." I have said in Wikipedia and many other places what makes a good citizen of Latvia has nothing to do with their ethnicity. That said, I have no personal or intellectual issue with "piling" everything the Soviets were guilty of at their historic doorstep. Your logic that we should ignore lesser crimes as to not dilute the effect of the really bad ones is like suggesting ignoring that someone was a serial bank robber because he killed someone (a really bad crime). — Pēters J. Vecrumba21:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily, I wouldn't mind using 'colonisation' instead of 'occupation'. Unfortunately, as it is, this very article is heavily accused of WP:OR, so sticking to the sources is particularly important -- and the sources almost invariably describe the process as an occupation, of which colonization was only one part. Digwuren22:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for honestly clarifying your stance on the issue, Vecrumba. Now may be the time to review the WP:NOT policy. You may find that Wikipedia is not the place to pile everything the Soviets were guilty of at their historic doorstep. In fact, I wonder what had led you to confuse Wikipedia with the "Soviet historical doorstep" (which would metaphorically mean some kind of tribune) in the first place?
My logic is that labeling the Soviet govt's encouraging Russian-speakers to move to the Baltics (already part of the USSR at the time) to help rebuild them and turn them into the most prosperous Soviet Republics "a crime", while useful to determine the sheer level of POV in the article, is not really helpful even to its supporters. --Illythr22:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My logic is Russia raped Latvia once when they retreated in WWI, evacuating all heavy industry to Russia and sabotaging what they could not take. Then a little over two decades later, Russia invaded and occupied Latvia again. Since Latvia had been forced to turn primarily agricultural, this time they evacuated all the landowners to Russia, and this time to Siberia. Not to mention what they destroyed as they retreated and then reoccupied. My logic is that had Stalin observed the neutrality of the Baltics, they would not have become pawns (once again), this time between two megalomaniacal genocidal madmen. At a minimum, had Stalin not invaded, he could have eventually been a "liberator." As it is, nothing but a cold blooded invader who had his eye on the Baltics ever since they declared independence. Destroy a country, decimate a people and then, what, declare yourself a beneficent rebuilder when you erect a factory on the ashes of someone's house? Perhaps you have not noticed, Wikipedia is not "USSR Soviet Life Today" (July 1962 talks about Latvia flowering to "undreamed of" potential under the Soviet umbrella: "As soon as Latvia was liberated from fascist occupation, a continuous stream of industrial equipment, raw materials, and fueld poured in. Engineers and workers came from all parts of the Soviet Union..." ). — Pēters J. Vecrumba01:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find your repeated attempts to extend the period of Stalinist repressions up to the fall of the Soviet Union inexplicable. Is there something factually incorrect with the last part (starting with "...a continuos stream...")? And you avoided my questions: 1)Which part of Wikipedia looks like a Soviet historical doorstep to you? 2) Precisely how was the encouragement to migrate to the newly acquired territories a crime comparable with mass deportations, repressions, to list it as such? --Illythr01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
REINDENTING Illythr, you mischaracterize my position. My position is that the Stalinist story of Soviet history is stated today as if it were fact when it is fiction. As such, anyone who today parrots Stalin's fiction is a Stalinist.
What is "factually incorrect" in the USSR issue from the point forward you specify? Nothing in this particular instant except that it conveniently omits the need for rebuilding and why there weren't enough engineers: the results of destruction of Latvia's assets and liquidation of its engineers, doctors, lawyers (professional class) by the self-same Soviets. Nor does it mention that the Soviets invaded first = the fiction that the Soviets entered Latvia solely to vanquish fascism = which would be the lie at the beginning of my quote.
1) Have I suggested blaming the Soviets for any offense they cannot be factually and indisputably shown to have committed? No. The issue is not what facts I lay at which doorstep, the issue is that in attempting to lay documented facts at the indisputably appropriate doorstep, I and all others armed with facts which do not sanctify the Soviet past are called Nazis and Holocaust deniers.
2) Mass migration is associated with deportations when they are two parts of the same grand Soviet plan. We can call it de-Latvianization if you like, however, historically, Stalin was not the first perpetrator of "Russification" in Latvia--that term had already been coined, so it's perfectly fine to reuse. "Russophonification" is not a real word as far as I know. — Pēters J. Vecrumba03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can see yourself, that you do exactly the same thing in your crusade? While piling up the facts you conveniently omit that last part, thus feeding the fiction that the only thing the Soviets ever did was raping and pillaging. No, one thing can not justify the other. However, presenting an unbalanced view on only one aspect of the whole is propaganda, as you just pointed out. There is no need to point "Look! Look how evil the Soviets are! They conquer and terrorize!" In Wikipedia, at least, the proper way is "Under such and such Soviet leadership, this and this (objectively) was done on that and that territory." As the crimes committed are grave indeed, there is no point in further underscoring how wrong they were. Those who can see will see, those who choose to selectively ignore parts of their own history will not be swayed anyway.
I will reply to the rest on your talk page. I do not see any reasons for me to continue here. I stated my reasons and explained them the best I can. --Illythr11:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
War crimes? Then it is a simple issue to name the article after the trials that declare them such. List the convicted war criminals, their respective crimes and the punishment they got. --Illythr01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personal affiliations with what? I'm from the same country as Illythr, and I guess it would be someone like me, with "Nazi affiliation" (sadly, some - not all - Russians here actually believe Eastern Europeans here to be so) to make "bad personal experiences" :-) for him, as I don't see anyone else around. :-) So, now you force me to "(dis)miss and (dis)credit" :-):-) Dispite we have opposite oppinion as to the effect of this discussion, we've collaborated nicely on many articles, including the Occupation(!), which made me clear he's not denying the fact, but afraid of the effect of existence of "denial of the fact". BTW, there is also a terminology problem here. He is not fearing an attack on ethnical Russians (there are Russians who were in Bessarabia before 1940, and those who came later, and more importantly those who integrate and whose who don't), or any other minority group (which have history from before the Soviet occupation) but rather on what he calls "Soviets" = what Soviets called "multinational composition" = what Moldovans call "moi adres ne dom i ne ulitsa". The problem is the rest of the world calls "Soviets" something completely different - the regime, not the citizens of USSR. (Reagan just spelt it out for everyone to stop fussing about it). A solution could be to put somewhere near the top of the article the definition of "Soviet". The average "ne dom i ne ulitsa" did not shoot or torture anyone, and occasionally there were some very good people among them, which integrated and became "with dom and with ulitsa". :-) Right, Illythr? :Dc7620:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a way. :) Still, even with proper differentiation, the page contents will remain an anti-Soviet attack instead of being a neutral assessment of the phenomenon (I'm talking about "Soviet historiography" here) it is supposed to be.
If your standard of 'attack page' is 'it points out their crimes', then you're right, and this page is irredeemably an 'attack page'. This is a woefully inadequate test, though. Digwuren22:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, Illythr belongs to some sort of modern Soviet party? I am not aware of any such parties, but it's the only reason I can think why he might feel personally offended.
As for the song, do you think it is notable enough to merit an article in Wikipedia? I checked; there are three different covers of it in my music collection, one of them dating into the 21st century ... Digwuren21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'm amazed myself that, being a "Soviet-skeptic" and anti-Communist I am, I'm actually forced to be such a "Soviet apologist" (aka Hardcore Stalinist) on this page and elsewhere in Wikipedia. In fact, it took me Wikipedia to realize, that "anti-Soviet sentiment" is not an invention of Soviet propaganda but a very real phenomenon, with certain people form the former "brotherly Republics" outdoing their Western colleagues by a league at it. The reason is fairly simple: You're basically trying to impose a judgement of a binary nature on a very complex phenomenon. What's worse, you're actually using Wikipedia, a tool that is not supposed to give judgements at all, for it. --Illythr22:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're incorrectly asserting that documenting numerous historical, legal and political sources constitutes "imposing judgment", and you're incorrectly insinuating that "anti-Soviet sentiment" means irrational hatred of all things Soviet. Now please stand by while I psychoanalyse your repressed imperial ambitions to death, starting with your dismissal of instances of crimes against humanity as "very complex phenomena" and ending in cigars. :-) Digwuren22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merely documenting doesn't, although avoiding any kind of balance in the presentation of facts, leads an innocent reader to the assumption that there were none, thus forcing a premature judgment in itself. Doing it the way you it's done, providing every Soviet action with malevolent intent and all, makes it only worse. As for the rest, try to keep personal attacks off this page (and preferrably off Wikipedia), will ya? Uh, cigars? :-/ --Illythr23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
-I know that only "in a way" "with dom and with ulitsa", but will have to educate. Not the first and and not the last cases in history.
-Where do you see me contradicting myself? Maybe you misunderstood what I meant?
-"Soviet" is not a nice word that "evil capitalists" invented, and "brotherly republics" outdo. It is a term used for more than half a century, having a parallel meaning with Nazism. Being anti-Soviet is similar to being anti-racist, anti-extremist, anti-nazist, anti-fascist, anti-dictatorial, etc., opposite of being anti-semit, anti-rusophil, etc. The "premature judgement" can only be done by sourses. The article's object is not even to state the Soviet occupation and crimes, it will simply referee to other articles where these are discussed. But for those Soviet actions, which are disscussed in other articles, soursed, proved malevolent in sourses, one can give examples of "denial" if there are such. Something like "Denial of Soviets trying to systematically poison the population", or "Denial that all Soviet sivilians were KGB agents" would be erased at once (ovious vandalism). Something like "Denial of Soviets targeting intelligentsa" will be present.
-It is a difficult topic, but it has to be covered. Noone said it will be easy, but then what is easy? Honestlly, I am really-really tired of this discussion, where it takes me 3 minutes only to find an edit. Good night!:Dc7601:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes a formely neutral editor... Proof that bad environment makes good people become more like the environment, in this case to hate the "opposite side", IMHO. The fact that an article needs improvement is not a reason to erase it. The issue is not restrictic to Baltic stated, but to the entire Eastern Europe! I am very-very surprised that an editor like Illythr pretends to forget these. Unfortunately, people are weak when it comes to their personal feelings... So, every Chechen should keel Russians, and every member of bin Laden's family - kill Americans... poor world... :Dc7615:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article includes some valid, sourced information about particular issues arising from the occupation, and about particular public pronouncements on those subjects. Those statements, with the references, should be moved to the relevant articles. For example, the article cites this BBC piece about the position taken by Putin's government. That reference is included in Occupation of Baltic states; deletion of this article doesn't mean censoring the information. There's a big POV problem with lumping together a disparate bunch of issues, and implying some grand conspiracy. JamesMLanetc19:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I was trying to say above. --Illythr
Perhaps I just need more coffee this morning, but considering the Soviet Union regularly rewrote its history to suit political expediencies, I fail to see how "grand conspiracy" is not a factual description for the origins of the Soviet description of the actions of the Soviet regime--which we characterize here as the "Soviet position"--and which the Russian Federation administration would certainly appear to have adopted regarding certain aspects of the Soviet past. — Pēters J. Vecrumba15:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I have any of my facts wrong, please feel free to point out and I will correct. You fall into the Petri Krohn trap: if one side is steeped in lies and propaganda, then both sides are steeped in lies and propaganda. Stalin organized the Estonian putsch attempt long before there was a Cold War and while Stalin was still generally admired in the West, when the only "propaganda" machine was Stalin's. — Pēters J. Vecrumba01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sandstein's suggestion about a "Historiograhy" section in Occupation of Baltic states. If you want to address the more general issue that "the Soviet Union regularly rewrote its history to suit political expediencies", I would have no problem with a suitably neutral article about Soviet historiography or the like, which cited prominent spokespersons for the criticism, cited reliable sources on specific factual points, and fairly presented the opposing viewpoint. Much of what's seen on this talk page, though, isn't a matter of rewriting history (like the Holocaust deniers), but of assessing facts (many of which appear to be undisputed) and reaching judgments about them. Whether there were Soviet troops in the Baltics long after 1945 is a fact. Whether that constituted an illegal occupation, and whether it was an appropriate response to Nazism, are not objective facts; the discussion here reveals that there are differing opinions about the matter. Those differing opinions about specific topics can best be addressed in the articles about those topics. Does deleting this article deprive the reader of any information? I don't see that it does. Deletion loses nothing except a soapbox, which is why several editors supporting deletion have accurately described the article as an attack piece. JamesMLanetc20:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, It would deprive the reader of information about an important social and political phenomenon. (Falsification of history is only a small aspect.) The citation in the article (of which there are hundreds) shows how strong the phonomenon can be observed. Likewise for Holocaust denial, some neo-nazis can say the information is presented in Holocaust. I sincerely hope you don't want to delete that. And it doesn't matter if Nazi Germany re-wrote some history. Both are phenomena occuring today, not many years ago. :Dc7620:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holocaust denial concerns a specific factual dispute. It is also a generally recognized subject (that is, not just that the Holocaust is a generally recognized subject, but that Holocaust denial is, too). By contrast, what we have in this article is an absolute hodgepodge of things brought together by the author(s) under what amounts to a neologism. A more accurate title for the article would be "List of WW2-related topics that give a colorable basis for criticizing the USSR". So, I repeat, what information would be lost? Specific disputes about who did what or who denied what can be addressed in the appropriate articles. JamesMLanetc03:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not live in a black-and-white world. Do you? The concepts of black and white are somewhat more objective than those of good and evil, you see. Especially when talking generalizations. In fact, generalizations such as this are the very essence of propaganda. No wonder so many people are pointing that out. --Illythr23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the present name and composition prevent any balancing possibility, IMO. Trying to balance it would be considered endorsing the denial conspiracy, you see. --Illythr
Things are not on a line, it is multi-dimensional. Balancing means also against presence of links and see also's presenting only part of the story. As well as reasons why so many deny: during Soviet period they were told that before the arrival of Soviet troop in Eastern Europe were just Nazis, that no democratic regimes ever existed before the Nazis, and that everyone who ruled whose countries were bad people, and now (1945) for the first time people in those countries have something in their hands. It was the myth of absense of anything notworthy before the arrival of Soviets that generated the denial. Also the myth of the existence of only two regimes: fascist and communist. Everything that was not communist had to be fascist. MAny Russians still believe that was the case in Eastern Europe in 1945. :Dc7619:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is where these "Denial of..." articles are worst. Any link or statement attempting to balance the article will be labelled to be "in denial" itself. Just look at the article now: all the quotes are presented in "Listen to the liars spin their lies" style. As for the rest, well, it may have something to do with those countries actively supporting the Axis cause with weapons and manpower, as well as diligently eradicating their Jewish popupations. Care to take a guess at which country was declared "Judenfrei" first? --Illythr23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Estonians made it Judenfrei? Come to your senses, please! Estonians "actively supporting the Axis cause with weapons and manpower"? How about Polish actively supporting the Soviet cause with weapons and manpower in Czechoslovakia in 1968? Do you see any Czech blaming any Pole nowadays? They blame the communist regime of Poland! And the regime of USSR, which was Soviet. Not solders of Red Army. If Nazi crimes is missing, I will definitevely support to start it. Nazi regime in Germany was based on a criminal idiology - fascism.:Dc7623:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be yet another generalization. I'm talking about governments here. Same thing with Poland. The government says, the population obeys. Or else. Some like it, some don't. Most just do. The Nazi crimes article is not missing, as you can see. It's there under a NPOV title with a neutral style and content. The parts I read, at least. --Illythr00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A NPOV title is available for Nazi crimes because of the Nuremburg trials. Perhaps you could suggest to the Russian authorities a posthumous trial of Stalin for genocide (since you would not want to dilute that charge with lesser crimes)--there's no statute of limitations on murder. We can then "NPOV" rename the article "Trial of Stalin". — Pēters J. Vecrumba21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is valid. There are indeed multitudes of people who deny the illegality of the annexation and incorporation of Estonia (as well as Latvia and Lithuania) into the Soviet Union. The desire to have it removed and it's nomination for deletion seems to merely be politically motivated. The article is sufficiently referenced (although it could be referenced more) and I see absolutely no "Nazi propaganda" - a claim which is absurd. Keep, expand and further reference from reliable sources. ExRat16:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for two reasons. First, while the article is far from perfect, and may need retitling, restructuring, better referencing, etc., the phenomenon is real; the reactions seen here are just the tip of a vast iceberg wherein great masses of Russians continue to believe unquestioningly in the long-rotted Stalinist myth of the Great Patriotic War and that their tanks and rifles "liberated" - and nothing more - the peoples they held captive for half a century. Second, because the arguments marshalled by people, from some of whom I really expected better, in support of deletion, parrot this line to a tee and descend into argumentation that is, I must say, reprehensible. Allow me to "shine the spotlight, name the names" a little:
Ghirlandajo: 1 "neo-Nazi overtones", 2a "the Holocaust is comparable to some other events in history", 2b "blur the uniqueness of the Holocaust"
1 How? How is claiming that the Baltics were occupied (which only a fool could deny) a "neo-Nazi" sentiment? 2 Yes, the Holocaust is comparable to a number of other events: the Holodomor, the massacres committed by the Khmer Rouge, the Great Purges, the Cultural Revolution, etc. It is unique in its own way, but so are all the others. That doesn't mean it can't be compared to other events - it certainly can be, and I've just done so.
Dojarca: "Nazi propaganda", "Katyn massacre as well as "liberation from Judeo-Bolshevist occupants" were the topics havily used by Nazi propaganda"
The Nazis harped on Katyn, and they claimed to be ending an occupation. That they said so does not mean Katyn did not take place, and that the Baltics were not occupied. It does not at all detract from the historical truth. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Petri Krohn: "hate speech (or even worse, it is state sponsored hate speech)", "the 'Baltic occupation myth' [which] exists for the sole purpose of denying the rights (including citizenship) of Estonia's and Latvia's Russian minorities"
This is a fanciful conspiracy. Digwuren (I'm quite certain) did not create this article to help disenfranchise Baltic Russians. It is not hate speech to point out the ridiculous myths to which many Russians still cling. It is certainly not a myth to call an occupation what it was: an occupation!
Vlad fedorov: "Nazi propaganda"
Thank you for violating Godwin's Law yet again. Do you have more constructive arguments? Calling us Nazis will not make Russia wake up to reality any faster. But I see you're in no hurry to do so - Soviet glorification is as strong as ever there; while Russia faces burgeoning problems that threaten its very existence, your government busies itself with bullying Estonia, a shining example of the merits of capitalism.
Paukrus: "Wiki isn't hosting for rusophobists"
No, it is not Russophobia to highlight the very real and despicable phenomenon described here. A true Russophile (and I am one) believes in confronting the horrible aspects of that country's past, not in pretending they don't exist.
To sum up: we, those who wish to keep this article, are not Nazis, Russophobes, or hate-mongers. We are interested in truth. We hope Russians themselves will do so, before it is too late for their once-great nation. Biruitorul17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if this is the right place to ask, but one question seems not to be answered in this never-ending discussion: What are the primary sources supporting the occupation view? -- Petri Krohn17:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I will oppen a new section on the bottom for this discussion, -- or maybe we should take it someplace else.)
Strong keep but clean up a lot. The article is messy right now and needs work, but it describes a very real and notable phenomenon. You cannot delete articles simply because you don't like the phenomenon they describe--that is censorship, pure and simple. After all, we do not live in the Soviet Union.
Regarding the charges of "Nazi propaganda": first of all, thanks for the millionth proof of Godwin's Law. Calling someone you don't agree with a "Nazi" in order to discredit their position is such an old, lame trick. Secondly, and more importantly, there is a fundamental fallacy in these types of arguments; that is, that since the USSR and Nazi Germany fought each other in WW2, being anti-Soviet necessarily means one is pro-Nazi. That is complete bollocks and outrageously absurd. Even a simple reversal shows how ludicrous it is: being anti-Nazi does not make one pro-Soviet!!
The even sadder thing is the frequent assumption by many people that being anti-Soviet means being Russophobic. Again, ridiculous. Russia and the Soviet Union are different countries. For my part, I am quite an ardent Russophile (I began teaching myself the Russian language at the age of twelve and started reading Dostoyevsky and Chekhov (in translation) at thirteen) and an equally ardent anti-Stalinist and anti-Sovietist. Tanks rumbling through the streets of Budapest and Prague have nothing to do with Pushkin, Soviet crimes have nothing to do with Russia--until the current Russian government started glorifying the Soviet past, that is.
I must express my outrage at the comment near the top of the page which referred to the Estonian language as an "obscure dialect." Such a comment smacks of chauvinism and imperialism. The article in dispute currently has some POV issues that need to be worked out, but let no one think that those who oppose the article's existence are shining examples of neutrality and harmony. K. Lásztocska22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork, original research, article name utterly fails WP:NEO, apparent disruption of Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT (possibly to ridicule the holocaust denial article). Recommend the closing admin do the WP:RIGHT THING and speedy as patent nonsense if necessary. Wikipedia is not the place to write about some new concept you thought up in your mom's basement after school. Dragomiloff01:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im my view, the only Big Fault in the article is its inadequate title. It should be titled either "denial of soviet crimes" or split into articles on "..soviet crime" and "..occupation". In addition, the article could be improved in various ways. Apart from that, none of your claims make sense. You should justify your criticism, not just shout it. The denial of soviet crimes is a real phenomenon which has nothing to do with your or anyone else's mom's basements. But where's the connection with Holocaust? Are you saying that because of Holocaust, we should be silent about Stalinist crimes? See also: [19][20][21][22][23][24] ... etc Lebatsnok09:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By far most 'delete' arguments seem to come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. While the name of the article is somewhat unfortunate, there is no dispute that the content is valid and well cited. DLX05:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be some (good faith, AFAIK) misrepresentation of WP:NPOV in the above discussion. Articles should not be deleted on the basis of POV, as there can be instances where there is either no other point of view (try deleting water on the basis that the article only notes that it is a liquid in its natural state), or that there are no reliable third party references for the other point(s) of view. NPOV only states that articles should be written in a neutral style, and that all germane references are used and not only those that support a certain position or theory. Since the language of the original title (and some of the proposed alternatives) indicates a bias, and the article presumably follows it, then the question of NPOV does not arise.LessHeard vanU21:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a different topic; this is not about the events of the occupation, but instead about Soviet/Russian attitudes towards the occupation, and efforts official and unofficial to ignore or minimize opposition to the occupation. One is in the past, the other appears to be ongoing. Brianyoumans22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a difficult topic to cover in a neutral fashion, but I think that the article as it is is a good start. I think the topic as delineated is good, although the title could be improved slightly - I agree that Soviet occupation denial would be better. Brianyoumans22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article, start "Contraversy" section in Occupation of Baltic states, and move all worthful information there. No reason to split articles on the same topic, and the current article is entirely sourceless OR. It ascripts to occupation denials such ridiculous and irrelevant claims as "There never was Molotov-Ribbentrop pact", that are obviously forged. Also "Man-made mass starvation in Ukraine" has nothig to do there, it is nowise connected to occuption, and seems put in just for more Soviet-bashing.
Im pretty sure you did not READ the name discussion below. The article was put up for Afd within a day of apprearance, it had no time to develop. There has been consensus since the start that the title is unfortunate and should be changed to "Denial of Soviet Crimes". This has not happened yet because of this AfD. These topics are included in the light of the future title. as to "There never was Molotov-Ribbentrop pact" - i lill go and chek this right away. It should say "There never was any sectret protocols in Molotov-Ribbentrop pact"...--Alexia Death08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that this statment, tho factually incorrect even in the context of the later article, had somehow escaped notice. Ive corrected it. Another result for calling an AfD on an immature article.--Alexia Death09:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to rename and wait
It is somewhat unorthodox, but it is clear that we will not reach consensus in this AfD - votes are going pretty much 50:50 (actually, few more keep's just now), with valid claims on both sides. It is obvious that the article is and will be highly controversial, although no one cannot deny the noteworthiness of the subject - but perhaps AfD in this stage is an overkill.
So, I would like to propose the article to be renamed to Denial of Soviet crimes and give it three months (or, to make things simpler, until 2007-09-01) to evolve, find citations, have its own POV fights and edits. After that, if someone feels that AfD is needed, we can start this discussion again. DLX08:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think title should be choesen more carefully. Honestly I think that current title is best of all sugestions or it should be changed to something like "Denial of illegal Soviet presence". The problems I see with current suggestions are:
Legal continuity of Baltic states - as I allready said above, the Baltic states are independent entities. And the article has been extended beyond Baltics by now.
Those extentions (such as Katyn massarce) do not have anything to do with Soviet occupation or its denial.--Dojarca11:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Denial of Soviet crimes - This may look as a good title at first, but concider that current article deals with Soviet policies that can't be labeled as crimes (e.g. Soviet Union did not enforce Russification policies in the occupied territories - russification is not a crime it is set of policies wich encourage use of Russian). ---- Xil/talk12:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You definitely have a point with 3. - that needs to go from the article. However, the scope of the article has grown larger then just denial of occupation of Baltic States (that would merit only a section in relevant article, Occupation of Baltic States - and partially that topic is present there already) - and WP does not have an article about denial of crimes of Soviet Union. DLX12:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that as example, not sure if it had to be removed, my point was that there are other entries in that list that are in fact policies. Which makes me think that maybe Denial of Soviet policies could do (or "Denial of ...something that describes exactly which policy... Soviet policies")---- Xil/talk13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a problem with the broad topic as is. If there will be too much information then the article might be split but then spliting it at Occupation vs crimes will create one short and one still very large page... --Alexia Death05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the word "crimes" is inherently problematic. This very title would be POV, as well as under-inclusive (given that some of the issues discussed weren't "crimes"). If the renaming approach is adopted, then something like Soviet occupation controversies would be better. JamesMLanetc18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And just what are the Baltic nations denying? As in, which facts, not interpretations thereof. The only side actively denying the existence of certain facts is the occupation denial side. Unigolyn00:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one is denying the de facto existence of the Baltic SSRs. What is being denied is that they were legitimate. And, to Dc76's comment below, the Baltics were/are merely the touchstone. — Pēters J. Vecrumba04:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:RM, any potentially controversial moves should be proposed and voted. No way anything wrt to this article can be non-controversial. Attempt to circumvent the vote and change title unilaterally will be promptly reported. --Irpen06:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any "potential controversy" over the new name of the article. All of the "controversy" so far has been about how this article is evil Nazi propaganda and shouldn't exist at all -- this position, however, is certainly not the consensus. Digwuren07:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Irpen, how about instead of "promptly reporting" you will give us promptly some reasons that aren't WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You, same as other delete editors, have failed to come up with a single other reason then the name of the article so far - which most keep editors agree with. DLX07:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Polarisation and encampment
A number of people are, apparently, taking this deletion proposal as a political issue of "If we delete, the Commies will have won!" versus "If we don't delete, the Nazis will have won!", seem to be aligning with the camps, and ignoring the actual matter. This is most unfortunate.
The attempt to ban "occupation denial" in Latvia and Estonia is notable. I see it as a government policy to mandate hate speech and some forms of holocaust denial.
Can you cite any sources to support your claims of labeling a cited historic fact as hate speech or is this your Original Research? --Alexia Death14:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also what exactly are you calling falsehood in this article? the facts of occupation and crimes or the fact of denial? Both have been cited numerously...--Alexia Death14:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The essence of this article is not about hate speech - it is about describing the sentiment of occupied people. I do not deny there are extremists on both sides of the issue, but most of the people that lived through the occupation - or "incorporation" - actually has this sentiment of being occupied. --PhilawebT-C18:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While we're talking about sources, I'm also interested of a source for the idea that considering and rejecting laws makes these laws into official policy. Digwuren12:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
During the WWII, Europe has been all but wipped out by nazi vs commi antagonism. 99% or europeans are anti-nazi and anti-commi. So, I am appealing to everyone to not regard "the other side" as nazi or commi, but as a party in an academic dispute, and think of him/herself - maybe your own rhetoric would be at heart with Goebbels and Stalin. If you love one of these two people - there is nothing to talk about, if you don't - rethink what you write here, don't identify youself with them.:Dc7614:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself once again asking Petri Krohn the question, what is it about "anti-Soviet" where "anti-Soviet" seeks to bring illegal and immoral past historic conduct into its proper (and verifiable, not just POV ranting) light, that makes it hate speech? I do not deny Russia the historical Soviet victory over Hitler, driving the Nazis from Soviet territory. However, beyond those boundaries, particularly where the Soviet Union preemptively and illegally invaded and occupied the Baltics, the celebration of that victory does not also require glorification (and apparently rehabilitation, witness Dzherzinsky's bust being restored to the courtyard of the Moscow police) of Soviet despotism. Lack of said glorification of Soviet despotism and genocide (does any one want to defend Kolyma as an innocent farming community?) does not constitute hate speech or neo-Nazism.
I most sincerely and truthfully fail to understand why, today, pride in Russian culture and achievements—Russian self-worth—requires perpetuating a myth of Soviet greatness.
Pardon my bluntness, but to me this would be like the Germans needing to glorify Nazism in order to take pride in the German engineering achievement represented by the Autobahn.
This "polarisation" and "encampment" is not based on both sides interpreting the same facts differently, it is based on one "side" ignoring and denouncing presented facts while failing to produce their evidence in support of their position, instead choosing to resort to blanket accusations of hate speech and neo-Nazism. — Pēters J. Vecrumba16:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Baltic occupation myth is not an attempt to “bring past historic conduct into its proper and verifiable light”; it is an legal argument for the continuity of the Baltic states and for the “restoration” of independence. The “occupation” is a non sequitur from the argument. Rather, it works the other way around: It takes the legal continuity, and thus the “occupation” as premises and works its way backwards. The way it is constructed, is by selectively picking individual events from history, and presenting them in the most favorable light to achieve a continuous storyline. A popular example of this kind of reasoning is the The Da Vinci Code and its source, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
This presentation may have been a good legal argument in an international court on the status of the Soviet republics. It was however never tested in an international court. (If it ever was used in a national court, it most likely lost to the facts on the ground.) As a historical narrative it is pseudohistory. Not even its academic supporters see it as a attempt to describe history; it is not even historical revisionism. At best it could be described as historical revisionism (negationism), most likely it is national mysticism.
After independence, this legal argument has replaced real history writing, creating the “myth” (or should I say lie). The problem at Wikipedia is that Estonian and Baltic editors have understood this myth to be a true presentation of history. (Or they feel that because as a nation they were victimized, they have the right to revenge by falsification of history.)
Lauri Mälksoo does not say that the "occupation" was a fact, He only argues that it is a plausible legal argument.
And why is this important? Because all sources that refer to the "occuption" as fact ultimately base their claim on work by Lauri Mälksoo and his colleagues. -- Petri Krohn22:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that Mälksoo's specialty is international law, not history? It is to be expected that he would consider legal rather than historical aspects of whatever he's writing about in publications on international law.
(commented in-line)
The claim of "occupation" is not based on historical research, but on legal wrangling. There are very few facts on the ground (or in archives for that matter) that would support calling the Estonian SSR "occupation". The occupation theory is mortally dependent on the legal interpretation. The main historical support is the small collection of documents of the government in exile (see here), all produced outside Estonia. -- Petri Krohn00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for your claim of Mälksoo being the ultimate source of the idea of legal continuity, that is simply untrue -- and if you were to approach the subject even remotely reasonable, you would understand it. You have participated in Congress of Estonia which clearly explains legal continuity having been issue already in late 1980s (actually earlier, but this is particularly illuminating); yet you're trying to claim that an article from 2005 is a cause of something that happened two decades earlier. Digwuren23:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not say Mälksoo was the origin of the theory, I said that it originates with the specialists in international law. Mälksoo represents a longer Estonian and expatriate tradition and bases his work on that of others. -- Petri Krohn00:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be implying there is a world wide Estonian conspiracy to propagate what you call the "Baltic occupation myth". This is bordering on racism. The Nazis had similar conspiracy arguments against the Jews. The fact Mälksoo has an Estonian background is of no consequence, he does not publish in a vacuum, all his papers are peer-reviewed by other academics, irrespective of their racial background. Martintg03:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are, now you bring Baltic Russians to the table. To follow your argument, every problem of the world ultimately resides in the "myth" "created" in Estonia after its independence. I am afraind you fail to see that 170,000,000 people in Eastern Europe were occupied by the Soviet troops for 45 to 50 years. The denial of this fact by state and public officials is the subject of the article. :Dc7620:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but, in this case speaking of Latvia because I am more familiar with it: the reality is that nowhere in Russia or the other former "republics" of the Soviet Union do Russians live as well as they do in Latvia. Even Russian military "retired" in Latvia to the apartments they were able to claim (as opposed to going home to no barracks and no pay, the alternative offered by Mother Russia). When the international convention of Russian journalists descended upon Latvia so they could expose Latvian atrocities, even accompanying members of the Duma admitted things were not as had been represented in/by Russia. The myth is that Latvian Russians (and other Baltic Russians) are "oppressed." — Pēters J. Vecrumba01:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of Russians in Latvia, at least, have chosen to become citizens. After nearly two decades of independence, it is the individual's choice not to seek to assimilate into the civic life of one's homeland. No one is denaturalizing or disenfrancising anyone. — Pēters J. Vecrumba03:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The foregoing argument, about how well-off Russians in Latvia are (or are not), was generated by the presence of this article. That's a confirmation that the article is more tendentious than informative. And, to users Pēters J. Vecrumba and Petri Krohn, I say: I appreciate your having supported my point by conducting this argument here, but, now, please stop. Wikipedia is not the proper forum for such debates. JamesMLanetc05:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is appropriately referenced. It is only the arguments against its creation and existence (charges of neo-Nazism and hate speech) which are "tenditious." — Pēters J. Vecrumba16:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would you accept as a primary source? Are you contesting that soviet forces entered into the states in question? Or are you expecting us to provide you with some academic work form an occupied country where resisting the regime brought heavy penalties and freedom of speech was nonexistent? Are these demands really reasonable? Do you expect us to provide you with a piece of paper from that time where the occupying forces leaders admit their actions as occupation? Occupation is not a view. Its a fact, based on undeniable actions, not some piece of paper from that time. Historians of the Free World have studied the materials and have concluded, there was occupation. They have been cited. The denial is also a fact. You are doing it, the cited sources show a whole country doing it... So, please, Tell us what is it that you WANT. --Alexia Death18:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. At first it was "hate speech". Then it was "denaturalization and disenfranchisement". Now it is request for primary sources. Does anyone else wonder with what Petri comes up next?
However, Wikipedia does not require primary sources - which is quite understandable, because in many cases it could easily lead to WP:OR. And article in peer-reviewed scientific magazine is highest level of source for Wikipedia (that was about your comment on this article). However, if you want primary sources showing that Russia denies Soviet occupation of Baltics, then article has already sources that qualify as primary - primary source is "the most important primary sources are likely to be documents such as official reports, speeches, pamphlets, posters, or letters by participants, official election returns, and eyewitness accounts (as by a journalist who was there)". We have already in the article:
Russian Federation's foreign minister Sergei Ivanov (Russian: Сергей Иванов), May 7, 2005, in an address to Red Army veterans, reported by RIA Novosti:
"Those who speak of USSR occupying the Baltic republics — this is absurd and nonsensical. It is impossible to occupy what already belongs to you."
So, we have a foreign minister who denies occupation of Baltic states. This qualifies as those "speeches" mentioned by primary source article and presumably also eyewitness account. Or are you claiming that Sergei Ivanov did not deny the occupation? DLX18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ask for sources for occupation denial, but for the occupation itself. How do we know that the Moon is not made out of cheese? How do we know this "occupation" ever happened. Did these experts in the West just make up the story, or did they have some kind telepathic or remote viewing link to Estonia and Latvia?
So far we have found:
An academic paper on the existence of a legal argument
Taking a step back here, I am genuinely confused by your primary sources request. A primary source is an associated document or written first hand account. There are plenty of primary source Baltic accounts of the occupation written before the war was even over and before the "Cold War" was manufactured (allegedly, according to you) to taint our intellectual sensibilities.
Would you take maps of the Latvian S.S.R., Lithuanian S.S.R., and Estonian S.S.R. drawn up and labeled as such while the Baltics were still independent states?
Would you take eye-witness accounts of invading Soviet troops setting up their own checkpoints everywhere and taking over all government and communcations facilities?
Would you take Stalin saying to the Baltics (forgive me this won't be 100% exact), "as far as Germany is concerned we could occupy you tomorrow"?
You ask for facts, but dismiss anyone who brings any facts to the table as a hate speech-monger. When confronted for facts, you have none, or present personal theories on Cold War dynamics = both sides lied about everything but the West (apparently) more than the Soviets, or grossly misinterpret the facts you do bring to the table (EC "denies" occupation).
This article is not about the occupation itself, but about its denial. The article gives some See also to the pages where the occupation is treated country by country, and should give more such links. The quotation that DLX presented you is an example of what 50% of the sourses of this article should be. The other 50% should be scholarly works that mention the (social) phenomenon (denial). :Dc7622:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, it's not only about Russia and Russians. There are many Russians (I hope the majority) that do not deny it, as well as many non-Russians that do (which nation doesn't have those?) :Dc7622:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Petri, your point proves the usefulness of the article. "Do not agree occupation exists" can be taken to be "deny occupation exists." At least by focusing on the "denial" aspect, the Russian position has been documented in more detail in the past week than the sum total of information provided by those who have been name-calling over the occupation over the past year. I would call this article progress. For that reason alone, it's noteworthy. — Pēters J. Vecrumba01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious that Petri Krohn has presented a bad faith irrelevant question. Hence, I will not answer for him, but for any people who might consider it an interesting question.
Military invasion is a composite event. It involves many, many soldiers -- in this case, hundreds of thousands, perhaps even two millions -- and, in absence of satellite imagery which was not available in WWII yet, the primary conclusion that an occupation is occurring or has occurred can be arrived at by two main ways:
A witness of any singular event which is a part of the occupation, such as a tank crossing the border, may generalise the event as one of many taking place all around the territory.
Somebody with access to data from many such singular events, such as an intelligence service or a military command centre privy to data from border control points may draw a conclusion that a widespread occupation is going on.
This inherent compositeness is an important reason why international law takes very seriously even slight border infractions.
So, we have two ways of constructing primary sources. Both can be discredited through sophistry. Specifically, eyewitnesses of these singular events could be claimed to be 'unwarranted' to hypothesize a general occupation going on, even if such hypotheses got latter corroborated using data from other eyewitnesses, and data of the intelligence analysts can be claimed to be 'non-primary' on the basis of their never having actually witnessed the tanks in question.
The occupation was also denied by the European Community (now European Union) in August 1991, when it recognized the illegal Supreme Soviets as "the legitimate representatives of the Baltic peoples" [2]
The democratically elected parliaments and governments recognized as legitimate representatives would be from the first independent republics, not of the Baltic S.S.R.'s. The recognition is of the loss of the exercise of Baltic sovereignty over Baltic soil, not of the Soviet Union assuming sovereignty over the Baltic peoples and territories during the period between independences. — Pēters J. Vecrumba03:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have apparently misread that European Journal of International Law article, Petri, there is nothing like what you claim there. As for primary sources, how about presenting some that show that there was no occupation - how else can we know that Moon is not made out of cheese? DLX03:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baltic states were occupied until their declaration of independence in August 1991. When the occupier state (USSR) lost control, and the countries became independent, not occupied by anyone, the occupation logically has cesed. The new local governments vs governments in exile was simply a question of who is the autority (btw resolved very promptly and in a very civilized way), not if the country is independent or is occupied. Once the independence was restored, the occupation finished. (What people do with that independence, as for example in Moldova or (at least some parts of) Ukraine, is their own right.) USSR occupied the people of these coutries, not took land property from their leaders, as many Soviet citizens were induced to believe by propaganda. If Estonia were a kindom, and the last king would have made Stalin a king - would be different (but even then, only if he does so without a gun to his head). But Stalin was no King of Estonia in legal sense. The exile governments were a representative form of the people, institutions of their states, temporarily occupied by a foreign power. If a minister in exile gets flue or dies, doesn't mean that the status of the country changes. He is just an official, representing a subject of international law (country):Dc7616:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The restoration of sovereignty on Baltic soil included the formal dissolution of sovereign powers in exile and investing/returning those in the newly established governments. (Some here have asked me to back this contention by proving which exiled Latvian ruled Latvia while the USSR was really in charge.) — Pēters J. Vecrumba01:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<Wiki-time-out>As a past invoker of Wiki-moon-cheese in discourse, I feel obliged at this point to offer the following postulations derived from the principle that no one ever admits to being the keeper of the cheese:
It just occurred to me that we should have a section listing notable individual deniers. Obviously we have representitives of the Russian government. Can anyone list any notable occupation deniers in the West, apart from Petri ofcourse (who probably wouldn't pass the notability criteria anyway)? Martintg04:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I can't think of others, off the top of my head, but the article on Holodomor has this passage:
<quotation>
While the famine was well documented at the time, its reality has been disputed due to ideological reasons, for instance by the Soviet government and its spokespeople (as well as apologists for the Soviet regime), by others due to being deliberately misled by the Soviet government (such as George Bernard Shaw), and, in at least one case, Walter Duranty, for personal gain.
An example of a late-era Holodomor objector is Canadian journalist Douglas Tottle, author of Fraud, Famine and Fascism: The Ukrainian Genocide Myth from Hitler to Harvard (1987). Tottle claims that while there were severe economic hardships in Ukraine, the idea of the Holodomor was fabricated as propaganda by Nazi Germany and William Randolph Hearst to justify a German invasion. Tottle is not a professional historian and his revisionist work did not receive any serious attention in the historiography of the subject.
</quotation>
How about denial that Katyn was perpetrated by the Soviets? Any official or public denial of that, occuring in modern times, is IMO part of the topic of this article. :Dc7611:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, Katyn is not my specialty, and I do not have answer for you right now, or in foreseeable near future.
I am not aware of any recent instances. But then, I am not aware of many things. There were still during the last years of USSR, but if they cesed, then, well, it's no longer part of denial phenomenon. It might be mentiond (with reliable sourses, of course) in something like "history of denial", which can be a section.:Dc7600:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meat puppetry; Canvassing in Russian Wikipedia (or, Operation “I ask anyone to vote 'for'”)
^European Parliament (January 13, 1983). "Resolution on the situation in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". Official Journal of the European Communities. C 42/78. condemning "the fact that the occupation of these formerly independent and neutral States by the Soviet Union occurred in 1940 following the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, and continues" and stating that "whereas the Soviet annexias of the three Baltic States still has not been formally recognized by most European States and the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the Vatican still adhere to the concept of the Baltic States".
^"The Community and its Member States warmly welcome the restoration of the sovereignty and independence of the Baltic States which they lost in 1940. They have consistently regarded the democratically elected parliaments and governments of these states as the legitimate representatives of the Baltic peoples." EC Press Release 81/91 -
reprinted in the European Journal of International Law
Per WP:DELSORT: "It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate." --Lysytalk06:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please express yourself a little more clearly. Are you saying that inclusion of the debate to this deletion sorting project was improper? --Irpen11:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to be in the list for Russia this should ALSO be in the deletion list of ALL other countries involved to maintain neutrality! --Alexia Death07:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non notable elementary school. I would be fine with merging some of this to the school district; I had done that, but an editor is insisting on retaining it as a separate article. Brianyoumans08:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion that it's any different from any other elementary school in British Columbia. In fact, no assertion of anything much at all. BTLizard09:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete, and somebody needs to weed out the 200+ cruft articles in Category:Elementary schools in British Columbia. And Eclecticology, it won't do you any good to attack those of us voting to delete, this isn't solely your Wikipedia, we know what's notable and what is filler without having to live in Canada. Chris22:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ok, I'll get this out of the way out front: I am in America, and therefore "know nothing about Canadian Schools". But, ad hominem arguments aside, this article does not assert notability, or provide sources that confer it. Charlie22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep By deleting this, you will be saying that all other elementary school articles in this current format (just a sentence) should be deleted. This is a weed-out campaign. To Charlie, the four external links are sources that confer it. Please check them yourself. --Canadianshoper23:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making the argument that all other elementary school articles in this format should be deleted. The four external links (the first one is broken, by the way) are government documents containing statistics about the school. The BC government likely has similar documents for every elementary school there. Why does government recognition of the existence of a public school confer notability ? Charlie00:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks about the broken link. That dseems to apply to all schools for now. The Ministry seems to be in the middle rearranging its site. Eclecticology07:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I on the other hand am absolutely making the argument that any single-sentence articles on elementary schools should be weeded out as non-notable. Most high schools are notable in some way. Below that, very few are, maybe a dozen per province or state, certainly not over 200 in BC. Chris04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to be particularly notable as far as Canadian elementary schools go. No notability asserted, and none is indicated in linked documents. Lankiveil01:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
To tell the truth, I see no problem with keeping some info - the name of the school, a link to the school website, the town it is located in, etc. - on the school district site, and keeping the school article as a redirect. I only send these articles to AFD because there is no "AFM" process - a merger tag on such an obscure article would garner no discussion, just opposition from the editor who de-merged the article. At AFD the article at least gets some proper discussion. Brianyoumans08:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Little content, no chance of expansion as it has had tag on for a long time. 2 Previous nominations which resulted in keeping article as long as it was expanded. It has not been. - Mike Beckham10:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been well over a year since the first AfD and nothing has happened. Clearly an example of why organic growth doesn't always work and shouldn't be used as a keep argument on AfD. MartinDK18:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, the show did exist, but it was essentially a cheaply produced filler programme. I doubt that the article will ever be expanded with any extra info. Lankiveil01:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The page has undergone at least one AFD and has been summarily deleted via speedy once. There is still no scholarly proof of the project's existence, just a bunch of websites that don't cite sources Agamemnon210:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional KeepKeep - I'm fairly sure this is discussed in detail in My Tank Is Fight!, which in this context is a reliable source (and shouldn't have been classified as 'humour' on its own Wikipedia page), but I no longer have my copy so can't confirm the name's the same. If someone with a copy can confirm this, then keep — iridescenti(talk to me!)15:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced of the scholarly value of MTIF!, as far as I know the writer is not a historian by any stretch of the word. The fact that the "tank" has assumed a life of its own on the Internet is not in question (mostly because it's the kind of thing that's outlandishly fascinating if true), but the fact remains (and I am open on being refuted on this) that no sources predating the invention of the Internet have ever been found for this vehicle, and indeed, the P1500 "Monster". This was the sticking point in the first AFD, with members engaging in significant research to back up the fabled existence of this project, and failing, as discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P-1000.
If this thing really was in the project stage during WW2, there should be some kind of documentation to be found to support that, since many other projects in similar stages of incompletion were meticulously recorded, such as the Entwicklung series. --Agamemnon217:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some print references to this tank. Either it really existed, or it's a notable hoax. Should be kept, either way. Lankiveil01:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, with a clear warning that it's poorly documented, to say the least. The concerns raised in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/P-1000 appear valid, but the notability as a meme is beyond doubt. To me, it smells of an urban legend, perhaps originating from a drawing on a paper napkin at the Krupp cafeteria. Stammer 06:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC). This thing is apparently discussed in detail in this recent book in German. I am adding it as a reference. Stammer 06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC). Isn't there a template for something like "The reliability of this article's sources appears questionable"? It would be appropriate here. Stammer08:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tagged the article as requiring additional references, but I am confident that no such improvement will occur. Nobody simply cares enough to make the effort. Heck, the only reason I cared enough to AFD this was because I recreated, bona fide, the article at one point, and am thus the victim of this hoax. For all I care, this nomination is withdrawn--Agamemnon211:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a lot of digging, and while I can't find any bona fida sources for it, I'd say the number of people mentioning it make it a notable enough hoax in its own right to keep - after all, MTIF was a cult success, so there are a lot of people who'll think it's true and come looking for more information — iridescenti(talk to me!)15:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, MTIF! itself has been deleted a fair few times on grounds of lacking importance. Apparently its cult success is hard to verify. --Agamemnon217:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm one of the ones who regularly argues to keep when it comes up. Amazon rank 24410 is, I think, very respectable for a niche book like this, especially given that I imagine most of the online purchasers are getting it direct from SA. While Zack Parsons is certainly not a professional historian, I will give credit that he did a perfectly credible job on it, and most of the other loopy projects he discusses, like Project Habbakuk, do check out — iridescenti(talk to me!)17:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This kind of thing usually comes under the heading of "crazy ideas of the Wermacht, 1939-45", and as such is notoriously difficult to source thoroughly and always has the potential for speculation to creep in. AdrianM. H.14:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and the numbers for ground pressure are even more ludicrous. At one kiloton, this thing would probably pulverize any material it stood on. --Agamemnon220:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Support. WP:NOTE states that "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". Here, significant means that "the source speaks on the subject in detail, rather than a mention in passing or name drop". Significant means more than trivial but less than important. Reliable means "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" (as per WP:RS). Independent excludes "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs" (as per WP:SPS).
And, these guidelines stand directly against using the subject's personal advertising blog, passing mention in a a few websites, a couple of interviews repeated across a number of promotional sites or amazon.com reviews that aim mostly at making a sell to establish notability.
WP:BIO states that a creative professional (including authors, editors, journalists and others) is notable if the person:
is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, which has been the subject of an independent book, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (Underlines added by me)
Or, the person is notable if the person's work:
(a) has been displayed in a significant exhibition or as a monument
(b) has won significant critical attention
(c) is represented within the permanent collection of a significant gallery or museum of more than local significance.
I have searched long and hard to get the subject/article meet those criterion, and failed. Part of a 21,000 strong professional community, shared winner of a small time award in a tinsy-winsy category, writer of a few hardly-notable books, and a speaker among hundreds in a couple of large conventions - that's all that could be established about the subject. That too not very reliably. Reason enough to get me so convinced of the subject's non-notability and the sources non-reliability.
I also have tried tagging it for notability concerns and tried to draw expert attention to the article. Unfortunately, the only response I received was repeated removal of the tags. Here goes the links for the removals - the first removal, the second removal, the third removal, the fourth removal, and the fifth removal. Not even once an explanation was offered on the talk page, though I kept repeating the request for an explanation. I also posted to the talk page creator of the article who kept removing the tags without improving the article along the same line. But, that message was removed without any other response. Looks like WP:OWN at work. Cheers. Aditya Kabir11:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete one actual award (more precisely, as one of the author of one of the articles justifying the award made to the magazine that published it) Everything else in in-house--an article in the magazine he edited is not an independent source. DGG23:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, I don't care if you keep my entry or delete it. I'm just a guy who writes workout books. I didn't even know I had a Wiki entry until a few months ago; I stumbled on it when I Googled myself. I went in and updated the information, which was several years out of date. The next time I saw the entry, it had silly details about me speaking at minor fitness conferences, which I probably don't even mention in my own bio at my website. And it said the entry is being considered for deletion.
Bottom line, I agree with whoever thinks I'm not important enough to have a Wiki page. Feel free to take it down. The only reason I edited the piece was to make the information accurate. I was surprised to find I had a Wikipedia page at all, and even more surprised to find this somewhat humiliating takedown of my career.
Side note: If someone out there thinks a National Magazine Award is "a small-time award in a tinsy-winsy category," all I can say is, you go out and win one, and then report back on how easy it was. First you have to get published in a magazine good enough to be considered for awards. Then you have to navigate the magazine's internal politics to get one of your stories submitted for an award. (If you think a magazine's best stories automatically get entered in contests, you've never worked at a magazine.) And then you're in competition with the nation's biggest magazines and some of the best working writers in the business. True, we weren't up against the New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly in the Personal Service category. But that still leaves almost every other magazine you see on newsstands. (I was up against the New Yorker for a different award, in 2003, but lost.)
So please take the entry down, with my blessing. It would be nice if you'd delete this discussion as well. I didn't ask for any of this.
I am sorry that you feel humiliated. But, you work for magazines, and you know how these things work. And, that is probably one of the reasons why it's better not to do autobiographical articles in WP. I myself am convinced that you are a nice person, a good writer, a committed magazine-man, and have the potential to become a good Wikipedian, too (bodybuilding articles do need a contributor like you). But, notability is different issue altogether. Finally, I am sorry that I was harsh in my comments here. Just remember that I was the person who was trying diligently to improve the article on you, if that helps to make you feel better. Cheers, man, you still are good writer. Aditya Kabir17:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The commentary on the guy's accomplishments probably comes off harsher than the nominator intends. I think these are enough to support a good short bio:
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch of December 28, 2005 has an article by Schuler;
The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette of March 19, 2007 says "Schuler is a frequent contributor to magazines such as Men's Health and is the co-author of four books including The New Rules of Lifting and The Men's Health Home Workout Bible. He will speak about "How to Write About Fitness and Get Published;"
The Star Tribune of November 30, 2004 and the The Montreal Gazette quote him about men and exercise;
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch of September 22, 2003 reviews one of his books;
The Atlanta Journal and Constitution of July 1, 1993 reviews Schuler's experience in a boxing class;
Publishers Weekly of October 21, 2002 has a brief review of another of his books.
Comment. Good argument, and very good research, too. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. It may be a result of frustration with the owner of the article, who kept removing my pleas to the community to add some info that would more-or-less irrefutably establish notability. I see that lately User:Elephino-rob and you have done some research, and added to the article itself - an infobox that doesn't even have a birth date, and a list of his work, already stated in the article, a bit more fleshed out to include ISBN numbers and stuff - though those efforts hardly added to the notability-value of the subject. I really don't see how your findings here fulfills criterion like "widely cited by their peers" (3-4 quotes?), "significant new concept, theory or technique" or "significant or well-known work subject of multiple independent periodical articles" (two books quoted by one magazine each?). I know, there can also be an argument that there are bio articles on WP that feature even less notable people. But, that's exactly why we have the prod and AfD processes. Cheers. Aditya Kabir16:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Wikipedia article on the National Magazine Award states the award is "roughly equivalent to the Pulitzer Prizes". WP:N states that a person is notable if "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." Based on the definition of WP:N, he qualifies for inclusion. I'm not saying this is a high priority article, but Schuler is certainly notable based on the current guidelines of Wikipedia. --Ataricodfish19:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unfortunately the same artcile on National Magazine Award uses only the official web site of the Award. Using it to establish a statement will be very much against the policy of Reliability of Sources. There already is enough talk going around to prove that Wikipedia is unreliable as an encyclopedia. Building one premise on another which was flawed to begin with is only going to compound that unreliability factor. Aditya Kabir13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Post of May 6, 2004 says "Esquire, America's oldest men's magazine, was the big winner yesterday at the National Magazine Awards, picking up four of the prestigious annual prizes."
The New York Times of May 10, 2006 says "The magazine awards, the industry's most prestigious honor, are sponsored by the American Society of Magazine Editors in association with the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism."
The New York Post of March 15, 2007 says "Yesterday, the American Society of Magazine Editors announced the nominations for the prestigious awards, known as "Ellies" because the Albert Calder-designed trophies look like stylized elephants.
The Washington Post and the New York Times considered the awards important enough to report the winners under the headline "New York, National Geographic Win Magazine Awards" and "National Magazine Awards Smile on Some and Disappoint Frequent Winners" on May 2, 2007
Nomination withdrawn Yeah, right. I was wrong. And, I must say, the editors who came up with this wonderful blitz of good research were lazy. Please, do not just defend an article on the deletion discussion (people outside the Community don't read them). If you really care about the article, the subject and Wikipedia, please, add these wonderful evidence to the articles on Lou Schuler and National Magazine Awards. Make the articles more credible. I propose that we close this discussion (if only you people did this to the article when I kept tagging it for expert attention). Aditya Kabir15:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (okay, I've actually heard of this game, but it doesn't deserve it's own article). Sr1303:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any reason for this college football match to have its own article, and it doesn't make any claim at notability - fine, a team came from 31-3 down to tie, but this isn't inherently notable. Some local interest, 64 unique Ghits ([26]), but on that basis you could probably make a case for any football game ever to have an article. What say you? EliminatorJRTalk12:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few college football games are notable enough to get their own article. This is not one of them. Of interest mainly to Florida State fans. Mainly to rub it in the faces of Gator fans. DarkAudit16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. A complete story is more notable as discrete entity than part 5 of a 15 part epic. If you want to remove articles dedicated to individual episodes, you should remove them on the grounds that they are just plot synopses or offer no information about their subjects beyond what can already be found in existing articles. 65.2.92.8620:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Original research, list of barely discriminate information, fancruft. Could possibly be copyright violation, if you look at it sideways and squint real hard? Wwagner13:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: OK, I don't know much about shooting, but first place seems good to me. The article could use a rewrite and some reference, but I say "Keep" it. - NeutralHomerT:C15:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand why placing first in a certain category in regional competitions justifies keeping the article, but I'm open to the possibility. Mrand18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing (again, I know nothing about shooting) but I guess "first place" means the guy won those competitions. I could be wrong, I honestly know nothing about shooting, but if the guy did win those competitions, then that is pretty notable. I think the article could use a rewrite and some references to confirm some of those wins. Take Care....NeutralHomerT:C02:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the good faith, it is not necessary in this instance. To get an idea of how many first places there are each year, just click on the "2004 Winners" link in the article.Mrand18:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete Correspondent for a national television network confers a small degree of notability, but not enough to satisfy guidelines without further assertion and sources to back it up. This article has neither. DarkAudit14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on second thought, journalistic prizes plus appearing on a national TV network probably pushes her over the notability line. Lankiveil04:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Reasonably senior journalist but sources that I could find on Google News Archive are her reports for the ABC. [27]
Comment - not quite notable in the sense of independent published works about her, but at the same time I'd be loath to delete it given her national presence. Orderinchaos07:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole issue of biographies for TV presenters particually in AU has heated up of late, particually evidenced through the recent discussion on Frank Colletta. Despite the aforementioned article being closed as delete, the debate did not reach a reasonable consensus for delete and there were the usual number of issues being raised regarding these both in support of keep and delete. Frankly, I can't choose between delete or keep for this article because frankly the nomination for deletion is at best lacking a reasonable argument for it's deletion, and the subject in question has had a long history of news reporting, particually on national issues relating to Australia's primary industries. Thewinchester(talk)08:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whilst no secondary sources independent of her employment, I would suggest that she has "demonstrable wide name recognition" in television and comes within the other tests of notablility. Assize10:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nationally reputable journalist and the ABC's Africa correspondent. With the profile of stories on AIDS, Sudan, DR Congo and Zimbabwe, she is on ABC Radio National and ABC NewsRadio almost daily. Is of sufficient profile to directly interview the Prime Minister of Australia - very few ABC journalists get this opportunity - and was a Walkley finalist (Walkleys are the highest journalism award in Australia). Zivko8512:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The subject of the article is not notable. Not a single third party mention can be found using a search engine. Besides, the results mention many Denis Smyths, which have nothing to do with this professor.--Kylohk13:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, to clarify, he probably is a professor, and he seems to have actually been involved in writing some of the articles and things that the article claims. I'm still not sure that this chap passes WP:PROF, although the fact that his is a relatively common name makes verifying that difficult. Lankiveil02:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep Real is very easy--you just find the Dept of History at the University of Toronto on the web and check their faculty list, & link to his bio. He is full professor of history at probably the most important Canadian research university. Therefore he must have published something. From WorldCat and Historical Abstracts, I found the references; they include editing of a truly monumental collection of post-World War two British documents. Anyone can check WorldCat. DGG02:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Usually, I only nominate articles in my field of knowledge. This is a boat and I don't know much about boats. However, after reading the article, it seems that there are millions of boats like this. Why have an article about it? Given the amount of work that has gone into it by different accounts, I am a bit hesitant, which is why it is AfD instead of PROD.
Userfy or otherwise preserve, but get it out of mainspace. There's no reason for 'just some guy's boat' to be included without significant press coverage. But this is a reasonably well-crafted article. it would be a shame to just chuck it outright. Too good for WP:BJAODN, but not right for main. DarkAudit14:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Legend has it that every time the Gray Ghosts engine throttles up, General Robert E. Lee himself salutes from heaven and the heroes of the Confederacy stand at attention and awe of her mighty power." Delete. Lankiveil01:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Seems harsh, given that it is, as TPH says, well written. Somebody took care over it. But that is not enough to save a non-notable article, at the end of the day. AdrianM. H.14:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity. Authors should pay for their own webspace. I donate money to Wiki, but not for articles like this. SilkTork18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace as Wikipedia's homepage. I thought the article was wonderful and enlightening. Probably the best ever.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per WP:BIO. Non-notable local politician. No significant press coverage outside the Philadelphia metro area. No other sources to assert further notability. Just being on the council of a major city does not confer notability. DarkAudit14:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable band. Has released several albums, but not at major labels, apparently self-released. One "tour" is reported, but I could not find independent third-party coverage. Hence fails WP:MUSIC. Tagged for notability since July 06. Sent here as part of the Notability Wikiproject -- B. Wolterding15:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page about an album of the band:
Delete Also a little reluctant, but both articles fail notability. That whole guideline is being debated at the moment, but I don't think the outcome will change anything for articles such as these. AdrianM. H.15:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reluctant delete. Although there is a fairly long interview [28] and some other references of unknown reliability, [29][30][31] other notable bands in the genre seem to be able to get much more significant media coverage. The band has released two CDs, but the label doesn't seem to qualify for WP:MUSIC #5, nor do the concerts quite seem to qualify as a tour for WP:MUSIC # 4. If only the de.wiki article listed some other sources to check out. Gimmetrow21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per WP:BIO. Non-notable local politician. No significant press coverage outside of the Philadelphia metro area beyond a couple of stories about the foie gras ban. Very little local coverage found as well based on a search of Newslibrary.com for 'John P. Kelly Philadelphia'. Just being on the council of a large American city does not confer notability. DarkAudit15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't "Just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability." He's apparently done little besides getting elected. DarkAudit20:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit03:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another member of the prolific Arbuthnot family. Perhaps being Bishop of a minor diocese confers notability perhaps it does not. He has been here for over six months and his creator has still not found anything notable or interesting to say about him. It seems he is just another younger son (all upper middle class families had one) who entered the church and rose through the ranks because he had the rights name and contacts - although the page does not even explain that much. - The Arbuthnot family tree is linked (as usual) showing his relationship to a few notable people and hundreds of non-notable. I see no value in having this page here so suggest it is deleted unless someone can add something to prove otherwise. Giano15:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This article has no independent sources listed, just a link to the Arbuthnot family tree website. However, as a 19th-century bishop in Ireland, there will undoubtedly be some sources available which provide at least sufficient material for a stub article. So far as I can determine from a quick scan of the revision history, this article has never been tagged as {{unreferenced}}, so I have added that tag, and suggest that we wait a few months to see if editors can find suitable reliable sources. A Google search throws up a few brief references, such as this one, and I'm sure that there is more detail in print. It is worth noting that this article has been created and developed by User:Kittybrewster, an Arbuthnot who maintains the Arbuthnot genaeological website. It would be preferable for editors to take a cautious approach to the guidance set out in WP:COI, and refrain from creating articles on their own relatives. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Very weak keep per BrownHairedGirl. A Bishop of a mainstream church should have a few sources. Revisit in a couple of months and delete if no other sources have ben added by proponents of the Arbuthnots or other editors. Edison16:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an obituary (a somwhat hagiographic one) of this bishop in the 1828 issue of The Gentleman's Magazine (London: J Nichols & Son) that confirms that this person was buried in Killaloe cathedral (which I assume to be St. Peter and St. Paul Cathedral, Ennis) and 1 paragraph in the 1823 edition of The Christian Journal, and Literary Register (New York: T. & J. Swords). Uncle G17:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Hardly! thats a Catholic church. There was little or no Anglican population in this area back then or even now. It my be a mainstream church in England/Dublin back then but it was a minority church in rural County Clare.--Vintagekits17:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it might be a major church where you are but it is not a major church where he was a bishop - I would assume less than 4% of the population would have he Anglican. Therefore he was not a Bishop of a major church. It was a Bishop only in title - the Arbuthnots do love a good title! See titular see --Vintagekits19:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My point (not very well put) is that a bishop of a major religion should probably be notable, regardless of whether the area they are bishop of, has many prople of that religion. Davewild19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi Dave, I understood the point, and I agree that Bidhops in general are notable especially in mainstream churchs, however, I would disagree that someone who is the head of a mainstream where there are little or no followers would be notable. Its a debatable point and I accept much of what you are saying but this is not a major diocese infact it no longer exists and has now been swallowed up and additonally he would only have been a Bishop in title without any of the following that usually goes with that title. Would the head Buddist in County Leitrim be notable - its a mainstream religion but there would be very few followers. However I would not be put out if there was a keep here and the article was improved. Its notability can be reassessed at a later state. Maybe nn tags should have been used first instead of AfD. regards--Vintagekits19:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Bishop of Killaloe was a bishop of the established Church, supported by tithes, and with all the status that came from the position of the established church. That makes it a notable position, but the notability of the holder of the post may be a different matter. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl, lets give the article a shot at improvement. The delete route can always be taken if this road fails... xC | ☎19:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra reluctant keep - As I've said elsewhere, while I think this does meet WP policy as it stands, I am strongly of the opinion that this highlights a problem in policy. As VK (almost) says, an Anglican bishop of a minor diocese in Connacht (lest we forget, Killaloe has a population of under 2000) is roughly equivalent to the chief rabbi of Riyadh, since this was probably the least Anglicised part of Ireland at that time. While I agree it should be kept under a strict reading of Wikipedia policy, I really don't see why this couldn't just be an entry in a list since it says nothing about the man other than "He was born - he had a job - he died". Since Kittybrewster, Wikipedia's leading expert on Arbuthnotology, can't find anything further to say about him, it's probably a very safe bet there is nothing further to say — iridescenti(talk to me!)20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe he is notable for having and extremely small bishopric. If they were only 4% Anglican in his area of responsibility, and the total population was 2000, then with 80 congregants how many priests was he in charge of? Very puzzling. Edison21:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There will be more than that, the figure of 2000 is for the town but the diocese covered the surrounding countryside as well, plus he served pre-potato famine so the population was probably higher. This situation isn't unusual in Ireland even to this day, where each area has an Anglican bishop for historical reasons but the population - particularly in the west, like this - is overwhelmingly Catholic — iridescenti(talk to me!)22:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I know, and the Church of Ireland website seems to agree, the Anglican diocese of Killaloe, before it was merged with the Limerick diocese back in the 70's, included quite a lot of North Munster, covering much of County Clare and County Tipperary, including Nenagh and Roscrea. (It would have been based on the pre-reformation diocese of Killaloe.) Flowerpotmantalk|contribs01:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very interested as to why so many of the Arbuthnots use this [32] very uncomfortable looking building Rockfleet Castle as a maternity clinic. Why such an illustrious family should choose for their wives to give birth there is a mystery. I think the Arbuthnots and their history do stand up to too close scrutiny! I have a problem with that building being the ancestral seat and these people being listed as born there - Charles Arbuthnot in 1767; Alexander Arbuthnot (bishop) born there in 1768; Thomas Arbuthnot 1776 as the sixth son of John Arbuthnot, Sr of Rockfleet Castle. Something is not right here that building is too humble, small,damp and plain for a family of late 18th century aristocrats. Giano22:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a 16th Century Irish building we're talking about — the definition of "big" was somewhat different to modern times given that the typical home at the time would have been a wooden shack. The building looks pretty impressive by Irish late-Mediaeval standards. I have to point out, though, that none of the independent sites on the castle mention the word 'Arbuthnot', and a search on "Rockfleet Castle" +Arbuthnot appears to bring up 25 hits, all Wikipedia mirrors — iridescenti(talk to me!)22:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a fair comparison - Russborough House is in Wicklow, a prosperous and heavily Anglicised area just south of Dublin whilst Mayo was (and is) the poorest part of Connacht, a poor subsistence-farming-based Gaelic-speaking region under de facto military occupation for the previous 600 years. The comparison's like comparing Montreal to Iqaluit or (pre 1990) East to West Berlin. I do agree there's something fishy going on here, since KB elsewhere says they all come from Kincardine, but attacking the building isn't a valid argument — iridescenti(talk to me!)23:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books, folks. "Memories of the Arbuthnots" is, unfortunately, in snippet view, but from pp. 176–177, I can extract a reference in John Arbuthnot's will to a "Trust to finish my house of Rockfleet" and "present [illegible] house standing on the edge of the shore near the old half-ruined Rockfleet Castle". So it seems that the Arbuthnots weren't camping out in Richard an Iarainn's old pele tower. Perhaps KB can supply more details from the book. Choess07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the "Memories" book serves to substantiate Wikipedia articles about Arbuthnots, and Kittybrewster or a relative controls the copyright, why is it is snippet view? Sounds like a chance to open it up to viewing. Edison19:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Putting aside the matter of Arbuthnotness for a moment, in general Church of Ireland and pre-disestablishment Anglican Bishops of Irish dioceses seem to achieve notability by virtue of their office, so in this case it seems that this particular article meets that criterion.Flowerpotmantalk|contribs01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per Flowerpotman; bishops, IMO, are high enough in the hierarchy of things to deserve a stub, rather than just a name on a list, when looked up. That said, his obit in the Gentlemen's Magazine of 1828 (available on Google Books) is distressingly platitudinous. If his contemporaries had that little to say of him, there's probably little room for expansion. Choess07:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unconvinced that his position equals notability and given he seems to be known for nothing else I can't really support keeping. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak15:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep as the Bishop of a diocese of the then established church (despite its low number of adherents in this particular area) he seems to have some ex officio notability. David Underdown14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but his predecessor Richard Mant is notable as an author & poet rather than as a bishop, and his successor Richard Ponsonby is a false-positive bluelink to a completely different Bishop Richard Ponsonby, in another diocese altogether, who died in 1815 so was unlikely to have been in any position to succeed Alexander A in 1828 — iridescenti(talk to me!)18:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having now read and seen further evidence on Kittybrewster's page of the amount and reliability of the research of these pages - I think we have to tread very carefully indeed! To maintain the credibility of the project Giano19:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit unfair - as Kittybrewster would not doubt agree, I'm no fan of the recent tidal wave of Arbuthnots, but I've no doubt this guy existed given the (non-"Memories...") obituary. Attack the articles for their faults, but attacking the author isn't the way to go about things — iridescenti(talk to me!)19:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kitybrewster has read one out of date and out of print book, written by a member of his family about her family (which gives no reliable sources) and presented it here as fact. So many of the facts are in fact not facts that one hardly knows where to start. Giano19:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos of nothing, but (I assume) the repeated downloading of Memories of... has crashed the server at arbuthnott.com but I will certainly concede that the book is genuinely available online - but as I've said elsewhere, as a family history by a family member, I don't take anything in it as credible unless it's backed up elsewhere. However, in this particular Arbuthnot's case I've no reason to doubt he exists, since he's also mentioned in non-Arbuthnot sources, and while personally I don't think he's notable, in terms of current Wikipedia policy he does warrant a keep. As I've already said, I think this highlights a problem in policy, but given that we have articles on Harry Potter's friends' pets I suppose he's keepable — iridescenti(talk to me!) 19:52, 21 May *Keep notable, SqueakBox15:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've posted on the talk page of WikiProject Anglicanism asking if they can give any advice on whether they consider bishops automatically N by virtue of their office both in general and in this specific case — it seems that, as the people most likely to be interested (and unconnected with any of the current ongoing feuds simmering here) they're best placed to give a balanced opinion. Apologies to anyone who considers this canvassing — iridescenti(talk to me!)17:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- On the one hand, this reminds me a little bit of those cases where somebody goes through the list of the Dukes of X or list of the Bishops of Y with a mission of eliminating redlinks. So he/she creates silly little stub articles saying that "NN (dates) was the 13th Bishop/Duke of Y/X" and putting in a succession box and leaving it at that. I utterly deprecate that; a redlink is better than a meaningless stub merely replicating what the list says. (I'm not normally anti-stub, by the way, as long as the stub contains at least a smidgeon of information not already contained elsewhere in the wikipedia.) All that said, this isn't quite an empty stub; it tells us a little bit more -- just not much. Most of the other stuff it tells us, alas, is Arbuthnot genealogy, which I understand is a slightly contentious issue. So I'd feel much happier voting keep if there were something else -- beyond mere a) biographical details; and b) Arbuthnot genealogy -- to make this article notable. As far as Anglican bishops in Ireland go, I'd say there's not quite automatic notatbility, but a definite presumption of notability, if you see what I mean. Doops | talk17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with option to merge to something else later retained). I have to think that an Anglican bishop by definition qualifies as notable. Also, I note this page] listed him as having been Lord Bishop of Killaloe. Having said that, I agree that a lot of the pages which basically say, "born, became X, died, replaced by Y" can and should be merged into something else after some time has passed, maybe a year. Unfortunately, many such stubs have a lot of data available, but no one to spend the time to expand them. Many of the List of Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria have maybe three lines of text, but one or more complete pages in a Coptic Encyclopedia I have recently found. I agree that such articles can and should be merged in time if they remain this short. However, I'm not sure enough time has passed for this to be done here. And outright deletion is probably not the answer. John Carter17:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any evidence to support your assertion, and even if there is any evidence to support his Diocese contasined less adherents than those in the UK (eg it could have been larger etc), SqueakBox19:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it would make an interesting study - size of diocese to population. Keep in mind Bishops are appointed by the Government not the church, so what sort of person would a British Government appoint to an Anglican diocese in Ireland at a very politically sensitive time - surely someone can expand this properly. I think "Lord Bishop" was the term referring to all Bishops who were not suffragan at the time (if they had suffragan Bishops at that time) it probably implies a seat in the House of Lords, why create a page and say nothing. If Kittybrewster wants to save this page he should start researching. Giano19:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought a highly sensitive gov appointed post would go to somebody notable, and surely these comments of yours should be on the article talk page, SqueakBox19:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No not at all, I'm playing devil's advocate, I have no wish to see a page with possibilities deleted - I am just sick of bailing Kittybrewster's pages out. Now, following what I have said, can you see a way forward for this page, if so please edit it accordingly. Giano19:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest your comments should go to the talk page because they are interesting. I can have a go at bettering the page, too, you are right there, SqueakBox19:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your questions: 1) an Irish diocese in this era would have had many fewer congregants than an English one. That said, though, as a state church (at the time) the CofI wouldn't care about a diocese's # of congregants but rather its total population. 2) "Lord bishop" is a traditional title for any diocesan bishop in the British Isles; its use here does not imply that Arbuthnot took a turn sitting in the House of Lords (between 1801 and 1871 four Irish bishops / Archbishops, chosen by rota, sat there). 3) Regarding the suggestion that appointments to the see of Killaloe were politically sensitive govt posts, I think you're barking up the wrong tree -- it was mostly just the old-boys network. You needed family connections and allies among the political classes and a certain level of education and coherency. We're not talking about the Viceroy of India here. Doops | talk00:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you possibly imagine reads the talk pages of Kittybrewster's dead end dull pages. The only way to get them improved or deleted is to nominate them here. Or prove the facts wrong myself by correcting and expanding. Kittybrewster in his present form is a liability to Wikipedia. Giano19:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on current consensus of the notability of higher levels of church hierarchy. However, in common with many editors above I believe the value of 'x was y, from a to b, and related to z' articles rather than a mention in a history of the position. Nuttah6819:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being a bishop is notable enough for me, but it would be awfully nice if something other than pure genealogy was added to his article - what did he do? -- ALoan(Talk)09:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being an established bishop qualifies for notability automatically, independent of the article creator's association with the family. This article should not have been nominated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was written like a press release, so I thought it bore the distinct flavor of a copyvio. But I can't find any proof on Yahoo or Google that this guy even exists--or on any news outlets either. Blueboy9616:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This position is new to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - it's in response to 10,000 blood disorder patients contracting HIV/HCV in the 1980s (See the Committee of Ten Thousand COTT - google it). This was anounced this week in newsletters by AABB and ABC - Americas Blood Centers. This is a senior-level Department position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsteady (talk • contribs)
Keep The man is real, the position is real, and sufficient for notability. The articles has some for the usual PR spam, but that's always easy to delete. When one finds more material during the AfD discussion, it helps to put it into the article as well as mention it at the AfD. DGG02:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* I chose to include this on Wikipedia because this marks a HUGE milestone for our struggles (tens of thousands of blood disorder patients) - our plasma-based pharmaceuticals can cost over $100k per year and this position is the first since the HIV/HCV epidemic (responsible for killing >5,000 of us) that can actually look at fiscal/monetary dilemmas with the blood/plasma supply. This position is very promising for us and hard fought. Richard Henry's presence and this new position can be found on-line via several sources - www.hhs.gov/bloodsafety and aabb.org and americasblood.org. User:amsteady
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Could Russeasby please clearly state which sources do not mention this author. There are now several sources clearly mentioned on the page. I would respectfully suggest that Russeasby has not taken the time to check his facts before issuing blanket statements - "no sources mentioning him are provided". This is clearly wrong. Within about half an hour of starting this page Russeasby was on my case and continued to bombard me with how the page should be developed. I am new to Wikipedea and am willing to take advice but cannot work whilst being dictated to. This seems to be a common trait of the honourable Russeasby by the looks of comments received from his other attempts at editing. User (useight) claims there is a possible copyvio - I assume this means copy violation. I can't believe that he then goes on to cite my source of the information which I clearly provided a link to on the page. I wasn't trying to hide anything or claim that the information was my own work. I clearly stated my source. Further to all this... my password is blocked on wikipedea and I am unable to sign in. Did Russeasby have it blocked? Mike P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.92.73 (talk • contribs)
Delete as nonsense. I am not exactly sure if he's a nn conspiracy theorist, or a NN novelist. DGG02:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Tony Fox claims that this author fails the WP:BIO. Upon first glance at the requirements it clearly states as number one - "The person has been the subject of published1 secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There are several sources quoted on the page. I have asked that it be clearly stated which of these sources are not deemed to be reliable. No one has done this. Your opinions are subjective and do not reflect any objectivity nor are they backed up by substantial research. The information I have provided is backed up by research and I have quoted my sources. Google is not the be all and end all of the world. It seems clear to me that Russeasby was determined to have this page deleted right from the start. As I have said earlier, he immediately issued a "noteworthy notice" when I was still in the process of entering the information onto the page - I hadn't even had chance to finish typing the information never mind editing it. I strongly feel that the due process has not been followed and that a new person to wikepedea has been jumped on by someone who has a track record of doing this to other people. Russeasby's bombastic approach to this (and I feel his other editing) is entirely uncalled for and he is certainly in no position to take a superior stance on this. His communications display bad manners in the extreme for a man that has taken on an editorial role. He quite openly boasts about his appalling spelling. When I went to school I was taught that it was the height of bad manners and a sign of low breeding to send a communication containing spelling mistakes. Is he thumbing his nose at common decency and then expecting other people to correct his errors? I can see a trend here where he clearly does not bother to look up spellings in a dictionary and similarly does not bother to check references/ sources when they are given. Following the initial attack on my article, I have taken the trouble to look up how other author's pages have been referenced. There are many that provide only one source and some none. This then leads me to wonder why Russeasby has not jumped on these. I do, however, sense the Ides of March and wishing to remain magnanimous I will anticipate the foregone conclusion and subjugation of this page by Russeasby. The article is now removed. I do, however, remain happy to send photocopies of the relevant newspaper articles to anyone who wishes to see them. Russeasby remains wrong in his judgements and this author is well known, certainly in Liverpool, and broadly throughout the UK. He is not, however, as far as I know, a member of any yachting circles - maybe therein lies the narrowmindedness and egocentricity. My password remains blocked which is a revelation in itself. Clearly Russeasby does not want me to enter into the debate. I therefore withdraw from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.92.73 (talk • contribs)
Where this users personal attacks are coming from are beyond me. Note the only communication I have had with him is on his talk page where I attempted to offer helpful advice, see User_talk:Mike-P21. Russeasby13:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly, that discussion is civil, and similar to the help that I and others routinely offer to promising new editors who are contributing positively, as this editor has done by creating an article that may actually be worth keeping, depending on sources. Looking at the diff before the blanking, it certainly needs a cleanup and proper referencing, and it is difficult to assess the value of the sources in their current state (devoid of crucial information). I'll opt for a weak keep on the proviso that notability be better established ASAP. AdrianM. H.15:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following the useful advice from Adrian (many thanks) I would be more than happy to provide photocopies of the newspaper sources. I don't know how else I can do this. If someone could advise I will do what I can to oblige. I don't know what I can do about the radio interviews... I don't have a recording of them. Please don't just say "sources needed to establish notability". Please tell me exactly what to do. At the moment I am unsure what more I can do. I have provided the names and dates of newspapers. I'm willing to have one last go. Mike P.
Delete. No compelling case for meeting the notability guidelines combined with the fact that the article reads more like an advert for the book.--Kubigula(talk)22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I spent about 30 minutes or more really researching this band. I wanted to find anything to assert notability, and even improve the page to make it look better. They have released a few albums, which you can purchase at Amazon.com, but it appears that the Label it was released under was also called Blue Steel 44. I really wanted to find something to get this article to stay, as I would have enjoyed improving this page. Unfortunately, after reading and re-reading WP:MUSIC it just doesn't appear they meet the criteria for notability. --sumnjimtalk with me·changes18:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not-notable enough music producer/writer. Zero Google web [34], news [35] and even blog [36] hits, and no entry at allmusic. I declined to speedy given the claim of having written songs performed by well known artists. If true, which is not established, he may meet the letter of the first entry at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for composers and lyricists. However, I believe that that criterion is overbroad, and the fact that it so poorly written, may mean it is not the result of thorough consensus. Anyone who has written a song for any notable band is notable? I think not. In any event, this may fail Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Fuhghettaboutit17:11, 19 May 2007 (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.
Speedy delete as likely hoax. Funny how the external links are functional, yet Google still can't seem to locate them... hmm, suppose maybe that the external pages were crafted just for the purpose of this Wikipedia article? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))17:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the subject's online presence appears to be new, we all know, Google takes time to populate it's search results with data swept from the internet. Not sure I would be to quick to judge in this case. We have seen overnight notariety for those in the entertainment industry quite often, which may or may not be followed by immediate google search results.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.110.29 (talk • contribs)
""Keep"". The ASCAP listing for credit to the Kindred the Family Soul and India Arie collaborations are actually accidently listed under "Binny Da Kid" instead of "Benny Da Kidd" as seen by the google results - Doblog - はじまりはブラックミュージック -
DINKY BINGHAM AND KINDRED THE FAMILY SOUL 7. CHUCK TREECE 8. CONLEY WHITFIELD & STEVE MCKIE 9. NOIZETRIP 11.14. EASY MO BE 12. BINNY DA KID, DINKY BINGHAM ...
www.doblog.com/weblog/myblog/3294/2398936 - 92k - Supplemental Result Charlesbelk20:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)]][reply]
Verifiable Source Available. It appears according to allmusic.com (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:ajfexqqsldse) that this music producer did appear on at least the songs indicated as not only a music producer but also as a performer with Kindred and India Arie (under Binny Da Kid, Binny Jay Records and Benjamin Rogers):
Struggle No More feat. India.Arie
(F.Dantzler, A.Graydon, O. Bingham, B.Rogers, I.Simpson)
(c) 2005 Family soul Music (ASCAP)/ Dinky B. Music (ASCAP)/ Binny Jay Records (ASCAP)/ Gold and Iron Music Publishing (BMI)/WB Music Group (BMI)
Produced by Binny Da Kid for Binny Jay Records and Dinky Bingham
Co-Produced by Kindred The Family Soul
Recording by Dinky Bingham at Go Town Studios, Atlanta, GA
Vocals: Aja Graydon & Fatin Dantzler
Drums, Bass, Keys, Dniky Bingham
Guitar, Drums: Benjamin Rogers
--Onsouthbeach21:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - Benny Da Kidd is a talented producer, that has an ear for music. Benny Da Kidd produces incredible tracks to reach various genres within the music world. Be it Hip Hop, R&B or Pop. I was priviledge to meet this young man at the ASCAP Conference this year, in addition to being privvy to some incredile tracks, this young producer's character spoke substance and integrity. Benny Da Kidd is the sight and sound of a new generation of producers!!!
Keep. Benny da Kidd is pretty well known on the block. But even those who don't know his name, know his music. Kweku. --Creatality23:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Benny Da Kidd is the next generation of uber producers/songwriters. At such a young age, the way he puts a track together by marrying the vocals and the track in perfect harmony, is similar to that of a veteran. Benny Da Kidd is the future, destined to be mentioned with the greats.
Delete, looks to be a hoax. The person possibly exists, but is not as important and notable as the article seems to suggest. Lankiveil02:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Wait/Review/Check Sources/Verify, Guys, this is not a hoax, and yes the person does exist, and yes the person is notable. The initial entry indicated that it may come down to verifiability. That proof was provided above. And "not as important and notable as the article seems to suggest" appears to be up for personal interpretation. --Charlesbelk02:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we've got this producer/songwriter who's supposed to be so super hot and big and so on and so forth, but we have absolutely no references whatsoever to indicate all this. One would think someone would be writing about this guy if he's so exciting, wouldn't one? Delete as hoax. Tony Fox(arf!)05:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is directed at the users above who have created accounts just to participate in this discussion. The general barometer we use at Wikipedia for notability is if the subject of an article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and each other. The best way to argue for keeping this article in my opinion is to go to the article and cite to sources that meet this standard.--Fuhghettaboutit05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any third-party sources that might establish notability and verifiability. And I have to echo Fuhghettaboutit's comment; no admin worthy of the title will pay attention to claims of "he is the best", because that is totally irrelevant. AdrianM. H.15:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP
My name is Willie Macc from BET's College Hill and I did some drops for Benny da Kids tracks and he is defiantly a hard working individual and has a lot of buzz in the entertainment industry
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Reason 1: It has been almost a year (21 May 2006) since the page was updated (Apart from being renamed). Reason 2: It does not appear to be a notable location in London. Reason 3: Page has been labelled stub for over a year) Paul Norfolk Dumpling 09:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC), nom completed by RHB - Talk20:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Might be marginal; some references exist, but most of them are not what is needed to make this notable. As always, I'm open to change my opinion if good sources come along. AdrianM. H.15:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Watt where Lazy Dog is already discussed. It existed. And it does appear to be something moderately significant within the house music universe. However, as yet, the stub hasn't grown. One of the problems with deletions is that the desire to create the article will still be out there - with a redirect, people can see that the matter has been considered, and a solution found. SilkTork18:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ben Watt or create article for the series of DJ-mix albums released based on the club's music. - eo21:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Possible Neologism. Google search only turns up the "Democratic Empowerment" page, which the article admits it is a part of. No independent source to confirm this topic's notability. —OcatecirTalk17:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A google search yields no indication of independent sources for this political concept, not to mention reliable ones. Darkspots17:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because this edit summary: Cited my website to differentiate it from the rest of the content, and give it credibility suggests that this is a neologism with no reliable sources. Mallanox23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:PROF. Just another Danish economics professor. His main contribution consist of a few text books in Danish not used outside of his own institution. MartinDK17:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per Ioannes. Having a movie made about you pretty much settles the notability question for me. The article needs a good clean-up, though. semper fictilis19:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, a movie might not always provide reliable information. Sometimes, a movie might mention something that never happened in the person's lifetime. V60干什么？ · VDemolitions20:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the requirement for inclusion is nontrivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, having a whole book about you and a movie made from it makes it pretty clear that people are talking and writing about your life, so we ought to too. Have you even tried to find other sources? I turned up 74 books that talk about her in under a minute. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having a movie made about your life, even a straight-to-cable-TV movie, is ample evidence of notability. Lankiveil02:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It is not necessary to write two books to be notable. It's necessary to write a notable one, which is a good deal harder and rarer. DGG02:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She wrote a book, is the subject of others and had a film made about her experiences in the camp. 'Gisella Perl' gets 70,500 ghits. How can this possibly be deemed non notable? Nick mallory05:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a NYT feature about her from 1982: [38]. The Times also had two pieces reviewing the MOTW about her. These are on top of the books mentioning her etc. Darkspots13:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, A Movie (Out of the Ashes), Books, etc etc. A search of google returned over 70,000 hits. I think the nominator simply does not know of her, this doesnt warrant a delete!Hedphunk18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems reasonable. Should stay redirected until someone (without a COI) has an argument against the below people. W.marsh13:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. "He also started the first online only newspaper to be recognized in the UK as a newspaper", though a bit clumsily worded, asserts a certain degree of notability, but I'm going with only a weak keep per concerns on talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))20:03, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not convinced that he's as notable as his newspaper. Tut-tut on the fact that the person in question, or a supporter, seems to enjoy manipulating the page by removing maintenance tags and the like. Lankiveil02:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete Marginal, but there just isn't enough here to show that his actually notable. He has set up companies and had a few works exhibited. So have plenty of people. AdrianM. H.16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southport Reporter. There's lot of stuff here, but not much of it is noteworthy outside of his involvement with the newspaper. Perhaps a bit more about him can be edited into the newspaper article, but I see no compelling reason for a separate article. There does also seem to be a conflict of interest element at work.--Kubigula(talk)22:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hardly notable American Idol "semi-finalist" (I can't tell when she was eliminated, but she was not even in the top 12) now attracting some minor attention (one article in Variety and some blogs) with the announcement of a release of a sex tape. Mr.Z-mantalk¢17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean you can just go around deleting everything you feel is unnecessary, it is still factual information, and with some of the stuff that is on wikipedia it is not much worse right now. This really doesn't fall under any of the reasons for deletion, and again, it is relevant information. I say unless a page is a blatent hoax, contains gross misinformation, or any of the items under the Reasons for deletion page, it should be kept. Just because there isn't a large page on this, does not give anyone the grounds to say that it is unneeded or never viewed, it is not your server space, leave the page be, keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.163.37 (talk • contribs)
To the anonymous user above: Calm down and please take a look at What Wikipedia is not, as well as Notability. The latter says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and each other." Olivia Mojica happens to have had very little significant coverage outside of Idol, which is why we nominated her page for deletion. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so we don't need to list every single thing that exists on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If the sex tape garners serious media coverage, she may qualify under WP:BIO, but right now I think she falls short, and since there's nothing much else to say about her, there's no need for an article. | Mr. Darcytalk20:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. This article has been on my watchlist for some time (after a random article capture), and after sourcing the existing statements, there was no other useful information to put into the article. There still isn't, but the article seems to be a recurrent target of commercial spam ("where to buy this video") and the occasional bout of vandalism. Risker22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 While there has been extensive discussion about the company and the article the questions on WP:N, WP:CORP have still to be addressed along with the concerns of WP:COI and WP:SOAP. I note that the previous AfD from August 2006 had similar concerns at that time the AfD was closed as no consensus. Also the article has under gone a lot of editing since it was list here, with a number of sources added including some that are WP:RS these sources are used to support only incidental information they offer nothing to the establishment of Notability. Comments on this AfD in general, as this isnt a vote but a discussion the box tallying "votes" and comparing this to an editors number of edits is meaningless and should not be used again. For the editors making accusations of cabals against other editors I recommend that you take your greivances to WP:RFC, it not uncommon for Australian editors to comment on Australian articles. Deletion of the article doesnt necessarily preclude recreation provided the new article addresses all concerns raised in the two afd's and its recreation has been supported through WP:DRV. Gnangarra11:45, 25 May 2007 (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.
I would love to delete this as CSD A7/G11, however a previous discussion on deletion resulted in no consensus, so this is now a procedural listing. Basically, i'm calling out this article as Vanispamcruftisement particularly given it's origins as created by an author with a clear conflict of interest, plus the organisation doesn't pass the I wouldn't know him from a hole in the ground test. The article reads like an ad, would require a significant re-write to become encyclopaedic. This is not withstanding the use of weasel words within the article. Looking at the ghits and the references already included in the article, the majority of these seem to be primary sources being from company PR, their own websites, and the like. Thewinchester(talk)18:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly an advert - agreed with the nomination, it would be difficult to see how this article for a consulting and marketing firm could be made encyclopaedic. Orderinchaos 18:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC) To add some substance to my vote, it appears that the company only has six employees (all but one in Australia) and an unknown clientele, according to an article in the International Herald Tribune which is basically a promo piece for the company's owner. Orderinchaos13:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I work in advertising and have seen this company sourced as an authority on gay marketing in industry media quite a few times over the years, and they have been involved in gay marketing for longer than most other companies in the world from what I can make out. Perhaps someone should edit it rather than delete it, maybe some stuff could go but there seems to be quite a few references from third parties acknowledging this company as notable in its field, which I have seen for myself. (Just an observation -- I don't think Thewinchester comments belong in an encyclopaedia as a serious discussion on the article as the remarks are pretty rude. Be bold does not mean be crass.) In relation to the original authoring of the article, I saw that in the last discussion that was all made perfectly clear who had written it originally but it seems to be a completely different article, backed up with a lot of third party notations, since that first discussion. A fair amount of third party references are cited - not written by or anything to do with company PR. JeffStryker19:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JeffStryker - You might need to go away and come back when you've read WP:AGF along with the cited policies. This is a procedural listing and any suggestion or assumption be it written, implied, or veiled, that the deletion of this article is apart of some anti-gay agenda/conspiracy is patently false. If you disagree with the reasons for deletion, I would strongly encourage you to make significant improvements to bring it in to line with policy and help it survive this AfD. Thewinchester(talk)03:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still KeepThewinchester misunderstood me and I misunderstood her/him. Where I come from 'ghits' is a very bad insult and I think now that it is meaning google hits. I noticed on "Out Now Consulting" UK google sites that Out Now has a fair few hits that may make it notable - I think I will take your advice and have a look at the sites referencing this company to see which make it into notable for WP:CORP. I am a bit concerned by suggestions made here to mark their notability down because the company clearly has got a few media releases out there - their site says PR is one of their key services so it obviously makes sense to see a lot of these in the google engines I guess. Will dig deeper and consider your suggestion to consider editing.JeffStryker12:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete weakly. Marketing consultancies need to pass a much higher bar, IMO, than, say, fish food brands. There are several reasons: marketing consultancies tend to lack physical plants, and do not generally sell their products directly to consumers, so the sort of independent commentary we look for may be elusive. Also, being in the business of promotion, they are going to be looked at much more closely for conflict of interest. This business may be somewhat unusual, in that it proposes to help businesses tailor ad campaigns to the interests of gay people. I am not yet convinced that it has much note or recognition outside the world of marketing consultants. - Smerdis of Tlön21:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I wrote a masters thesis last year on the interactions of gay sociology and the economy -- and relied a lot on various published findings of Out Now's work. I just checked and they are currently quoted in news online on the issue of Ireland's coming general election in the Irish Times, and last month they were quoted at length about advertising to gays in Variety magazine - US and also on the issue of BPs Lord Browne in the UK and workplace discrimination against gays. That is just the last few weeks of media coverage to Out Now's work and opinions. There just is very little else out there and Out Now has done more of this gay social and market research work than practically any other company. I know as I researched the area so extensively last year. It may not be your cup of tea but in my opinion it is really important to allow this information to be in Wikipedia for those people trying to research the area, like I was. JudyRobinson 22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC) — JudyRobinson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
To those choosing to comment on the article, you need to keep in mind the policy angle here on WP. The article in it's current state fails the notability criteria for corporations and companies, and despite AfD's and significant awareness of the need for improvement, no significant attempts have been made and the article attracts POV editors. Additionally, as cited and demonstrated in the previous AfD, the article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest, being someone clearly directly involved with the company and it's operations, an issue which WP frowns upon. Thewinchester(talk) 11:27, May 20, 2007 (UTC)
It may be a case where the research is notable but the agency itself is not. We are debating the notability of the company, not its research - the latter would merit its inclusion in articles relating to gay social and market research and other fields in which they have been involved. For example, in a recent FA Hamersley, Western Australia, the entities Stirling Times, Glendale Primary School and Hamersley Gazette are definitely worth covering in the article, but creating an article on them would see them deleted per WP:CORP or other WP:N grounds. Orderinchaos05:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand your point Orderinchaos and note the comment about market research and company notability distinction. I think though that in the area of market research, there is almost nobody else doing this, and certainly not in so many countries, and the secondary sourse coverage I have see has been of two kinds - coverage of the company itself - the Australian TV link from yesterday I would class as that category, and coverage of the company's research. I note what someone else said that the company is a market research company as well as advertising and in much of the media coverage of their research coverage also includes coverage of the company itself too - I guess because practically nobody else is doing this. I still think this article meets [[WP:N] notability] requirements, and more so since the edits that went on earlier today. The topic of the article seems [[WP:N] notable] as per WP:CORP, and I can see from several links in the current version of this article that notability is verified in several secondary sources. The WP style of the article itself is a vast improvement on its previous format. By the way, if Glendale Primary School, Stirling Times and Hamersley Gazette were the only schools or newspapers of their kind then I could agree with your comment about notability, but the agency in this article has a uniqueness, by virtue of its area of work, which goes almost entirely to its notability in a way that your examples would not appear to do. JudyRobinson06:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The notability concerns seem well met by some of the references this company is cited by. In relation to Orderinchaos comments about notability of the company research - the company itself seems to be in no small measure a market research agency and so significant media coverage and industry recognition of their research is in effect coverage of one of the company's key activities, where the company is the only source quoted as 'the experts' in this area, just like many other wiki articles on notable companies involved in the research business. They seem to qualify to keep on basis of recognition by multiple secondary sources especially the full page citation of the company in a Dr. Philip Kotler marketing text book - in marketing terms that is very major coverage. I also think that the unique nature of the market for this company renders them more likely to be notable than if they were just a marketing consultancy in the general market. The Ghits issue in relation to the specific are of "Gay marketing" places this company in the top 10 and that looks like wiki corporate notability to me. Agnetha1234 15:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC) — Agnetha1234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Strong keep - I came across this very article for the first time last year when we were set a gay marketing topic assignment. I found the article was the only place in all the research I did where I could find so much data about the gay market and also detailed advice from the company about gay marketing. There are other companies I cited in my research like Prime access and witeck combs but they had done nowehere near as much in the area as Out Now had. I agree with the Agnetha1234 comment - this company is in textbook and research terms very important to include here. Their notability was pretty clear to me when i looked at some of the current article references. They were recognised and gave a keynote at the most important travel show in the world, which was how I first discovered them. I don't agree with the Thewinchester comments above that the origins of the article make it conflict of interest - almost everything in this article is from after the last afd discussion and I can't see where the original author has had input to this version. I am keep also as per Agnetha1234 reasons as well. Pecheling 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC) — Pecheling (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I have not been a big wikipedia contributor true, but I didn't realise that meant I was not meant to be taken seriously in a debate like this. Just a note for the other editors - I have made few edits but most have been "outside this topic", unless commenting on other gay related articles counts as all being "on this topic". I still think the article is worth keeping in WP for all the other reasons given here. I also note earlier mention was made of WP:AGF which seems relevant to me given all that has been said on notability here. Pecheling08:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough sources that confirm notability. Maybe some editing to make it a bit more NPOV would make it strong keep. Also why not move the quoted research links to a new section in the article, since based on discussion students seem to want them for research reasons and both student wiki users and wiki edit guidelines might be well served to identify gay market research that way within the article. I do agree with someone's comment above that when they get quoted by mainstream media all over the world so often someone clearly sees them as being notable as a reference source and again the multiple nature of that I think meets WP notability required. EarthaKitt 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC) — EarthaKitt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This debate seems to have been sidetracked entirely into a discussion of Google hits from a lot of redlinked editors. Note that the primary bar here is notability - which means coverage in independent sources (remembering this is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper or a prospectus) - and verifiability against those sources for every claim made in the article. I see nothing in any of the above which provides this. Also note that AfD is not a vote - see the instructions for AFD. Orderinchaos19:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree that the discussion has been sidetracked. The Dutch textbook citing them mentioned by others does render notable per notability as well as the Australian TV report about what they do meeting that and being verifiable. I think the Google remarks started above because of me because I mistook what "Ghits" meant in an early remark, but it also was one of the reasons cited by the nominee of the afd that started the discussion. When you get past the first few google pages there seem to be numerous citations referencing the company as being notable in their area of work. I also edited out material in the article I think may have been viewed as less than encyclopaedic. JeffStryker20:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Editing note Deleted marketing cruft. Added a link to an Australian report profiling company. Added BBC online and Independent newspaper reports citing Out Now. There were actually hundreds of publications I found citing their opinions from many countries but tried to keep them on article topic. I think it can maybe still do with some trimming but based on what others are saying about using them as an important reference for research on gay market research data, I was reluctant to remove those links at this stage - but I did move market research to its own identified section in the article. JeffStryker20:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin Please be advised that this AfD seems to be attracting a significant number of editors supporting the Keep view who have an extremely limited history of contributions on Wikipedia (Average of 25 or less contribs per user) which needs to be taken into consideration during the closing phase. Thewinchester(talk)22:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin Please be advised that this AfD seems to be attracting a significant number of editors supporting the Delete view who are all located in one single State of Australia as per their user page who seem to have commented in concert at times. JeffStryker18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non-notable organisation, any independent sources simply quote the organisation (With probably self-supplied information by that organisation) rather than actually talk about the company (read WP:N *carefully* - it isn't just "quoted in some magazine somewhere", it practically has to have a book written about *it*). Also I've looked up a few iconic marketing agencies in Australia none of which have an article even though they have designed some of Australia's most instantly memorable TV and print ads. Most marketing organisations are not notable. Also as a gay person who does read a few community magazines I have never heard of it personally. DanielT504:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a corollary to my own comments - I was just looking in my Commerce textbook and noticed several "full page case studies" which are basically nothing short of paid advertisements written in an academic tone. DanielT504:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDanielT5 - you would have noticed then that WP:N says that notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity" - so whether you or others have actually heard of the organization personally is not relevant here. Your remark about "a few iconic marketing agencies" is vague to say the least but I would imagine there would be other - many the subject of WP articles - agencies - iconic or otherwise - that are the subject of articles. The deciding issues here according to WP policies are: has Out Now received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and each other? In my look through the cited links but also a lot more that are out there, you would have to answer that it has, whether you personally have seen them or not. For the record - the coverage in the Philip Kotler marketing textbook I have here and I can advise you it is no paid advertisement. In the context of a section of the body of the 'Principes van Marketing' textbook called "Marketingsegmentatie en positionering" under the heading 'Strategies For Segmentation', on page 366 (ISBN: 90-430-1071-5) there is a full page and a quarter about Out Now. Amongst the things they say about them there is - "Out Now Consulting is a specialised gay marketing bureau (agency). It has been working in this area for fifteen years and has offices in other countries as well as the Netherlands and Australia. Clients include IBM, Toyota, KLM, Citibank. (They then include pictures for gay advertising for travel to South Africa and say) This is a campaign they created for Lufthansa..." It goes on to talk about other aspects of the company and its work. No other marketing organizations are mentioned there and it is about the company itself. They do not usually want to waste good editorial text in such an important textbook on irrelevancies. I do not of course think this would qualify of course as having a book "written about *it*" by any means but last time I looked most subjects you find in WP do not have books written about them, nor does that seem to be listed anywhere as a notability requirement. A final note on this - a topic being cited by a Philip Kotler textbook as a secondary source and it is about the topic of this article would meet the test for a reliable secondary source that "reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." In relation to the subject at hand, [Philip Kotler] is as authoritative as you can get. If your own reading of community publications is yet to bring you into contact with the subject of this article that does not make them non-notable for WP. JudyRobinson07:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just found amongst my thesis research papers a half page file article that appeared as an insert from "Het Financieele Dagblad" - a Dutch daily newspaper that inserts an English language insert into the International Herald Tribune in the Netherlands market. It is dated February 5, 2002 and on page 2 is a large photo of Ian Johnson. The article is headed "Tapping into the €400 bn (euro) gay market", subhead is "Marketing group Out Now advises clients on ways of targeting 'pink' euro". It's copy starts "Firms across Europe have long treated the gay and lesbian market as an unknown quantity. Now, Australian marketeer Ian Johnson, who in 1993 founded a consultancy focusing exclusively on the gay and lesbian market in Australia, has opened an office in Amsterdam to help clients tap into what he considers a highly lucrative market..." It goes on for almost a half a broadsheet newspaper page. That seems to be another highly notable secondary reliable verifiable source this discussion should also include. I am not sure if there is allowed to be attached jpeg scans to a WP article maybe someone could assist me with advice on that - I will see if there is, and later today, when I get time, will scan and try to include in the discussion if that is possible. JudyRobinson07:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
International Herald Tribune - NL edition - report on Out Now - I uploaded a copy of the article I mentioned. I did not know if it would be suitable for WP so I just opened a flickr account and left the image at flickr for editors to see. The article seems clearly to meet WP:N guidelines for WP:CORP in relation to the article's subject. JudyRobinson09:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multinational advertising company with international coverage. I suppose more detailed coverage in sources would be preferable, but the fact it is covered at all (and in such diverse sources) leads me to believe the company is notable. Content has been improved since the AfD started and additional sources added. Looks like it meets WP:CORP to me. Articles about companies, especially PR ones will always carry some risk of advertising, but I think this company meets our inclusion standards. Anything beyond that is just cleanup. WjBscribe13:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment With due respect to WJBscribe, the core issue is the higher standard that needs to be met for a marketing firm in relation to WP:CORP and WP:N, and this does not meet the policy in spirit, and by the very thinnest of margins meets it in letter. As the vast majority of the content the subject puts out is for the primary purpose of self-promotion of it's business and services, often thinly disguised as research and new information, it's a primary sources issue. It's the whole Letter Vs. Spirit debate, and on face while it may meet the cited policies, it does not come close to meeting the policies intent (spirit). I have seen thin attempts from some contributors to cite selected references from selected people to push the POV regarding it's notability. As commented by a friend I spoke to earlier this evening "the most credible sources are the ones who say what you want to hear". Thewinchester(talk)13:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"by the very thinnest of margins meets it in letter". That satisfies me. Articles about marketing firms need to be watched closely to ensure they are not used for overt promotion (though we have to face the fact that having an article on Wikipedia has a promotional advantage). What I don't see is that the bar needs to be significantly raised when the subject is a marketing firm - certainly nothing in our policies says so. You are right to be weary of the use of Wikipedia for promotion, but I am unpersuaded that articles about marketing firms are subject of any different notability criteria than those about any other companies. WjBscribe14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I spent a l-o-n-g time reading through the above discussions and clicked through I think to all the links, and most in the article itself as it now stands. I think out of all the above - and there is a lot there to go through - I most agree with the observations of WjBscribe. This article seems to meet the notability tests set down for inclusion in WP. In passing, I do note that the topic of the article seems to have clear value to some WP users. It has recently been well edited since the initial nomination. It is not a major topic to all users of WP by any means - though most of the articles here probably fall into that category - but some people that are into this topic seem to have watchlisted it, which I probably understand. Perhaps the nominator for deletion is confusing the PR and research work that is a necessity for a company such as this - and, by the way, for many modern companies these days - with the fact that the company the subject of this WP article has, as was pointed out by several others above, been seen as notable by some very solid reputable secondary sources, amongst the strongest possible really, and independent of the company itself, and more than once. Generating PR for clients is not unusual for a PR/marketing company and generating PR for one's own company is now a fairly standard accepted modern business practice. Eventually what swung me convincingly to 'keep' in this case is the strength of a number of the secondary sources. The textbook, the TV coverage by Amanda Keller on oz TV and the International Herald Tribune represent major and reputable media coverage. I also found more out there but those alone were more than enough for me. They would be unlikely to cover this company if it were not notable and their coverage clearly meets our test here. How much other PR noise a company has around it is interesting but not determinative for me. When I dug deeper I found media coverage online of this company in different languages such as russian, spanish, italian, chinese, polish, czech etc, but I can't know how substantial that coverage is. But in any case, for me there is enough notability here for WP inclusion. If the article has been shown to meet the necessary WP notability requirements - and quite irrespective of how much or little WP experience some writing here might have - then it should be kept. In my opinion, there is adequate proof above in the debate and in the article's content itself that convinces me we see more than adequate WP notability here. Even the nominator seemed to concede this to some extent at one stage above, a point picked up by WjBscribe. Finally, let me be the first to inform those reading this that this may well be the first edit from this specific IP address - my ISP allocates a different one each time I log in - but is far from my first WP edit. I prefer anonymity - which is my right as while I really like very much what WP represents to the world as an information resource, and contribute quite often, I'm afraid too many times in the past I have not enjoyed the directed repercussions of some people's 'boldness' on WP, so I now choose the freedom offered by WP to be an anonymous contributor. May not sit comfortably for some, but it definitely works for me. Happy editing to all. 125.63.132.124 11:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC) — 125.63.132.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I hate to point out the obvious, but coverage by Amanda Keller on breakfast/tabloid TV makes one notable on Wikipedia? Hmm... I can see an opening for fitness equipment manufacturers already. Zivko8513:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note see long comment below - the TV coverage of the article subject is significant and a serious coverage on television, not a flippant coverage as the above comment implies JeffStryker18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly unnotable, unverifiable outside primary sources or sources arising from self-published material. I am somewhat concerned about the length of comments on this debate - while I am happy to assume good faith, it makes the job of the closing admin much harder, and really doesn't add nothing to the debate. Those from a marketing background should recall from their training the value of conciseness in communication! Speaking as an Honours student in Psychology based in Western Australia with a fair body of Commerce and Marketing subjects in my degree, and with some involvement in the gay community in Western Australia, I am of the opinion that most companies dealing with the gay market are not notable enough to have articles. How on earth can a gay marketing company be notable? They publish surveys. Unlike Nielsen, Gallup etc they do not get coverage of themselves or even scrutiny. Their results are published by means of their sending press releases to media outlets who generally will gratefully publish anything well-written that they're sent - as a volunteer representative of a community organisation, I once got a press release about an issue I was interested in, which included an interview with a relatively-unknown academic and some of his comments, effectively republished as a page 7 article in a Statewide newspaper. At present we have the ridiculous situation that the Perth Pride Parade does not have an article, nor does PrideWA. Rodney Croome's article is a stub despite his absolutely iconic status in gay rights in Australia - I personally hope that his article is one day a featured article on the main page of Wikipedia. If some of the editors above were willing to spend as much time on these critical needs within the Australian wikiproject on culture and sexuality as they did on writing 500-word essays here, we'd be in business. Zivko8513:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re IHT/Dagblad article (in support of my delete vote) - I would strongly suggest people read the image of it that's been posted. It clearly states: "The Australian business currently has a staff of six, and Johnson has hired one person to assist him in Amsterdam. So far, Johnson has five clients in Europe, two of whom in the Netherlands, all of which he declined to name." Even Brand Agency's Perth office has 15 employees! In Australia, according to the Federal Government, 100 is the threshold for a small business source - we're talking *six* here. And Brand Agency publishes its client list, Out Now cannot even claim notability on the basis of clients as it refuses to disclose them. I mean, come on. (Quite aside from the clear grammatical mistake in the above quote which should not have made it past any newspaper's sub-editor worth his/her salt...) Zivko8513:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note see long comment below re typographical mistake being irrelevant and client list is published and includes major multinational clients and organization size irrelevant here as per WP:CORP policies JeffStryker18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for taking the time to read through that article Zivko85, I missed the link when posted and have only just had a chance to look at it now. I have to agree with your assessment of the Dagblad/IHT article being used by some commenters to support the notability of the organisation. Firstly, they refuse to name the clients, so no link to potential notability there by association. Secondly, seven employees in two offices does not a notable business let alone a small business make, particually when drawing industry comparisons to other Australian companies operating in the same space (few of which have an article, despite many having a better potential of meeting notability than Out Now). This company on the level of notability doesn't even come close to reputable name brand marketing firms on the level of Saatchi & Saatchi, BBDO, Publicis, TBWA\, and a number of other entries in this category, not withstanding the research firms of Nielsen Media Research, The Gallup Organization, Ipsos-Reid, Synovate, Harris Interactive, and National Quality Research Center (NQRC) who are behind the benchmark measurment on customer satisfaction in the US economy. I think that the inclusion of this article by JudyRobinson and ors. simply has proved the core arguments of the procedural AfD nomination for this article. Thewinchester(talk)13:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commentre WP policies Tried to avoid responding but did because of tagging and repeated delete remarks coming out of just a few editors, from one common geographical area, and most recently all within minutes of the other == would like to try to just apply WP principles - perhaps that may make a closing editor's job simpler. Re Herald Tribune article, like Thewinchester I hope the closing editor reads it. Significant independent profile on the company - not promotion. Orderinchaos remarks on this appear not borne out by either where news report appeared, nor its text. Out Now is both in news headline and most prominent listing on front page. Philip Kotler textbook noticeably not addressed in recent postings of editors pushing delete. TV report of the company is clearly not a promotional piece - is by a respected UN award winning journalist, & article subject is most prominent element. Zivko85 remarks on that seem flippant and not relevant. Zivko85 and Thewinchester claim number of employees is an issue but that is not WP policy - WP:CORP says "smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." If Thewinchester takes issue with categories article appears in s/he should edit the categories not delete the article. Orderinchaos, Thewinchester and Zivko85 can see by reading the WP article they are trying to delete that despite their assertions, the article clearly lists Out Now clients as including National Australia Bank, Lufthansa, Citibank, Barclays, and Toyota. Out Now are nominated by advertising industry Commercial Closet Association for an Images In Advertising award in New York June 07 for Lufthansa campaign alongside agencies cited by Thewinchester of Western Australia - like BBDO, Publicis, TBWA\. Brand name clients and work examples also published online on Commercial Closet website for eg German National Tourist Office and Merck Sharp and Dohme. Zivko85 remarks about Perth pride or Rodney Croome are about non-related topics - this debate is about this article alone. Zivko85 of Western Australia criticises a newspaper typesetter/proofreader - has no bearing on WP:CORP notability for this company. There seems a committed handful of editors wanting to delete and do so with great and coordinated zeal. I do not change my view that this article is a clear keep for WP based only on WP policies. Orderinchaos of Western Australia - this is not a vote - it is a discussion on this article's topic as being notable for WP according to WP:CORP policies - nothing more, but nothing less and I support views on this debate by WjBscribe, and Madman bum and angel. JeffStryker18:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I accept your right to reply, as a closing admin for other debates I would advise that comments such as above, in length terms, are somewhat of an abuse of good faith, and a ridiculous imposition on the closing admin whose time is already sparse. There is nothing in the above that couldn't be said in about four lines, and this applies to several of the IP editors and to User:JudyRobinson's comments. (I also, for the record, see nothing that actually rebuts Zivko's arguments in the above - and his two combined responses were 461 words, incidentally.) Most likely this will end up at deletion review, for the reason that no admin should be expected to have to deal with such long-winded responses to an AfD from editors with a combined total of 119 edits to the encyclopaedia, about 10% of which are on this debate. Orderinchaos20:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinated zeal? Thanks to Microsoft Excel and a query tool I saw on someone's talk page recently, let's have a look...
User
Words in AfD
Total edits
Edits to AfD
Delete
Orderinchaos
396
16950
9
Thewinchester
681
2590
19
Semperf
4
4799
1
Ihcoyc
109
15346
1
Lankiveil
15
2400
1
DanielT5
138
542
4
Zivko85
490
152
5
Total:
1833
42779
40
Keep
JeffStryker
1716
39
11
JudyRobinson
1201
73
8
Agnetha1234
255
42
3
Pecheling
306
27
2
EarthaKitt
117
21
1
69.230.202.178
20
1
1
83.84.33.33
61
1
1
WJBscribe
195
14202
4
125.63.132.124
601
1
1
Madman bum and angel
17
2259
2
Total:
4489
16666*
34
* (205 excluding WJBscribe and Madman bum and angel)
Also as one of the Western Australian editors I resent the suggestion we are voting as some kind of block. If that was the case you would have about 9 from Western Australia. We're all established editors, we've all been involved in AfDs before. Several established editors from other states and elsewhere in the world have also voted delete. In fact as the table above shows, all but two of the established editors have voted delete (with all respect to those who didn't as people have the right to vote whatever way they choose). There's been 2.5 times as many words spoken to keep the article, two-thirds of which have been by two editors with few significant contributions outside this AfD and one of which is highly involved in editing of the original article. I have absolutely no history with this article and this subject, but I cast an informed vote and got attacked for it. I see the same has now happened to Zivko85. Most of the keep votes don't even *try* to address Wikipedia policy and make vague claims about unverifiable sources. On WP:N, a cornerstone policy, and on WP:V, another cornerstone policy, this article utterly fails. It's just another company that's good at self-promotion. A page in some Dutch textbook and a badly-formatted article in a Dutch newspaper that quotes the company founder almost to a word (ever heard of advertorial?) convince me even further that this article has no place on an encyclopedia. (I do realise the irony in this raising the "delete" word count, but yeah...) DanielT521:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did not wish to offend you DanielT5, and can only apologise if you took offence, I hadn't yet noticed you also are from the same State of Western Australia. I was observing that of the delete editors (as it now turns out) a majority are from such a small population State as yours. I thought your table interesting but also the observation at the top of this page "please note that this is not a majority vote". It is a bit of a moot point to rely on perhaps since the nominator of the article is by far the most frequent contributor to this AfD, and it doesn't advance the key argument we are all meant to be focusing on, namely WP:CORP. I apologise for being amongst the more verbose commentors JeffStryker22:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re state - WA has a population of over 2 million. Even by Australian standards we are overrepresented in terms of admins, featured and good articles and active contributors, and our wikiproject is probably the most active under the Australian banner and looks after over 2,500 articles about itself, notwithstanding editors' contributions to other areas. As such it's not entirely unexpected that our editors, who vote in a range of current AfDs (and not infrequently on opposing sides!), would end up commenting on a controversial AfD which is Australian in focus. I would guess most, like myself, saw it come up on Australian deletions - I'm entirely unsure where the IP and other editors discovered it. Re Thewinchester - about 4 of those edits would have been simply those instituting the AfD, and several were edits or corrections to the user's own contributions. Orderinchaos22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment JeffStryker - your comments above clearly show that you've ignorant to the discussion at hand. OIC has already beat me to a comment on the state. Nearly every discussion bar some necessary deviations and inclusions has been about notability in one form or another, which obviously relates back to WP:CORP. From WP:CORP
The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for examples) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations1 except for the following:
Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself — whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.2 Self-published material or published at the direction of the subject of the article would be a primary source and falls under a different policy.
Sorry, but the core citations and the DagBlad piece being used to assert notability for the company fail the above test in WP:CORP, clear cut and dried. Additionally, the Australian projects are some of the most active WP projects around, and users often converse frequently both on and off WP about issues of the day and the goings on. Making a thinly veiled suggestion that editors are acting like a Cabal is not only patently false, but shows a clear lack of understanding how WP works and project members collaborate. I've already had to remind you once on Assume Good Faith and it shows that you need to go back and read it, again. Thewinchester(talk)22:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been trying my best to see and find Good Faith throughout this process. Some of the language on both sides of this debate - I think - veered off the temperate road, but that again is not the determining issue to resolve. I note the footnote number 2 to the extract you selected states: The published works must be someone else writing about the company... A primary test of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it. I see no evidence other than unproved assertions that either Amanda Keller, or Philip Kotler or the International Herald Tribune have approached their coverage of Out Now on any basis other than as a notable subject for non-trivial coverage in its own right. When I watch/look at these three alone (even without all the other evidence various 'keep' editors referred to) I remain quite convinced of notability. JeffStryker23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, how did you miss the key point in the quote from WP:CORP, and this entire deletion debate? You admit that these are published by another company, and as WP:CORP states that (And i'm paraphrasing the policy here) material re-printed by other people based on a press release or other works where the company talks about itself ain't notable. You're trying in seventeen different ways to suggest WP:CORP says something other than what it says in regards to the issues at hand, and each time you single handidly end up proving the article and subject do not meet WP:CORP. You also continue on stating that contributors to this AfD have tried to assert that Amanda Keller, Philip Kotler and International Herald Tribune are not notable, which is a self-beneficial reading of the discussion. The notability by association is contested due to the nature of the comments or articles attributed to them, as these are considered by definition primary sources and not meeting the notability requirments of WP:CORP. This is not withstanding that trying to use Amanda Keller who is at best a B-Grade TV Presenter/Radio Announcer as a notable source is just beyond beleivable, as she has no authority or standing in these kind of debates bar having access to a captive audience day in day out. Thankfully, all the AfD's i've had to pursue thusfar on the Category:Companies of Australia cleanup have just not got to this level, because it has been a bugger of a category to clean up. Getting rid of this article has proved particually cumbersome due to a previous AfD and a bunch of single issue editors who've swooped down to protect an article which has not been shown by any of the contributions to be notable specially when placed in the context of company policy. Frankly I have no idea how so many single-issue editors became aware of this and decided to throw their two cents in, but i'll go out on a limb and suggest that there's either a company flunky who's got this article on watch (Which screams Vanispamcruftisement) and has called a bunch of you into action, or there's been some other way of getting the message out that's not been exposed yet to the community at large. I have not seen one single convincing comment which goes to disproving the lack of notability of the organisation specially when weighed against WP policy, and I strongly suspect that the closing administrator will see it that way as well. Thewinchester(talk)00:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really have not enough time left for this process so thankfully a decision will soon be made. So far as Good Faith goes - we can all benefit from trying to adhere to that assumption in our comments. I mentioned above in my first posting why I've watched this article for some time. I don't want to inflame things, so will not respond to the other points you made above - I think we have all 'been there, done that' in this AfD by this stage to understand the others' viewpoints clearly enough - even if we don't share them. JeffStryker15:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete How is a promotions and marketing company that focuses on the LGBT market any different in WP:N to a promotions and marketing company that focuses on sports fanatics? or single mums? I do not agree that the niche that this company applies itself to makes it at all notable on its own, and, sadly, that seems to be the basis of this article's support. I have read the entire discussion, article, references and do not believe that WP:N exists to anywhere near the high level that a company of this nature (marketing and promotions) would require on Wikipedia. Furthermore, I think it is highly likely that the vast majority of the editors that will be involved in the maintenance of this article will come from within this particular company, (WP:SOAP) or have a direct involvement with this company. Can people in this position write WP:NPOV? Yes. Is it likely that they will? No. Also, I must comment that WP:GOOGLEHITS is recommended to NEVER BE USED as an argument to keep or delete an article, and has been used extensively in this debate. Even though I read through the entire proceeding text, I agree with the nominator and was not convinced that this article was any more than careful WP:VSCA. Aliasd12:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete the article is describing Sesame Street, but Click & Clack are really a couple of brothers who host Car Talk, a long-running radio show. DarkAudit18:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. Mentioned in in Business 2.0 (Dec. 2005). They say he's notable for redirecting his site (Factcheck.com) to GeorgeSoros.com during the Cheney/Edwards debate when Cheney said "Factcheck.com" when he meant to say "Factcheck.org." Crypticfirefly07:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That event wouldn't be worth its own article, maybe a mention on an article about the debate. There have been millions of patent applications; even having an issued patent isn't necessarily enough to be worth an encyclopedia article. It would depend on the patent. Peyna23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. I found there website at www.inventmagic.com the game and company seem legit, yet they don't show up on google searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.36.233 (talk • contribs)
Delete If "legit" means "existent," then yes, the game and company probably do exist. But if the only mention of them that can be found is the company's website, or similarly unreliable source, then the game is hardly verifiable, and certainly not notable. Charlie23:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I am the owner of Invent Magic, I saw that results were pulled up on wikipedia on Google when searching for the game, and I added the game, I did just make Invent Magic.com Live that is assumably why google does not have any content on us yet.Although the game is very notable to me, it is not notable to others yet. I will be more observant in my future edits. Thanks for the feedback.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom and insufficient notability. AdrianM. H.16:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC) It always amazes me how many SPA accounts use a variant of their real name for writing autobios! [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit03:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DO NOT Delete There is no resonable argument to delete this article, this is a valid OS based on Conary, which to date there is only 3 that are listed in Wikipedia. This is a zero argument. the reasons given: "Reads like an advertisement and doesn't establish notability." by TenPoundHammer; could also be said for the Ubuntu article or any given Linux Distro article. Please remove the flag and find yet another worthy endeavor.Ravtux 05:33, 21 May 2007
Comment, sorry Ravtux, but your argument also is not reasonable. Oz should not be comparable with Ubuntu per responses. Give me a true indication of notability and maybe I change my position. Carlosguitar21:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok Ubuntu is a bad comparision, lets look at one of the other "Conary" based distros: Foresight , The Oz linux article is more developed. Conary is new just as Foresight and Oz Linux are both new, being new does not make something less relevant. The article is written as a source of reference not an ad. If you think I can improve on it just let me know I am open to suggestions. Notability can be based on a unique package manager, Conary, out of the hundreds of distros out there, there are only 3 well developed; rPath, Foresight and Oz Linux,...Oz Linux is notable because it is not developed by rPath inc. or any of it's employees, but a individual devoted to the freedom of Linux. Oz Linux illustrates freedom of choice from other package managers, Oz Linux offers a choice beyond rPath Inc. developed distros, notably rPath and Foresight. While Oz Linux is based on rPath it offers a unique and notable choice, just as Ubuntu offers a choice beyond Debian and Sabayon offers a choice beyond Gentoo. While Oz Linux is not as popular as Ubuntu or Sabayon it is just as notable. Both Ubuntu and Sabayon had to also start out new, just like Oz Linux. I hope this illustrates why Oz Linux is very notable and unique within Linux distros and one day I hope Oz Linux will be just as popular as Ubuntu and Sabayon. I did have over 500 downloads in one day so while Oz Linux is still new, it is slowly becoming popular and development is alive and active. Please email directly if you have more questions...jozef@cafeubuntu.com Ravtux 01:43, 21 May 2007
DO NOT Delete Notability is proven with the third party review of Oz Linux at ubuntuforums.org, please see the third party link titled: "Oz Linux review posted at ubuntuforums.org". I would have to say if you delete this article, you should delete 90% of articles on Linux distributions. Oz Linux has shown that it is not an ad and has proven notability. I also suggest that the deletion flag be removed. Enlightenment_now 24:02 22 May 2007 — Enlightenment_now (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fuhghettaboutit03:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete The article only mentioned the plot. Wikipedia is not for storing such information like plain plot summaries.--Kylohk10:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Okay, now your rationale is a little bit more sensible. Personally, I'm not sure what should be done here -- either keep the individual articles and nuke this one, or merge the individual articles into this one. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))21:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
![[32]](http://www.op.net/~rkane/Ireland/1997/rfcastle.jpg){kind=link}
