The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article
The article name is invalid; article names in encyclopedias are supposed to be nouns or verbs (and not even adjectives), so it violates WP:MOS, whereas affixes are valid articles in wiktionary.[1]
The topic is invalid as well, the topic is supposed to be an underlying concept and not purely a word or purely lexical- that's what dictionaries do, and do it far better than we can here.
The article contains a simple list of words that happen to match a particular lexical pattern- again, dictionaries do it much better, and are usually more complete as well.
There is a good wiktionary article that covers the same ground: wiktionary:-logy, and there's a large list of -logy's derived terms there.
Keep. I don't think Wiktionary will accept/keep most of this information. They transwiki "encyclopedic treatments" back to us. No time this morning, but I'll try to find the old threads where this was last discussed, later. Secondly, it'd be good to get some input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Etymology, on afds like this. I'll leave them a note. -- Quiddity (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is important. The policy is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, not that it is not Wiktionary. This article clearly a dictionary topic. Point of fact, wiktionary has over 200 suffixes.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per Rankiri. The Wiktionary article seems to cover most of the same ground. Also, the fact that all of the sources are dictionaries suggests that the topic is appropriate to a dictionary. Cnilep (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. High-importance etymology articles and articles about linguistic topics should not be pushed out using the WP:NOTDIC policy. This is the place for encyclopædic information, the article may need work to be more encyclopædic, but it isn't invalid. WP:MOS is a red herring here, this is an obvious common-senseexception. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but which part of the naming guidelines which states that titles are supposed to be English words does this meet? This is a word-part. Are you proposing we should have other articles as well, such as 'k-' for all the words beginning with k?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 17:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that this would need to be an exception. There's no title that would really fit for an article about a bound morpheme. WP:IAR and WP:COMMON both still apply to WP:MOS. We do, interestingly enough, have K. We should have K, and we should have -logy. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is intended to help you improve the wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. I can just about accept IAR for the letter 'k' (although I'm not completely sure why, and this could change if I thought about it some more), but not for words starting with 'k' and when you do this for word endings when we have a perfectly good lexical companion, that really pegs my crud meter. Beyond a certain point, adding inappropriate things to a piece of work tends to destroy the cohesiveness of that work, and this is a very fundamental policy you're trying to IAR.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, this isn't a very fundamental policy. It's not in {{Policylist}}, for example. I'm not saying the article needs to be left alone, because articles on letters and morphemes here on Wikipedia can, and should, cover much more than would be appropriate in a dictionary article. That's why keeping them is beneficial. A dictionary should cover the etymology and definition of a word. Here on wikipedia, we can explain other things, such as linguistic trends. Compare [3] to K. The Wiktionary page discusses only the meaning and pronunciation of the symbol. Here on Wikipedia, we discuss the history of the symbol, and things such as it's usage in transliteration of other languages. I'm gathering the information, but there's no reason that -logy can't discuss the historic use of -logy versus other endings. It's use in new words (Scientology comes to mind.) to give these neologisms a certain feel, the similarities and differences between how different languages use the suffix, &c. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The policy that covers this is the very top, most important policy in Policylist, Wp:Wikipedia is not and is very near the top section 2.1, and the policy is enlarged upon in its very own subpage of that policy. This is a very important policy.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to your second point, history and usages of a term are perfectly acceptable in a dictionary, but is not sufficient for an encyclopedia. Comparing and contrasting with other words is perfectly acceptable also in a dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like you have any text that you feel has to be included in the wikipedia that requires this entry; it seems to me that IAR doesn't work unless there's a clearcut gain, whereas on balance here I think the wikipedia is if anything somewhat harmed by the pointless inclusion of this article.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's nothing that I've found that has to be, but there's things I think could and should be. The article needs work, not deletion. Irbisgreif (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a no. You have not found anything that requires a separate encyclopedia article from the wiktionary one.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIC is there to keep out micro-stubs that do nothing but provide a dictionary definition. Not to prevent articles on words and word-related topics. Eg Category:Words.
A slight misconception, actually WP:NOTDIC does not ban definition only articles, but does strongly deprecate them. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary gives criteria for what a dictionary article is, and bans those. Note that not even adjectives make for valid encyclopedia articles, never mind word parts like words starting in 're-'.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article only discusses the etymological aspect of the suffix and references nothing but various etymology dictionaries. Why can't this information be kept at Wiktionary or why should it be duplicated here? Also, please recall the first example in WP:NOTDIC#Major_differences. I don't think that it's only applicable to micro-stubs. — Rankiri (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary until an encyclopaedic article about ologies is written. The current page duplicates the Wiktionary entry (which, being a dictionary, does a far better job of presenting dictionary definitions than Wikipedia ever can). Almost everything encyclopaedic about the suffix -logy is actually encyclopaedic information about ologies, of which a brief treatment of the etymological derivation of ology through -logy is a part. Do feel free to improve the Wiktionary entry in a dictionaric manner though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is a dictionary entry about the word "ology", there is not yet (as far as I am aware at least) an encyclopaedia article about the concept of "ologies", and I believe there is scope for both. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an article on ologies, it's an article that is purely on lexically adding the suffix -logy to something.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, which is why my !vote reads "Soft redirect [this title] to Wiktionary until an encyclopaedic article about ologies is written [at which point it should be redirected to that article]". This isn't an article about "ologies", but there exists the potential for one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read the article and the one over at wiktionary, and over there it is simply a brief definition. Here there is more information, which forms a valid encyclopedic entry. DreamFocus19:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article violates several of wikipedia's policies, including WP:ISNOT and does not seem to be significantly different to the wiktionary article. If the wiktionary entries can be improved by transwiking the information that is not a reason to continue to violate the wikipedia's policies.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve article. Firstly, I fail to see that the Wiktionary article covers the same ground as the WP one – the former contains only two sentences plus two definitions (plus lists of derived terms and translations, which admittedly belong only to Wiktionary). Secondly, there are any amount of exceptions to WP:NOTDIC: see the subcategories of Category:Affixes, not to mention Category:English words. Should all of these be deleted or transwikied? Some of these are really good articles, so the bad or stubby ones like -logy should be improved, not deleted. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. You remind me of WP:OTHERSTUFF, delete the remark ([4]) and then violate OTHERSTUFF as well using -ism and -itis as arguments ;-) Okay, to avoid OTHERSTUFF: According to User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words, there is no consensus whether articles about words should be kept and I am under the impression that this is really the case; so I doubt your second reason for deletion ("not purely a word or purely lexical") holds. Nor does your first argument ("The article name is invalid"); that could be solved by moving to Ologies or the like. (I am not saying I would like such a move; -logy is clearer and more succinct in my opinion.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The essay you mention BTW was moved out of wikipedia space last year, it's neither a policy nor a guideline, it has no power here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be agreeing that this is a dictionary article in the wikipedia, but you want to keep it anyway???? I don't think it works like that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but where do I say that I think it is a dictionary article? I think it is a poorly written article with potential for improving (and I hope to make a start at that next week if I have time, and provided it will still exist then). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can point out something in the article that cannot be moved to the wiktionary, then I don't see that your argument makes any sense. Nobody has been able to do that, nor suggest anything that is missing that would do that. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 20:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough about Wiktionary, but this can be tested. I asked at the tea room whether the information from the article would be appropriate on Wiktionary. If they say yes, I am convinced. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that almost all the content of the article is suitable for Wiktionary, though, of course, formatted differently. Wikt already has much of it, as others have noted. The only things in the article that I see, at a glance, would be unfit for a Wiktionary entry are the (encyclopedic) fact that "Books, journals and treatises about a subject also often bear the name of this subject (e.g. Ecology (journal))" and at least some of the external links.—msh210 (admin@enwikt) 02:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is blatantly not a dictionary definition. It is an encyclopedia article that discusses the use of a suffix in the English language. As far as I know, Wiktionary does not include this kind of information, so transwiking would lose most of this article. Fences&Windows22:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm... Wiktionary:-logy, in particular check out Wiktionary:-logy#Derived terms. Also note that Wiktionary:English suffixes gives over 200 other different suffixes. There's also the minor point that encyclopedia articles are supposed to be directly translateable into foreign languages without losing anything very much. How does that work if the translated article talks about English? Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be about underlying concepts.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How stupid do you think I am? Of course there is an entry for it, but Wiktionary entries don't include the kind of encyclopedic material our article includes. And it is perfectly possible to discuss suffixes in foreign languages, comparative linguistics would be in trouble if it were impossible. Just because you don't like articles about suffixes doesn't mean we all have to agree with you. Fences&Windows14:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"encyclopedia articles are supposed to be directly translateable into foreign languages without losing anything very much". Basis for this claim? --Cybercobra(talk)00:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add this discussion to the clarify the fact that definition is limited. In fact, anything that has the potential to expand the alleged meaning, application or understanding of any linguistic characteristic, falls outside the boundary of what is supposed to be "defined". If any meaning is to be meaningful, then should not discussion of meaning outside of definition have a place also, like here. Otherwise, how can understanding be advanced unless the the pursuit of anal-ology gets formalized by policy that is used to trump critical thought. The discussion of -logy sic-ology would not take place if not for this venue. Keep it, edit it, because without it I have no clue what it means.
Keep suffixes of this sort have a meaning that is more than just the descriptive information in a dictionary. The use of this, and the connection between the use and the development of modern ways of thought and education is significant. encyclopedia articles are supposed to be about concepts, and this is a concept as well as a word suffix. There is no firm boundary between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. Certainly the distinction isn't firm enough to justify changing dozens of links to the article ahead of time. [6]. We clean that up afterwards. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, how dumb am I? I naively think that something written in a language that was not English should not link to an article about an English suffix. Am I wrong?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW if you don't know the difference between a word (hint: a collection of letters) and concept (an abstract thought construct), and between a noun/verb that might identify a concept and a morpheme (hint: a collection of letters that make up a word, or in this case, not even) then, no I guess you wouldn't be able to know the difference between an encyclopedia entry and a dictionary entry. This article is a concept fairly and squarely about the letters 'l' 'o' 'g' and 'y' and when they should and shouldn't be put on the end of a word, and the history of those letters going there. That's a purely lexical thing. Lexical things go in dictionary entries- every dictionary has specific prefix and suffix entries.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you're describing DGG sounds to me like a cross between an encyclopaedic article about "ologies", an encyclopaedic article about language, and things that could be said about every word that is not purely a lexical or syntactical word. Thryduulf (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I agree there is potential for more than one article. but we have to start somewhere. The first step is not to discard the article we have, but to expand andthen consider dividing it. DGG ( talk ) 08:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly not a dictionary definition. Article goes into the notable concept behind the suffix. In fact, barely any of the current content would fit into a dictionary. Consisting of linguistic content is not the same thing as being a dictionary definition. We have many articles about notable linguistic content and this is, and should remain, one of them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no, the article is centred on the suffix 'l' 'o' 'g' 'y', not thesingle underlying concept. This suffix comes from two entirely different word roots, but the article covers both definitions. That's invalid in the wikipedia. You're only supposed to cover one definition per article (you can stretch a bit if they're synonymous and the definitions overlap... which these don't.) Only dictionaries are allowed to do that.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to respond to every single keep vote. Your view is quite clear already. Mine is different, but that doesn't make me wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that the more I look at this, the worse it gets. The fact that the article contains two very different definitions of the suffix just puts the cherry on top.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could split it into two articles and that would make it encyclopedic, because it would about the greek definition/concept, but if you split it along obscure ancient greek lines, this would improve things for the users over the dictionary article how exactly? Aren't we much better off just pointing the users to the increasingly excellent dictionary?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I actually went around and looked at the links to this article, and I have not found a legitimate link here, due to this issue; all the words ending in -logy end up saying which greek word they are derived from, and they pretty much have to link to that, not here.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles are about concepts, not words (with a few very extraordinary exceptions). PowersT17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -logy and ology as an exception - The derivational suffix -logy and its connecting vowel -o- is an element or morpheme out of which words can be described. The element -logy or -ology is not a word in itself yet appears in many English dictionaries attributed as a suffix to describe an ending to a word occurring originally in words adapted from Greek. An abridged description appears in Wiktionary.
In the Oxford Universal Dictionary On Historical Principles p1162 describes a brief history of the -logy morpheme and on p1367 -ology, Ology is also entered separately as suffix and quasi- substantive.
In the same way an abridged version of a word, element or morpheme acceptable in many dictionaries is represented without its history, is it not equally important to preserve that history in a venue that can relate the details back to the word? What better way than to use the efficiencies and popularity of the wikipedia <-> wiktionary connexion.
Alternatively, does not exclusion of the history of -logie and -ologie or any other non-conforming element also depreciate the language itself when taken out of context?
While it may be true that the content of the morpheme is expressed even in an abridged dictionary, but not so the context. Whenever context is left out it behooves inclusion and equal accessibility elsewhere. Thus, grounds for exclusion based on policy and dictionary relevance appear somewhat ambiguous.
I argue that in such cases an exception be made to keep the derivational suffix -logy in wikipedia because it is, at the very least, a way to connect what is lost in dictionary abridgement.
Apologies, I may not have followed your word choice correctly... but are you saying that because some dictionaries don't include extensive history on a word or word part, that it becomes Wikipedia's mission to make up for that deficiency? PowersT00:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the view to improve, i do believe this has a place on wikipedia although im not sure if it should be redirected. Should not be deleted though. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment For closing admin the vote so far is:
Keeps: 9 (of which one is SPA)
Delete: 3
Soft redirect: 4
In my opinion the vote is no consensus, arguably delete/redirect according to policy (but I would say that ;-) ). Given the voting, if it's keep I will contest it.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although the article may be better as a "list of -logies" with each -logy having its own entry, which is how I remember it was when I first edited the article to add molinology. Mjroots (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from the diagram in the dictionary the subject of an article is a word- a string of characters, in the encyclopedia they are a concept (that is expressed in one or more strings of letters, but the article is about a concept- and there is a difference).
Dictionaries and encyclopedia both have articles that contain mention of things that are directly related to the subject of their article. The difference is what their subject is.
In the case of "rocket" (a word) the relateds are the synonym "Eruca sativa", rocket vehicles, rocket engines, and rocket (the salad plant). If you go there, that's pretty much what you find.
In the case of the encyclopedic rocket the relateds are only "rocket" the word (from rochetta) and rocket engine, and the salad stuff is unrelated. Also other things would probably be related, like chemical reactions and specific impulse and so forth; specific impulse is not related to the wiktionary entry and doesn't appear in the dictionary entry.
This is how dictionaries and encyclopedias work; they both list directly related things, and rarely if ever list things that are twice removed on the related graph. If they did so, there would inevitably be duplication, because they're both complete.
What this means for '-logy' is that it is a dictionary entry though; the central topic is just a word-part, a string of characters, and so that needs to go in the dictionary. This cannot be fixed by writing more, or trying harder or anything, the center of the topic is dictionariac.
Some of the other suffixes in the encyclopedia have been saved by rewriting the article to shift it to point to a concept, like Glossary of philosophy came from -ism originally; but it turns out that there's nowhere to sensibly put -logy other than in the dictionary.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 12:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
"Foreign language dicdef. Article content: "Qabristan (Persian/Urdu: قبرِستان, Hindi: क़ब्रिस्तान, translation: Land of graves) or Kabristan, is graveyard or cemetery. Qabar means grave in Persian, Urdu and Hindi." - Altenmann >t23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What makes you think that it's a probable search term on English Wikipedia? Also, why List of cemeteries#Pakistan? The article says that the term is also used by Iranians and Indians, and I doubt that anyone would type "Qabaristan" to search for lists for national graveyards in that area. The native speakers would probably use क़ब्रिस्तान and قبرِستان anyway. — Rankiri (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Thryduulf - this is a potential search term, but the current listing is merely a dicdef and is unlikely to rise to a stub in English WP. Bearian (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If you're going to claim that it's a potential search term, could you please respond to my previous comment? Needless redirects clutter up Wikipedia and I see no reason why anyone would type "Qabaristan" to look up a list of Pakistani graveyards. The article is an orphan. Google Web shows 154 unique results for Qabaristan -"Gora Qabaristan" (Gora Qabaristan, Karachi is an irrelevant subject).
Delete - Wikiepdia is not a dictionary, and in particular, English Wikipedia doesn't provide definitions for non-English words. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 result was soft redirect. soft redirect to wiktionary, I left the page history so feel free to transwiki if there is any usable material here SpartazHumbug!19:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article
The article name is invalid; article names in encyclopedias are supposed to be nouns or verbs (and not even adjectives), so it violates WP:MOS, whereas affixes are valid articles in wiktionary.[7]
The topic is invalid as well, the topic is supposed to be an underlying concept and not purely a word or purely lexical- that's what dictionaries do, and do it far better than we can here.
The article contains a simple list of words that happen to match a particular lexical pattern- again, dictionaries do it much better, and are usually more complete as well.
There is a good wiktionary article that covers the same ground: wiktionary:-izzle, and a list of -izzle's there.
Soft redirect using {{wi}}. I think it's reasonable to think there could be an encyclopedia article (or redirect to a section of an article) on the topic, but the current entry is not appropriate. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean it could not improved by focusing on the history surrounding its derivation. Currently though, it is indeed not that sort of article, hence why redirect is appropriate middle-ground. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kizzeepbecause I wanted to say that because I think there is a minimal amount of sourcing [8] and in the regular search that can establish some notability. MuZemike23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly notable as a dictionary entry, but it's just a purely lexical scheme for forming words, and there's a very good entry in the lexical companion for it, and the name is invalid.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lingo is exactly what goes in the wiktionary. The whole article is etymological, and the material is practically identical to that in the wiktionary. It seems to be just a dictionary entry, in the wikipedia.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 23:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keepizzle (I also wanted to say that) I found two articles [9][10] that assert its notability as a part of pop culture. This could be more than a dictionary entry if more emphasis was put on the invention and impact. But then there's WP:DICDEF... talkingbirds01:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unlikely that this leopard can change its spots, as the topic is inherently dictionary like.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 10:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kizzle would be the correct form rather than *Keepizzle. This is not a dicdef, this is (the beginnings of) an encyclopedia article about a morpheme. WP:DICDEF doesn't mean that words and parts of words are not legitimate topics of encyclopedia articles. +Angr16:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the point, it's an article about/with a name that is a morpheme. The wikipedia doesn't have those.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, actually, it does. One is even a featured article. Some words have enough to be said about them to warrant an encyclopedia article, and the "-izzle" morpheme may well be one of them. This article already tells us more than the Wiktionary entry can or should, or there's still lots of room for improvement. +Angr16:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the encyclopedic knowledge you claim that this article could have is not currently present. Can you give us an example of encyclopedic knowledge that this article lacks that would be inappropriate for the wiktionary?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 19:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Free morphemes are morphemes too, and both bound and free morphemes may be interesting enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. As for encyclopedic information the article could have but that doesn't belong in Wiktionary, there's the fact that the -izzle word game/cryptolect has become notable enough that at least one restaurant has used it as a pun in its name. The fact that -izzle did not originate with Snoop Dogg but was popularized by him also does not belong at Wiktionary (though it's there anyway, incorrectly under the "Etymology" section). There's some encyclopedic information at wikt:fo shizzle, too, that should be removed from Wiktionary and added to Wikipedia, if it can be sourced, since it's not etymological. +Angr20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although etymology is defined in the wiktionary as "An account of the origin and historical development of a word." for obvious reasons, that transitively applies to morphemes, and that's doubtless why the history of suffixes is present in all dictionary entries on suffixes that I've seen. Given the integral part of Snoop Dogg to popularising this particular suffix, I completely fail to see how the wiktionary entry mentioning him is anything but appropriate, and also fail to see how this requires an encyclopedia entry.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. As it currently stands, this duplicates the better presented wiktionary entry, and so doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I imagine that it will be possible to write an encyclopaedic article about the term, but this isn't one. If you were to write, one your best bet would be to delete all that is here and reference the Wiktionary entry to give you a couple of sentences of the introductory paragraph. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 "Preschool educator" seems a highly inaccurate summary; she's a research coordinator at the Harold E. Jones Child Study Center at UC Berkeley. She's apparently been published in some capacity. I think she may qualify under WP:ACADEMIC or WP:N, although I'm probably not going to do the legwork myself to establish such. Also, note that Jane p. perry redirects to the article for the Child Study Center, although there's no actual mention of Perry at that article except in a footnote. Maybe a merge is appropriate. Or maybe she's not actually notable at all; I'm just sayin'. Propaniac (talk) 23:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the research coordinator, the notability is to be judged as a researcher according to WP:PROF. Her one significant book, Outdoor play is by a leading academic publisher and is in over 500 WorldCat libraries, but has been cited less than a dozen times--ditto for her journal articles. Not notable. DGG (talk) 03:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that subject has a PhD and works at a university, along with the observation that most of the article is a somewhat prolix discussion of her research work, certainly qualifies application of WP:PROF. However, long biblio actually only references a few works, especially the Outdoor Play book, which DGGs analysis indicates has not been influential. Neither is there any other obvious basis for a claim of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The creator contested the prod and added a link to a blog. I can't find significant coverage for this per WP:MUSIC. This was deleted in AFD previously as in Yesterday. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice to recreate later. If anyone is interested in userfication, let me know. Tone15:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this film An admin contested the prod and added a major revamp template to the article for him because the creator said that he submitted the article with barely any info on accident. His article Monster Ark which he created after shows that it isn't true. Joe Chill (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes this is true, I cannot find other sources. i think that the admin mis-understood me. While one of my articles was subitted on accident , but not this one. I did look to find other sources, but as of yet, i cannot find any other then IMD.--Tim1357 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recently added information to the synopsis. I had sent an email to the director to see if he cared to add anything that might prove its notability the new text is his.--72.171.0.146 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD by drive-by IP with no reason given and no improvement. Several day old service cannot possibly pass notability standards for inclusion yet. No non-trivial coverage. Wperdue (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be any significant coverage at all. What coverage there is (including the immediately above) appears to be reprints of press releases, hence not independent. Bongomatic18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Although true that there are no obvious awards claimed, she very specifically satisfies WP:PROF #1 – her research record is quite notable. WoS shows 42 hits with citations of 168, 62, 56, etc., indicating her work has had a clear and appreciable impact on a mainstream academic field. Agree with above – unclear as to why this appeared here in AfD. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
DeleteKeep I don't believe simply authoring a lot of papers is sufficient to meet WP:PROF #1; the criteria states that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Are there any such reliable sources that demonstrate not simply that she wrote a lot, but that her writings have "made significant impact in her scholarly discipline?" I saw a user above mention something to this effect regarding WoS; I don't recognize that term offhand. Could you expound please?
Regarding her presidency of the ISJR, as per criteria #6: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." What I've found so far on the ISJI has failed to show that they qualify as a "major academic society." Their website counter shows just over 13,000 hits, and the sole reference on the Wiki page for the organization is to it's own website. I also have some question if a self-authored resume really qualifies as fulfilling WP:BLP, but I suppose it's not a major point. Can someone show either a source demonstrating the "major academic society" status of the ISJR, or else the "significant impact" her research has had? - Qinaelλαλεω01:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Explanation of WP:Prof #1 follows: Publishing papers is not sufficient to achieve notability for academics and scientists. What counts is the impact they make on the scholarly community. In the area of academic and scientific research impact can be measured objectively by counting the citations to papers made by other independent sources. These citations are available from several places for example Web of Science, Google Scholar, Scopus and others List of academic databases and search engines. Statistical measures, such as the h index are applied to these findings. All these matters have been discussed extensively in the past and present academic AfD pages and User:Qinael should read these as well as the subjects cited. Standards for notability are higher for scholars than in many other areas of Wikipedia. Hundreds of sources are needed for an academic or scientist whereas some articles in WP have less than half a dozen. As a rule of thumb an h index of between 10 and 15 is often considered borderline; outside those limits no contest. An h index of 21 is pretty good by the standards applied in these AfD pages. For this subject it means that at least h squared (= 441) other authors have cited the subject's work. The Presidency of ISJR may not by itself be sufficient in itself to achieve notability but adds to it. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 activist. No independent coverage in the media about this activist. Most of the web hits are self-published sources, or activist blogs. The "BBC Interview" claim that once existed in the article is actually a 2 line quote in an article about a protest in San Francisco. Subject is not notable in Bangladeshi media as well (both Bengali and English), other than writing a few op-ed columns or letters to editors. The prod was contested, so I propose Deletion. Ragib (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on her as photographer. We read that Wasfia has mentioned in a news report by BBC about a torch run[2] and other leading journals[3] for her work with Tibet and other subjects, including her photography[4]. Her photographs have been exhibited in different venues around the world. Note 4 points to a long and ruminative blog-like article, amid which her work gets a single sentence. And no source is adduced for the claim of worldwide exhibition. -- Hoary (talk) 23:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Jornalists get very few coverage in the medias worldwide unlike Model Girls or Actresses. So COMMON SENSE should be applied to find one's importance/notability.--Planetbd (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is possible to place few billion "[citation needed]" tags all through wikipedia but unfortunately very few articles are being attacked with the tag which seems to be NOT FAIR. 99% Bangladesh related articles and at least 75% articles of total wikipedia can be deleted VERY EASILY for the lack of so called "Reliable Source" or "Any source at all". What's the catch of making wikipedia EMPTY?--Planetbd (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the foundation of Wikipedia is verifiability, and if someone cannot produce references to support notability, how would we know if the subject is notable or not? There *is* a criteria of notability of journalists, and unfrotunately, the subject fails WP:CREATIVE. Unless, of course, someone can produce references (from reliable sources supporting the criteria. As for fairness ... well, Wikipedia *is NOT* fair to non-notable topics/subjects that fail the criteria of notability. If you find other non-notable stuff, feel free to nominate them for deletion as well. Finally, if there is any obscure Bangladesh related topics (not covered by Bangladeshi media or any other reliable sources) that are not notable, please feel free to list them, so that we can discuss their notability in their AFD pages as well. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(i) 99% Bangladesh related articles and at least 75% articles of total wikipedia can be deleted VERY EASILY for the lack of so called "Reliable Source" or "Any source at all". (ii) What's the catch of making wikipedia EMPTY? I don't think that your first assertion is true, but let's suppose that it is. The second assertion seems to imply that removal of unsatisfactorily sourced articles would empty Wikipedia. Wrong. Wikipedia has a very large number of articles that are, or easily can be, well sourced. -- Hoary (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable subject, with the article written in a way as to give no specific details on the subject but the related topic in general. Very little biographical information anyway. Shiva(Visnu)19:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It appears that the bio is actually an auto-biography ... either the subject, or someone else wrote it about her. See the same text appearing in her Facebook profile (link redacted on second thought). The informal nature of the text and the grandiose claims in the article already raised red flags, and her facebook profile just confirms that ... it's simply a vanity autobiography (or at best, a copyvio of her facebook profile). --Ragib (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook tells us: Wasfia is the first Bangladeshi to govern relations between Bangladesh and Tibet. Strong believer of strategic campaigns & grassroot activism, her work is an alchemy of political and humanistic principles- merging visuals, poetry, music, dance, freedom advocacy and political activism as tools to spread awareness of Tibet's Freedom Struggle. ¶ Meanwhile, Wikipedia tells us Wasfia is the first Bangladeshi to govern relations between Bangladesh and Tibet[citation needed]. Her work is an alchemy of political and humanistic principles, merging visuals, poetry, music, dance, freedom advocacy and political activism as tools to spread awareness of Tibet's Freedom Struggle. ¶ How remarkable. The Facebook entry is illuminating, if not necessarily in the way intended. I'd assumed that "govern" was a typo or one of several glitches of the mental lexicon (surely by "alchemy" she means "amalgam"), but as I read this thing in its entirety I started to wonder. Here's how it ends: She now breaths [sic] her time between Dharamsala, the seat of the Tibetan Government-in-Exile and Bangladesh. In conjunction with the usual activist ordeal & teaching English to ex-political prisoners and exiled nuns & monks, currently she is working on a book, and a historic event in her motherland (more details coming soon). ¶ Well, let's see the independent commentary that the book brings, and let's see how this "event" actually does go down in history. Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it is true that notable journalists are frequently not themselves the subject of non-trial coverage, the same cannot be said for notable activists. The subject of this article is claimed to be notable for activism, which doesn't appear—at least for now—to be supported by sources. Bongomatic18:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is composed almost entirely of OR backed up with pseudoscientific psych-speak. If it has been documented in any notable source (which excludes damninteresting.com, thank you), I have been unable to find it. An earlier AfD seemed to fail mostly on the basis that the original nominator was unregistered and initially bungled the application. At the very least, complete the merge into synchronicity, which seems to be synonymous but actually has legitimate documentation. Angio (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry that the article isn't properly sourced; this is NOT synchronicity, which are meaningfull collisions; Baader-Meinhof are noticed because of the lack of meaning. htom (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem The problem is that the St. Paul Pioneer Press hides its copyrighted columns behind a pay-wall, so it's difficult to cite their use of the term. I'll put up the two links that are currently free:
Harley Dust: "The other night, a contestant on 'Wheel of Fortune' won a trip to Turks & Caicos. Since I had not heard of this location before, I made a mental note to look it up.
"Yesterday in the Pioneer Press, I read an article about the Haitian boat that crashed near the Turks & Caicos islands. I mentioned this to my wife, a faithful reader of BB, and she told I'd just had a B-M! She told her sister, and she announced to everyone that I just had a B-M.
"Not being a reader of BB (sorry), I had no idea what they were talking about.
"Today I started reading BB in order to understand this new language."
...
from the first, and here's the second:
...
Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon
Tuesday e-mail from Queen of the Hop: "I'm a staff member of the Minnesota Historical Society. Recently a longtime friend of the Society, Floyd Risvold, passed away, and some memorials were designated to MHS. Our curator of rare books, Patrick Coleman, used some of the memorials to acquire a copy of a book entitled 'History of Wiskonsan' (Buffalo, 1846), which we believe Mr. Risvold would have loved to see in our collections. The book includes an inscription alluding to the fact that the book was in the collection of Abraham Lincoln and was presented to his coachman, William P. Brown, but actually turned out to be a part of a somewhat successful scheme known as the 'Coachman Forgeries.' First time I'd ever heard of this scheme is when I read our blog on 8/3 about the acquisition. Log on to our Web site for more info: [tiny URL pointed at:] http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/pdf/604_lincolnforgery.pdf
"Now comes the phenomenal part: Last night on an episode of 'History Detectives' (Channel 2) was the story of a woman in Oregon who ended up with a bound book of sheet music from an estate sale -- sheet music signed in a few places 'A. Lincoln' and 'Abraham Lincoln.' She was hoping that she was in possession of a priceless piece of American history. But, you guessed it -- after the detectives went around the country talking with Lincoln biographers and historians, as well as a handwriting forensic specialist, they determined her copy was part of the Coachman Forgeries, crimes perpetrated by Eugene Field and Harry Dayton Sickles. [Bulletin Board says: See [same tiny URL reference]]
"Please tell me this is a B-M. In fact, less than nine hours passed between the two experiences. [Bulletin Board says: That's about as pure as a B-M can come!]
"P.S. William P. Brown was Lincoln's coachman, and in the '30s he did sign these books (and many more) and his signature was notarized, but neither he nor the notary knew that the information pertaining to Abraham Lincoln, including the signatures, were added after theirs."
Throw the cow over the fence some hay!
Mamallama of Como Park: "The August 3 PP contained a story provided by the Associated Press, which began: 'Black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. made his first public appearance Sunday since sharing a beer with the police officer who arrested him and President Barack Obama.'
"So now we know the identity of the person who was with Mr. Gates when he broke into his own home. But what was the president arrested for? And why was this not reported earlier? ...
"What's that you say? What about cows, fences and hay?
Delete even though I love damninteresting; they are usually better with citing sources and further reading, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard it called this, and now that I have heard it called this, I will probably never again hear it called this. We've all experienced the phenomenon of reading a word like "vitreous" and then seeing it again on the very next item we were reading. The article is about a coined phrase that is not notable, and too bizarre to ever become so. Unless you logically associate a terror group with an everyday experience. Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only is it OR, it uses an inaccurate assessment of the Serial position effect (Recency effect is redirected); Recency deals with stimulii that are the most recent in the tested string as opposed to primacy, the first in the string. Article: "its primary cause as being the recency effect, in which the human brain has a bias that lends increased prominence to new or recently acquired information." Recency effect itself has been shown to vary greatly depending on the pace of the presentation, indicating that it has more to do with presentation for which long-term and working memory abilities are efficient. I do not know of any studies that indicate that the effect exists outside of lists of information given in a short amount of time. The article speaks of recency as being about recent vs long-term memory, not most recent in a list of recent things. Synchronicity is completely irrelevant and should not be used to include this info. The article then wanders off to explore the truism that having a memory of something makes you capable of noticing it more. I am sure we are all aware that science is extremely good at proving truisms, but until it proves this one (hopefully I am wrong and it has and this article can be merged there), this article is superfluous to WP. And all to promote a web forum where people who spotted two citations! of something can amaze their friends. Anarchangel (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a mis-leading truncation of the article; several other explanations are offered. The claim advanced, however, is that it is explicitly and only the first and second encounters with the item, so lists don't come into it at all. And it's not a web forum, but a newspaper column published on actual paper (and pretty much not on the web, hence the difficulty in citing it.) htom (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologisms can, of course, be notable, but I don't see strong evidence of verifiability (blogs are usually discounted, although we'd probably accept a lexicographer's blog). Very interesting - if slightly weird and probably offensive to those who suffered at their hands - but without better referencing... delete. --Dweller (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: WP has several articles on aspects of Requirements (whether for IT systems or otherwise) but nothing on the key topic of Business Requirements, and, until now, nothing on User Requirements. I agree that the essay style needs some work, but I believe the topic should be kept. Downsize43 (talk) 05:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank, yes, the topic should be kept, but in all reality it needs to be something different that doesn't reek of synthesis. Unfortunately, I have no better ideas.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be a valid topic for an article, but would require complete rewrite, so no point in keeping this essay. No predudice against creating a valid sourced article.YobMod15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 without prejudice, as the film might happen and the article can come back then. The press coverage of a remake of Red Dawn would best be icluded in a section in the original's article about plans for a remake. Just a tad too soon for it to be on its own. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 unreferenced weasel-worded bio without demonstrable notability. "Working with" (whatever that means) notable people doesn't make you notable; notability is not inherited nor is it contageous. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and allow editors to look for additional sourcing. It appears that he is a notable recording engineer. His work with the Brina Wilson and the Beach Boys predates the Internet and material may be in print sources. Material such as [12], [13], and especially [14] would indicate that not only did he have a hand in the recording of the works of teh Beach boys, but that this work was noted by others. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A perfect example why WP:BEFORE should be policy, noms should do the due diligence of checking for refs which 15 seconds on Google news can easily find.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 other than various turns at vandalism, this article hasn't moved in 2 years and its unclear whether this is some service or some custom in the Netherlands - or neither, for that matter. Fails WP:GNG and there's barely any context here, too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - from the link, it seems to be an ad for a service connected with funerals. Not notable; searches only turn up a bar in Rio de Janeiro. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Gonna go with Keep and clean up for now. Granted that iMDB is not the best reference, but a) it does show on there, and b)my experience is that it will ultimately reject anything otherwise. No prejudice to delete if this doesn't go as hoped. Clean this thing up and give more information. Basically, let's let this article grow out a bit instead of jumping the gun. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article creator blanked the page (since undone) and wrote "Somebody Go ahead and Delete this. I didn't know that there was Already a Page of this Article" at the talk page. I didn't know either. It looks like this other page may be Sherri Shepherd Sitcom. Clearly at the end of this process only zero or one of those articles should remain. I42 (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 seems to be a hoax. I have spent some time searching and can find absolutely no confirmation. Searching on Summer Sinclair produces this American actress but her middle initial is E and she is older. Searching the name together with Channel 9 or Channel V or MTV produce nothing relevant. (The tv.com and popstar.com ones look promising but contain no information). Finally, the version originally input contained negative information, since properly removed, but if that had been true this search would surely have produced something. Conclusion - this is probably a hoax, and at best unsourced and unverifiable BLP about a 16-year-old. Delete.JohnCD (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Like Joe points out, lifespan on Wikipedia means nothing. Doesn't gvie references except a few copyright notes, some notes from an audition at HRC, and an honorable mention somewhere. Oh, and their webpage. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have read it; one thing to note is we support what King Jess (Jessie Kostoff) has produced, BrooM has been around since 1995, he has produced a number of albums with BrooM and helped a number of artists with their albums for free under the self proclaimed label BRP – Big Rain Productions” We used to catch all the shows all over Montana, and look forward to what is coming next from Jessie Kostoff. Jessie deserves to be credited for what he has done. A bit of a local celebrity! He is no super star, however; he is something/someone that should be noted, and the future is growing for him!--Broommus (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Artist King Jess has produced, OMS, Yung Stiff, Aaron Wirth Band, K-Raw, Red Truth & Ghos (North West Nightmare), Rezd Out Kings, all they have is myspace pages.. all are struggling artists.
I grew up with Jessie Louis Kostoff. We both lived in Deer Lodge MT. We finally became good friends when we attended Powell Co. Highschool. We started our own rap group and had a pretty kick ass time drinking and smoking. Our friendship remained through the years. Jessie took part in over 37 unsanctioned bare-knuckled fights under the tudeledge of Otto Ronneker. It saw the birth of B.R.O.O.M., a band with which, I starred as a lead singer. B.R.O.O.M., went on to make four albums under the roof of his Big Rain Studio. Sometime near the end of BROOM, Jesse, under the King Jess name, rekindled the rap/hip-hop interest. He performed and also produced songs/albums for some local Butte MT talent. Jesses graduation from MT Tech and his employment with the state of MT have taken him to Great Falls, where he currently resides. With the power of the newly formed Dark Mountain Cirkus, Jesse performs under the identity of The Bad Father. With his sidekick K-Raw, they form bonds with The Northwest Nightmare comprised of Red Truth and Gos. Along with The DMC, he has also been linked to underground and highly illegal opium dens and rubnhugs.--Zenmachine73 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Vanity article for a non-notable composer/pianist/organist. Only independently verifiable facts about him are a few minor performances in the Boston area. Article has been tagged as needing citations several times over its five year history. Three self-published books do not qualify for notability. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Cleveland is incorrect on many points. "Only independently verifiable facts about him are a few minor performances in the Boston area." Untrue. Most of the facts were easily verifiable on amazon.com, bostonglobe.com, as well as leonardociampa.com and faultbook.blogspot.com. "a few minor performances in the Boston area." Untrue. Major performances have occurred at Sanders Theatre, Harvard University, and important cathedrals in Europe including the Stefansdom in Vienna. All of these facts are easily verifiable on the web. To throw a "citation" tag after practically every sentence, without researching any of it, is a clear case of vandalism. 68.162.214.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
leonardociampa.com and faultbook.blogspot.com are personal sites run by Mr Ciampa. "Consortium Internationale Compositorum", cited as a source and publisher for some of Mr Ciampa's works, "was founded in 2008 by Leonardo Ciampa and Andrea Amici.". Ciampa's books are all self-published. Wikipedia notabiliity requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Nearly all the claims about Mr Ciampa in the article are either unsourced or originate, in one way or another, from Mr Ciampa himself. The exceptions are some Boston Globe articles that afford Mr Ciampa only minor mentions that do not meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. Grover cleveland (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article, which I have just paid $5 to view in the cause of Wikipedia, is a human-interest piece mostly about Ciampa's Italian-American background that says very little about the music and doesn't review the performance. The performance was scheduled to take place at the Strand Theater, whose mission, according to its website, "is to serve as a cultural and educational resource to artists and audiences regardless of race or cultural background, age, ability, gender, economic level, or sexual orientation." Grover cleveland (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. A vanity article which is primarily being maintained by an anon editor who is probably the article subject. Previous editors GiovaneScuola2006 and LorenzoPerosi1898 (both blocked as a sockpuppets) were most likely the subject as well. Grover cleveland's requests for citation were entirely reasonable and the hostile response by 68.162.214.17 was uncalled for. Further 68.162.214.17's use of the Ciampa's own website and blog do not meet the criteria for WP:Verifiability. Finally, Sander's Theater at Harvard is hardly a major concert venue. If everyone who played there and/or self-published a few books had an article in Wikipedia, the article load would increase ridiculously.THD3 (talk) 02:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.I completely agree that Grover Cleveland's adding "Citation" to every other sentence constitutes vandalism and ill will in this instance. I don't think there is basis for doubt that Mr. Ciampa is a well-known performer and composer in America and Europe who has played everywhere that the websites say that he has. (By the way, the correct spelling is Stephansdom, not Stefansdom.) It seems probable that User:THD3 and User:Grover cleveland are sock puppets who consistently use the same turns of phrase, edit on the same pages, etc. BonGens (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ciampa is a famous musician. If someone wants to claim that he's lied about places he's played and things he's done, that's ludicrous. Are the Pro Arte Chamber Orchestra and Lavazza Chamber Ensemble also lying that he's performed with them? 66.30.117.55 (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I am recusing myself from all further discussion of this article and removing it from my watch list. In the past 24 hours, I have been accused of sockpuppetry, had my real name and physical location listed, and Leonardo Ciampa has tried to contact me personally. This is not worth my time (especially considering that the article receives so little traffic) and it's definitely not worth the aggravation and lost sleep. Life is too short.THD3 (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen this argument in an AfD before. A few points:
Notability requires coverage in independentreliable secondary sources. Interwiki links are not reliable sources, and they often are not independent of each other. None of the interwiki links, as far as I can tell, cites any sources not in the English Wikipedia article, and none gives any reason for Ciampa to be notable beyond what is in the English article.
If a user is capable of creating a vanity articles in English, he is equally capable of creating vanity articles in other languages, especially given the easy availability of translation tools on the internet.
Since English is the biggest Wikipedia and has the largest coverage of many areas, many other Wikipedias proceed by copying and translating articles from the English Wikipedia. I have noticed this in the field of classical music (where I am an active editor).
Other language Wikipedias may have different criteria for inclusion from the English Wikipedia. So, even if Latin Wikipedia, say, is "not wrong" in having an article on Ciampa, it doesn't mean that English Wikipedia needs one.
They can all be wrong if they were all created and maintained by the same person/persons. You haven't looked at them, have you? Look at their edit histories. Notice how it is the same accounts editing across many of them. Three of them were all started by the same IP address. GiovaneScuola2006 has edited four out of the six, all of which were created on the same day, three out of those four within minutes of one another. The only reason that xe didn't edit the final two (la: and pt:) is that they are translations. And even then, la:Usor:LionhardusCiampa (and la:Usor:BonGens — a unified account and thus the same as User:BonGens here) edited the la: article. It's not hard to guess who "LionhardusCiampa" is.
Your rationale holds no water at all, upon investigation. I suggest trying a different one. ☺
Incidentally: Whilst checking all this out, I've found the evidence that shows pretty conclusively that User:BonGens is both a sockpuppet and Ciampa xyrself. So whilst your rationale didn't hold water, it was at least useful for showing the places to find the sockpuppetry evidence. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have reliable sources that he is notable as composer, author or organist, could you add those to the article? Then I would be happy to withdraw the AfD. As of now, I don't see any sources for this. Cheers, Grover cleveland (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently think the Boston Globe article is deficient. I think it suffices. The whole article is about Ciampa and his Sicilian suite, including the punning title which reads "His Suite Smells Of Success", yet you complain of it being "only minor mentions" unworthy of Wikipedia. I disagree—it is enough to establish notability. Binksternet (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - It's irrelevant, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER, along with all other topic-specific notability guidelines, are inclusive not exclusive. In other words, if a person meets the requirements at WP:COMPOSER then they are considered notable even though they may not meet WP:N. Those guidelines are intended to allow Wikipedia to include subjects that could be considered notable despite failing the requirements. But if a subject meets the general requirements then it doesn't matter if they meet any of the specific requirements. Leonardo Ciampa has been given "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" and thus meets WP:N regardless of anything else. To give another example, Bill Clinton plays the saxophone but probably wouldn't pass the requirements at WP:MUSICBIO, is he then not notable? -- Atamachat18:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just added two links to Ciampa-written articles in The American Organist, the voice of the American Guild of Organists. That guild is hard to penetrate online, but it appears that Ciampa is an active member, writing articles, and playing at least one concert for the Guild in 1990. This industry-focused activity increases his notability. Binksternet (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I recently heard Leonardo play his own works which were inventive and musical. I also heard him improvise. He invited the audience to submit a hymn for his improvisation. All was quiet and so I volunteered “Lift High The Cross” for he tune. He did a masterful improvisation, starting with a minor variation on a melodic fragment of the tune, progressing through several other variations and ending with a very busy fugue. His technic is outstanding and his composing style is mature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.23.178 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The malicious campaign by Grover Cleveland is highly unfortunate, and unhealthy for Wiki. Leonardo Ciampa is an extremely well-known performer and composer. (He has been reviewed numerous times in the Globe, by the way -- Richard Buell, Ellen Pfeiffer, et al.) 64.61.60.146 (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only personal attacks here are towards Grover cleveland, who has been described as conducting a "malicious campaign" and, especially, THD3 whose physical identity and location have been published as part of a campaign of online and offline harrassment[citation needed], successfully driving him away from this discussion.
I've opined that Mr. Ciampa is not notable by Wikipedia standards of notability. That's not a personal attack -- it's an essential part of the Wikipedia process for deciding what articles are and are not included in the encyclopedia. Nowhere have I said anything about Ciampa as a person outside of his qualifications to have his own Wikipedia article. I have not, for example, described him as "malicious".
The No personal attacks policy applies primarily to other Wikipedia editors, not to the world at large. Is Mr. Ciampa taking part in this discussion, or editing his own article, anonymously? If he is, then that violates Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy and possibly Wikipedia:Autobiography, and he should stop doing so, and confine his edits to topics in which he does not have a personal stake. Note especially from the latter page: If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later and If you create an autobiography you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn musician. Complete lack of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Though I am impressed with the band of single purpose accounts he's managed to rouse up to make bad faith attacks on the nominator. Resolute04:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion of the nominator is completely irrelevant to the discussion, and a complete failure to assume good faith. The truth is, if you can't bring up policy reasons to support your argument, the closing admin is highly likely to simply dismiss your position. Resolute13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Despite his own self-promotion and the misbehavior of his meatpuppet army here, and despite the poor quality of most of the sources in the article, the 2002-10-03 Globe article is clearly nontrivial third-party coverage of the type required by WP:RS, as is a review of one of his concerts in the Globe on 1996-09-06 ("Marciano shows star quality in US debut", unfortunately behind a paywall). So he (barely) seems to meet WP:MUSIC #1, and if the international performances can be sourced he would also meet #4. However, if this is kept then some sort of sanction (perhaps involving a user conduct RFC) seems warranted to keep him away from his article so that it can be maintained more neutrally: WP:N is not optional. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One local (U.S.) newspaper's assessment of what is or isn't "internationally notable" is a ludicrously slender piece of evidence for something like that being true. --Calton | Talk15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets Wikipedia:Notability with non trivial articles in the News Leader and the Globe. Should also meet WP:MUSIC's international tour standard, with the News Leader's statement: "Ciampa has made seven European tours encompassing Italy, Austria and Germany. He is particularly admired in Italy, where he has played in numerous international festivals.", but that's just extra. --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article(s) in the Globe seem to be fairly significant, but the article in the News Leader is substantially (although not entirely) a copy & paste from Ciampa's website. I question how reliable this particular article is as a source. Andrew Jameson (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So they wrote a fawning article. That happens. If some different source were to write an article questioning some of the laudatory statements, we could start adding "alleged" or something to them in our article. But until then, we have to go with the fact that no one seems to be questioning what they said. Anyway, that's an issue with how our article is written, not with whether we should have an article at all. It shows that a newspaper in another state cared enough about Leonardo Ciampa to devote a fair bit of column space to him, which is what Wikipedia:Notability is about. It's enough for that. --GRuban (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Gruban's analysis. Arguably meets WP:MUSIC although I'd like to see more evidence for that. Icewedge also makes a good catalog of sources. We should make our decision independently of Ciampa's behavior or the rude behavior of his apparent fans. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the people complaining that he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC are missing the point. He meets WP:N thanks to the significant coverage by the Boston Globe and other media. It doesn't matter if his musical achievements consist of playing a kazoo in the second grade, if he meets the general notability requirements then he is notable. -- Atamachat18:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all due respect to Mr. Ciampa, whom I am sure is a excellent composer/pianist/organist, Wikipedia establishes notability requirements and the references in the article do not appear to clearly meet those requirements. The Newsleader source is marked as an advertisement and should be disregarded. The October 2007 Boston Globe reference is the definition of trivial, listing his upcoming performance as an activity alongside the Rising Star Quilters Guild's quilt show. It seems that the "His Suite Smells of Success" article is the only non-trivial coverage and that one piece doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC or WP:N as far as I can read for free. David Eppstein also includes the 1996 review, but I'm inclined to take that as trivial, since Mr Ciampa is not the subject of the article based on the title. Even if it were non-trivial, it would be arguable whether two articles qualify as multiple, IMO, and the overall over-promotion of the other sources would bias me toward arguing that it does not. Can someone who has spent the money to read these two articles comment on whether either one meets WP:MUSIC #4 ("Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.") and describe the scope of the 1996 review? Celestra (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The News Leader source is not "marked as an advertisement", it's got the words "ADVERTISEMENT" on each side as delimiters for two blocks of ads, which blocks happen to be empty. Compare it to, for example [17], or [18] where the placeholder is actually carrying ads. --GRuban (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that, but I don't think that detail changes the overall nature of the piece. The piece reads like an event announcement or press release and it lacks a specific byline. I would still consider that to be trivial coverage, and not overly reliable for details about the subject. Celestra (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the bulk of that Newsleader piece is word for word from what the subject wrote on his bio page at www.musicamultimedia.net, which would be consistent with it being an announcement or press release reprinted in that paper. Celestra (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently we have 10 references of which, breaking them down... the Newsleader is an advert that simply repeats the unverified claims of "internationally-acclaimed" and "one of the most gifted and versatile musicians of his generation" which is pretty high praise so I'd expect to see some pretty substantial critical review other than local rags. The Consortium site I'm afraid is not independent ("Leonardo Ciampa and Andrea Amici, CIC Founding Directors"), the Boston.com local news like all local news would advertise the opening of an envelope (this is very important for promotion but it's hardly discerning) - its purpose is to promote an event not be critical of the artists or the work. The concertonet.com links are self published, the encyclopedia.com are teasers for his own work. Maybe the market he works in is niche but nothing pops up that allows us to have an independent authority as to his skills. After all we (i.e. wikipedia editors) cannot judge the works but must let others judge for us. I find a lot of promotion but little that is judgemental and that is what is worrying. Also, though probably as notable as ghits, I'm having trouble googling for a torrent. In the music business if no one is ripping your music then you are very new or very very niche. He's not new, so its niche. ps: actually I love church organ music which being a secular humanist (aka to Americans I guess that means I'm an atheist) is kind of a odd dichotomy but hey ho. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes it is valid because we have so little else. We're scraping the barrel here. Given I'm having trouble finding an actual critical review then, like our use of ghits, it does help establish how widely known the person is. A google search which has the person's blog, (their wikipedia article, and forks), paid-for directories (e.g. www.concertartist.info) their myspace, then obviously ghits isn't going to help so other ways of establishing notability are needed. In music you try torrents; the point is that it should jump out who says he is "acclaimed" and "gifted". Ttiotsw (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia.com links are there because the American Guild of Organists doesn't have a searchable archive of past issues. Those links aren't there as "teasers for his own work"—I put them in and I don't know Ciampa from Adam. Binksternet (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they are his own work that you are linking to via Encyclopedia.com. The American Guild of Organists establishes that he is an organist but as it is a trade group paid in part by subscriptions from the members so it is not independent of the organists. They establish he is an organist but not notability in that field. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guild does not let non-notable organists use their journal to dispense advice on how to improvise. The fact that Ciampa's submission was either sought or accepted establishes notability within the organization. There are many members who do not author articles in the journal. Binksternet (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability within the organisation may be grounds for inclusion in that trade publication but isn't grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good point - the [19] though is more a fan site that is insufficiently distanced from the musicians. It does a great job of advising events but this doesn't establish the notability for those that they interview. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self and others. I was checking around and I fixed a broken weblink on Pro_Arte_Chamber_Orchestra_of_Boston and noticed the currently listed conductor is now emeritus (retired) but then I saw Gisèle Ben-Dor has/had conducted for the PACO (notice she is a redlink here) and on her own page she indicates that "is described by the Los Angeles Times as "a star on the rise.a ferocious talent." "Ben-Dor casts her spell," the Boston Globe reported, "a tremendous musician, expert technician, charismatic performer." which is fine praise BUT if you look at the reviews [20] then she kindly links to who says this and when. It is brilliant - it makes our life so easy and THAT is how notability is established because someone else says 'x' and we can identify who says that. All Ciampa needs is a press page whereby he links or references who says he is what he says he is and then this AFD is moot. Ttiotsw (talk) 09:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PACO is obviously interesting because I did find an letter by Ciampa regarding a reviewer called Ellen Pfeifer in which Ciampa pulled the race card in which he says of his "...shock of reading Ellen Pfeifer's review, which was ethnically clueless on two levels (Living/Arts, Oct. 14).". Bizarrely enough Ellen Pfeifer's review could help establish notability though it doesn't support the descriptions we have of ciampa's work. Ttiotsw (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC) (amended by me to fix spelling of Ciampa from Ciampi !the senator!) Ttiotsw (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recall reading a Sunday spread in the Boston Globe, about half a page, with various letters to the editor regarding Pfeiffer's review and the ethnicity question. It was a Sunday Globe, probably the Sunday after the premiere. There had been much talk about Ciampa's Suite Siciliana being the first major "Sicilian" classical work. Pfeiffer's review caused ire in the Italian-American community, many of whom wrote letters to the Globe ... and Pfeiffer responded ... and from that point on, Pfeiffer was not asked to review one piece of Italian music, not even opera. You will not find one Pfeiffer review in the Boston Globe after October, '02, in which there is so much as one Italian work on the program. It was a "notable" episode. Respectfully, I don't know what some of the editors here want. Commissions by major musical institutions, premieres in major halls, reviews in major newspapers, articles in magazines, blogs that are popular enough to elicit many responses here ... What more do some of these Wiki editors require? Anyone for whom the New York Times does not say, "The greatest musician of the age," must be deleted? That's a lot of deleting. BonGens (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that references seem to wander back to the subject or have insufficient independence from the subject. If there has been extensive touring then there will be newspaper records of this, if there have been CDs published then there will be reviews (having the CDs published by a label that the subject is a founder isn't independent). Looking at other artists web sites then thee is no end of praise BUT they specify WHO SAYS THIS. With Ciampa's web site we see "particularly admired in Italy" - OK great BUT hey *please* a link to La Stampa, Corriere della Sera etc please even if it is regional and we see "acknowledged as one of the most gifted and versatile musicians of his generation" - OK great, we're not the critics, so WHO SAYS THIS ?. On the issue of Ellen Pfeifer as a critic it seems that she moved jobs and is now the Public Relations manager at the NEC - New England Conservatory [21] after 3 decades at the Globe, the Herald, and the Phoenix [22] its not surprising that she never reviewed much else - she moved jobs ! I don't care if people want to not use a critical review. It just means we're left with less so making this AFD that much easier. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, just that they have actual notability and actual impact, rather than wildly inflated puffery and recycled press releases. --Calton | Talk15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wildly inflated -- even vanity -- biography of a distinctly minor composer of, at best, local repute. Using claims of "internally notability" on mention in a local newspaper -- a story of somewhat suspect origins -- is an extraordinarily slender reed to hang justifications on. The various SPAs vociferously arguing EVERY SINGLE POINT don't help the impression of an organized promotional campaign. --Calton | Talk15:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
DELETE: She is a minor scholar of limited, if any, real influence. Being Dean of Students at LDS Business College may matter in Utah, but it doesn't matter anywhere else. I don't mean to hurt feelings; nevertheless, I think the article should be deleted.
She isn't a notable scholar. She has a few minor mentions in Deseret News, for a book published by Deseret. Nothing in Google Scholar. Fences&Windows19:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Camille Fronk Olson has written multiple books. A search for Camille Fronk will be more revelaing. Plus, she was the dean of students as LDS Business College. I strongly feel we should keep this article.Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have so far found one article by her in Google schoolar. This is the link, I think. https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3A1018868010058 . Mrs. Olson only got married in about 2005, if not later, and so there are many publications by her under her maiden name. Thus the important search is for Fronk and not Olson. Although, I have not done the Olson search, and thus it may also give me insight.Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John for pointing out her alternate name. Still only four hits in Google Scholar, with few citations. Does she really meet the criteria at WP:PROF? Being a Dean of students doesn't give anyone notability. Fences&Windows20:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you do a search with just C Fronk you will find seven articles or other listings involving her, why your search only got four I am not sure. However, as I point out in the article there are multiple books by her, books she edited, and multiple articles. The fact is that most of her articles do not appear in what is covered by google scholar, but they are not the be all and end all of such matters. As I have tried to point out, her works have reached a broad number of people outside of the narrow points of academia.Johnpacklambert (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Olson does meat the criteria for notablitiy. Specifically I would cite criteria 7 for academic notability. The amont both her books and even more so her speaches are cited I think makes her someone having significant impact outside of academia in her academic capacity.Johnpacklambert (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF: Google scholar and Google book searches for her find no evidence of academic impact nor of the sort of strong outside impact needed to pass #7. Re Johnpacklambert: "The amont both her books and even more so her speaches are cited": what citations are you finding? I don't see any reliable sourcing for her impact. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the WP:prof notability level. 4 (or 7) papers and a book is really not much - I know PhD students with more papers published.YobMod15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Not notable, author's blog is the only source, rationale for keeping given by original author is invalid, no Google hits other than the blog. Looks like something the author made up. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 I created the article. When I was working on another, unsourced article (about Chandanwadi, Thane), the Major's death and posthumous Gallantry award was one of the references I found. I thought that I would create the article. If the article is kept and improved by someone more knowledgeable about the subject, I'd be happy - if the decision is to delete, I won't be worried. My vote, then, is neutral! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commendable work! However, having looked at the sources and reading over WP:BIO, I think the late gallant gentleman is certainly commendable, but not notable enough for inclusion. Cheers, Vicenarian(Said · Done)19:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a note on the talk page for WikiProject India (Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics) - if one of their project members can improve the article, then they can. Having re-read my article, and the sources, I am inclined to agree with you, Vicenarian and De728631, but suggest we give WikiProject India the remaining 6 days before the AfD expires to improve the article. If no one has improved it by Saturday, I'll add a delete vote here! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 20:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kirti Charkra awardee. As the second highest peacetime award to military personel in India this one definetely deserves a Wikipedia article. --Deepak D'Souza07:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge can't be done together, our licensing terms require that a merge means that the page is kept and after the content is moved, the resulting redirect is maintained. Alternately, the page can be moved to the new title, and the resulting redirect deleted; but the history has to be saved. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a recipient of India's second-highest award for gallantry in peace time, I think he is notable enough to warrant an entry. As SpacemanSpiff says, this isn't awarded a great deal, and so I would consider this noteworthy. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 did a search and there is an article called list of shopping malls in united states. It was a fairly good sized list. One current problem with the article is that there is only one mall listed. If there were 20 malls listed this would make the article a lot more interesting, but the poor state of the current article is no reason to delete it. If we keep it some day it might grow into a complete list, and from there users would be able to click on the individual malls. I notice that there are also articles on many individual malls in the united states. So there is a strong president that the topic is notable. Why would a list of malls on one country be notable and a list of malls in another country not be notable. Even if there were no malls in a particular country, that subject would be notable, and if there was a list of world wide malls that was broken down into a list by country, then each country needs a list even if it contains no malls, but these articles might explain why there are so few malls or no malls in those particular countries.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Not much there yet, but the topic is plausible, given the history as part of the Ottoman Empire. References and article improvement, anyone? Edison (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the topic is plausible, and the Google News search [23] seems to bear this out. "New Palestinian Embassy inaugurated by presidents" (just last month) and this from the Jerusalem Post [24] (apparently, Israel thinks that Turkey is a close ally with Palestine) indicates that this has room to grow. POV-iness and references are problems that can be fixed. Mandsford (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has some interesting aspects. One is the present state of diplomatic relations between the occupied areas now called Palestine (by those who favor a "two state solution")and Turkey. Does occupied "Palestine" send and receive accredited diplomats, or is it via Israel? From the establishment of the British Palestine mandate until 1948, there are apparently reliable sources for diplomatic relations via the British with Turkey, per the Holocaust Encyclopedia[25]. Jewish European refugees arriving in Turkey got visa to Palestine through the British. Previously, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire[26]. Do we have articles on "Relations" between parts of one empire? Is this better covered in another existing article or articles? Edison (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep actually, Speedy Keep. There are two reasons given for deletion, and they are neither of them valid reasons: "POVy" is merely a matter for editing--I've never even seen that actually given as a reason at AfD before except in the companion AfD -- and "unreferenced" is not a reason, just unreferenceable. Blind searching of the exact phrase in an article title like this is not a good faith effort to meet WP:BEFORE. Not just obvious that there would be relationships, but enough has already been found. DGG (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable; needs to be 100% re-written with some sourcing. Sometimes POV can be reason to delete to re-write in an unbiased manner; this is not so tainted to be unsalvageable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
I, the creator of this article, think it should stay because if this was included in the original, the original article , America's Got Talent (Season 4), would be crowded with too much information and make it much harder to navigate around the page, and even to edit the page. This is why i organized the audition info into a separate article, making it easier for others to edit and navigate around the page. I have also included the references on this page for all the audition info, so there is no need to delete this article for those reasons. This is my argument against the deletion of this article.
Cpudude91 (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the page is deleted, then this information IMHO should be returned to the full AGT S4 page from which it was split. Including of the failed acts in the AGT season articles has been done each season since season 2 to show, in part, the sheer diversity of acts that compete. I did not particularly object to the split-out, but I would object to the loss of the information overall. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've certainly not seen that. There's an inclusion of failed acts accepted into the show yes, but this is a list of those who failed to even pass the auditions. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the seasons 2 & 3 page. This style was developed during season 2, discussed quite a bit on that season's talk page, and has been kept in the two seasons since. If the style needs to change, that's an issue for the talk page of the current season, not an AFD, IMHO. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Season 3 includes "auditions were held at X, Y, Z, here's some notable schmucks who failed to get through" - not a list of everyone who auditioned ever in every location who was featured in any episode of the TV show for more than 0.5 of a second. Ironholds (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Season 3 also includes a full list of the acts who were eliminated, not just a paragraph.
Season 2 & 3's pages are just as comprehensive as season 4. I should know, as I typed in most of that data back then, working through the RNO summaries as reference, and listing each act that failed or succeeded. - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It actually summarizes only the rejected acts side of those episodes. It would not be too hard to collect the accepted acts info from the history of the main AGT article, but then you would have the issue of duplication of information between this and the main AGT S4 page, where the accepted act information has already migrated down the page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- If the article is merged, it will be hard to navigate around the AGT Season 4 page, which makes editing and navigating the webpage very difficult, which is why it was created.Cpudude91 (talk) 02:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't think that individual episodes of a TV series are inherently notable, the summary of a season generally is. In this case, the audition phase of AGT has had episodes that get the highest Nielsen ratings, and even the reruns do well. As such, I think it's a legitimate spinout of the Season 4 article. Mandsford (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I split the page because it is hard to navigate the AGT S4 page when the audition info is there. When it is split, it is much more organized and easier to edit and browse. Cpudude91 (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just to let people know, relisting does not mean that you need to, or get to, !vote a second time. The idea of a relist is that a consensus cannot be discerned from the existing debate, so more time is give, in the hopes that additional people will express opinions, or that the existing debators can move towards a useful consensus. While there's nothing wrong with restating opinions after a relist, it's not really necessary, and people should definitely not "revote". - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an honest mistake that most of us, including I, have made once, and it's one of the few instances where it's okay to strike through someone else's edit as part of the correction, which I've done a few times. Although the debate isn't a vote, the closing administrator does look at the heading of each argument to get an idea of how many people are weighing in on the subject. Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Cleanup and keep - this is in dire need of clean-up, particularly because it is written as a "how-to guide" - reflected both in style ("we should be prepared for earthquakes from home itself") and content (for instance, a focus on what needs to be done to protect homedwellers rather than the consequences of failing to perform those tasks). However, those are not deletion-worthy problems. What's more interesting is the topic - Risks of nonstructural earthquake damage might be an alternative title, and more inclusive of non-residential premises with essentially identical issues. I didn't really think much about this area myself until I was caught in a seismic event. It is certainly true that non-structural damage caused by earthquakes can be substantial; this article's obsession with making sure household objects are well-secured is not misplaced! This would be an appropriate article to include any statistics on the scale of such damage (from destruction of property to loss of life or limb). We have articles like Seismic retrofit and Earthquake engineering that focus on protection from structural damage in earthquakes, but non-structural damage is also a safety issue. There is government advice on the non-structural aspect of household seismic safety ([27] is linked from our article, for instance, although it is rather patchy and the underlying FEMA source would be better) and although it shouldn't be regurgitated in a "how-to" format, it should be reported neutrally in the same manner as "duck and cover" and related nuclear protection advice would be reported in our articles on Civil Defense. TheGrappler (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That subject is probably worth an article. Here is a good source [28] to show that there is published material on that subject (that is not written in a how-to format). However, I think you could just as easily start that article from scratch as start from the how-to material in Household seismic safety. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take the point that a substantial-to-complete rewrite is required, I'm just not sure that's a good reason to delete the article in this case. It isn't actively harmful in its current state, just badly written - the content itself is actually better than it sounds (the way it's written make it sound like an exemplar from WP:NOT but the facts expressed are actually good information), and it is (loosely) sourced to the link given. Of course, converting the "how to" language into "FEMA suggests that good practice is to" is largely pointless since it would be better to incorporate higher quality sources like the one given (for which, thanks).TheGrappler (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember that WP:NOT (and WP:NOTHOWTO) is a WP:Policy. The article, as written, goes against policy. Unless the article is brought up to standards before the AfD process closes, it is likely that the closing admin will delete for this reason. If someone wants to save the text and rewrite the article, userfication is an option. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTHOWTO is indeed policy. This article should not read in the way it does. But I feel that deleting it immediately on this ground alone would be missing a distinction. It is not inherently a how-to guide, it is merely written in the style of one. All of the content merely documents the official non-structural earthquake safety advice for householders in the Bay Area. The fact that residents are advised, for instance, to secure bookshelves and mirrors is sourced and worthy of inclusion - just in need of a stylistic rewrite. Compare this to an article describing how to adjust the carburetor of a Ford F-series. Rewriting that in a descriptive style (reporting what various manuals say, rather written as a list of instructions) would not bring it within WP:NOTHOWTO. TheGrappler (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important topic to have. It should be presented as a list, not a how too guide, listing the steps the government site says to do to keep yourself safe. DreamFocus22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 was about to say that 1 of those 3 weeks would be spent in this AfD, but then I realized it was going to snow here...No point in saving it, but by this time, I don't find any point in deleting it though, so neutral. --> RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism12:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
An editor at New Chronology (Rohl) insists on adding a {{notability}} tag, apparently on the basis that academic theories that are not widely accepted in their field are subjected to different notability criteria, a position with no obvious basis in WP policy. David Rohl's New Chronology has been covered in a number of popular books by Rohl (one reaching number 2 on the Sunday Times bestseller list), 2 other academic books (one in German), and at least three TV documentaries. Naturally the popular books and TV generated some secondary coverage too. Is this enough for notability, or should the article be deleted or merged back to David Rohl (from which it was recently spun out to permit better development)? Rd232talk18:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the nominator is voting to keep the article in AfD then that's the equivalent of withdrawing the nomination. I agree that this bad-faith nomination is somewhat pointy. (And yes, it's a textbook bad faith nom because you don't really want it deleted.) I wonder if an administrator can somehow wipe this AfD out like it never happened? -- Atamachat20:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. If the nom doesn't actually want the article deleted, then he shouldn't have nominated it. This can just as easily be discussed at the article's talk page.--Atlan (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. First, the book is QUITE notable, as noted below re "copies... given out." The book has changed lives for the good. There is a Higher Judge; I don't have to defend the book. AV=Elul Ba. 'Nuff Said re the book.
As for the Wiki article(s): Re your "Please do not take this personally. I gave myself a good few weeks away..." on my Talk Page I too left this matter alone from before Tisha B'Av thru now, post-Nachamu "weekend." Isn't there an editor you can contact who has the skills to pull together, from all the deletions that were done to both articles, something to do this/these articles justice ?? Dad7 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From time to time Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis's Jewish Press column mentions that she's speaking somewhere and that copies of a particular book, translated into (typically Hebrew or Russian) were given out.
Before all of the edits, it was noted that From Central Park to Sinai was reprinted several times, edited into a post-Sept-11 re-issue, translated (Hebrew,Russian), etc. etc. Now that all of that was edited out, first you want to get rid of the book article, then perhaps the author's article?
I've seen your editing and you have demonstrated quite well that you probably could do what I ask above; of course no one has more than 24 hours per day, as Joe407 notes on his home page per "The big challenge with Wikipedia is not to lose yourself (or your job) in it..." Dad7 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to me why this book is notable. Book's worth could probably be measured by the number of copies sold, but not the number of copies given away. All that's necessary for that is someone rich. There's no verifiable evidence on the many lives changed, except a few anecdotes. If the author is notable, then Merge, but doesn't look as if he is either. Greenleaf (talk) 14:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regardless of the book's notability, I will comment that it seems worth reading. One of the reviews cited, Yaakov Feitman, is a person I know and good opinion to trust. While I stand by my ADF nomination, I am putting this book on my to-read list. Joe407 (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge Not enough for a separate article, & , since the author has written other books also, the merge should be into that article. There is enough to justify one. I agree that "given away" is an indication that there would need to be very good evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to the authors page, leaving a redirect. Readers are better served by not having to click around finding small articles, when they can be better covered in one.YobMod15:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Appears to have been reviewed by several publications that appear to be reliable, including Jerusalem Post, Publishers Weekly, and several topic-specific (but nonetheless independent) sources (The Jewish Press, The Jewish Week, The Jewish Observer). Sufficiently little content to be merged. The fact that there is rulebook support for an article on this book to be kept rather than merged or deleted demonstrates one of the problems with GNG. Bongomatic18:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 WVRI call was used by a licensed radio station in Florida in the past. Article needs to be improved to reflect that. Notability isn't temporary. RadioFan (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected to WJRR, the current calls for the station at 101.1 in Orlando. The WVRI calls were used for just over a year and the station's format under those calls was also very brief. This can be closed. Nate•(chatter)00:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
A new IRCd program that is not notable. A search for this has turned up no reliable sources on this nor any significant coverage, nor any other evidence this meets WP:GNGTriplestopx317:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete
note: i'm new to wikipedia and don't know much about it's formatting.
the only reason that it does not have hardly any coverage is because it's a new program. leetirc has been out for three years now and rockircd only a few months.
Linuxlove8088 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well excuse me for trying to put stuff on wikipedia, i should have... well i'm getting too angry. i guess what i'll do is i'll copy the article to a text file and let the rest boil. Linuxlove8088 (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personally. I too think this IRCd is important to cover but the only way we can do that per the current WP:Nguideline is to merge some of these smaller articles into a larger article (which is currently a work-in-progress). --Tothwolf (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Searching finds lots of strange pages (I can't post the example I intended because it is blacklisted!), but nothing supporting WP:GNG or WP:PROF. Sadly, not even incorrectly claiming to have solved the Riemann hypothesis is notable (list of 35 failures). Note that the companion Vasiliu Lucilius (mentioned in article) has been deleted three times. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google scholar shows no notabiliy for his mathematical research and his claims of a proof of the Riemann hypothesis are not widely accepted. He does not seem to have had the impact necessary to pass WP:PROF #1, nor does he seem to pass any other of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Page was tagged as needing verification in August 2008. Currently exists as a note saying it "previously redirected to List of Caribbean membranophones, probably incorrectly." The article's talk page indicated the tock-tock is a beetle and that the redirect was was wrong, and questioned whether the article should even exist. I added what I could find about the term, and it appears to be a Trinidadian term for claves (though the page I found seemed to indicate that the word claves was well-known and used as well). I also found a reference to the beetle, but searching the scientific name brought up other spellings that seemed to me more likely. There is no Wikipedia article for the beetle in question. The page could be used as a redirect to claves, but seems to me to be to minor to warrant doing, or to an article on the beetle, if one is created, though the other names seem better candidates for that. My feeling is it should be deleted (my explanation is better on the talk page), but I defer to the judgment of the group Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
You can deny a banana is a banana, but it does not change the fact that it actually is a banana. The facts in this case are that the content concerning a recurring character is verified through multiple reliable sources and played by a name recognized actor on a recognizable and long-running TV show. Thus, it meets any logical or common sense standard of notability for a paperless encyclopedia. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC
In that case, we are all arguing over a redirect. Is it really worth all this effort over 71 characters? #REDIRECT[[The Young and the Restless minor characters#Todd Williams]] Ikip (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect if there's enough material in the main article. This could have been done without coming here, and no reason has been given for why a redirect at least would not have been suitable. I'd have done it when I deprodded, except that for fiction I don't know I think someone who does should decide between redirect and merge. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Primary reason: WP:DICDEF. Secondary reason: article is clutching at straws to appear notable--just look at the wikilinks. Supposedly the Dutch 'translation' of the verb is Dissen--a charming little town in Germany--and the Dutch 'translation' of the noun is Diss (it's not; it's either dis or, in the case of the Osdorp Posse, disje)--a small town in England. This article is a bad dictionary definition, and WP isn't even for good dictionary definition. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 don't see how a school like this, that's been around for quite a while, would not be notable. Having said that, the article is a total mess, of course. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is not correct to say that there are no RSs. The article makes clear that the page is mostly based on documents held at the Somerset Records Office. Such documents are publicly available to allow verification. Sure the page needs some cleaning but that is an editorial matter. I would not be particularly adverse against a merge into Culverhay School. In many ways it is quite convenient to put the information together on predecessor schools in the present school page. However, that would be a matter for a subsequent merge proposal. Meanwhile we have a high school with the thick end of 200 years history and several quite distinguished alumni, for example here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - i think, after taking a look through it, that all the relevant information for an article is in there. Just probably not in the most coherent way. The article contains references (albeit agf) with the article itself written in good faith also. A decent Copy-edit as opposed to full on deletion is probably in order. --SteelersFanUK06ReplyOnMine!21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Last AFD came to no consensus with a reccomendation for renomination. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. He's done nothing of note since leaving Idol (failing WP:1EVENT); the album he has apparently released has not charted. WIKIPROJECT IDOL GUIDLINES DO NOT HOLD ANY WEIGHT AT AFD. I also suggest WP:SALT to prevent fans from recreating. DJ15:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - He does seem to be the subject of many non-trivial articles, although these are all in reference to his being booted from Idol. He has also performed music for a notable work of media as stated in the notability criteria. PanydThe muffin is not subtle17:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these sources you speak of? And besides, thousands of people audition for American Idol each year and about 100+ are subject to trivial sources. We need to use WP:COMMONSENSE. DJ17:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-read the opening argument. "Last AFD came to no consensus with a reccomendation for renomination" DJ20:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was not a recommendation for renomination, it was closed as no prejudice against speedy renomination, but according to WP:NPASR: "However, when the no-consensus result is due to lack of participation, the closer may specify no prejudice against speedy renomination." The result was not due to a lack of participation, so the NPASR should not have been applied. Aspects (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it means that there's no reason to believe community opinion has changed, and there's no net gain in wasting everyone's time and generating even more acrimony. Whatever possesses you to be so obsessed over this that you harangue virtually everyone who doesn't share your opinions and do what you canto make the editing experience here unpleasant? Rather than combing through harmless material whose removal, even if perfectly carried out, generates only minimal improvement to Wikipedia, why not try on weed out the harmful garbage? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is. This is supposed to be a civil discussion of the issues involved, and everyone who posts here is allowed, probably encouraged, to explain their positions, which may or may not call for discussion of process issues in the context of specific discussions. But it's not a place for you to cast aspersions, over and over and over, on editors who disagree with you, or, maybe worse, editors who you expect to disagree with you. You really need to develop a better sense of perspective, and not take such personal offense from the simple fact that not everyone agrees with you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with offence. You may not have noticed but this is a debate, not a vote. Therefore, I can debate with any point that I see fit. So stop with the personal attacks. I think that you're the person who has problems with other people disagreeing with you, not me. DJ00:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to your comment, a few lines up, that I shouldn't "air my views" on the AFD process here. There's no point in attempting to hold a discussion with someone who manifests no awareness of his comments less than an hour earlier. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about you airing your views on WP:AFD, rather than this particular discussion. We appear to have had our wires crossed. DJ01:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for the time being per WP:COMMONSENSE. Every country has these terrible shows which amazingly are hugely popular. Another editor said this particular one is the #1 rated show in the biggest media market in the world, I trust it at face value. Consequently, many, many people will be interested in such articles on the contestants, there is a useful role for Wikipedia, and as long as the articles are sourced and there are no BLP concerns, let's keep them for the time being. Nominating them for deletion is a drama magnet, new editors will try to recreate them if deleted, megabytes of frustration, divisive and confrontational stuff that sucks the life out of the community. Maybe there is a border infringement on the highly celebrated WP:N. And so what?, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and we have no shortage of space per WP:NOTPAPER. Lets come back in two years time. In all likelihood, these dayflies will face a completely uncontroversial deletion. In the meantime, we can spend our time more wisely building an encyclopedia. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you are ironic with "more appropriate". That article is even more detailed, and each character in the expanded socalled "list" has its own article. It's a good example of the enormous amount of energy Wikipedia editors put into this field. Must be interesting stuff for an anthropologist or sociologist. But my point is equally valid there - keep out BLP concerns, OR, POV and ADVERT, in that order of priority, and let's revisit the stuff in a couple of years, decisions will be swift. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Procedurally, it's sad that a new AfD takes place 5 days after the previous. Although I don't think that all American Idol rejects losers deserve an article, this kind of haranguing is a sad waste of Wikitime (talk→BWilkins←track) 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close as no consensus and wait a month Given that the previous AfD was closed with the specific statement that a relist was desirable because of "a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination" and the exact same nomination was given again, we are more likely to settle the issue after a pause. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 this page This page has info about the website greenpress.com. The idea for this site is similar to those of other wiki sites such as digg.com or facebook.com. Its a very relevant site. daveiba —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveiba (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Delete - No sources are given, and a simple Google search provides only flimsy evidence at best. I agree that this page does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. edwardchelski19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Because of the expansion, KevinOKeeffe's comment no longer applies. With that said, there is no consensus between keeping and merging. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 18:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but how many fictional birds of prey are there? This is far too specific a list to go anywhere, unless there's a bird of prey genre of fiction I'm not familiar with. Currently there are only two entries, both from the same comic book. I just don't see this going anywhere. Maybe there's another entry or two, but that still won't make it notable. Prod declined by an admin, to my amazement. Hairhorn (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this list included stuff from ancient mythologies, well maybe, but Condorito, and Son of Condorito? Do lists with only two items (especially non-Notable ones) really need to exist? I think not. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment - I don't really think this list should be kept, but I disagree with Hairhorn's statement that this couldn't be made into a good list. There are already extensive lists at List of fictional birds (which would include birds of prey as a subset) and List of fictional owls (which would be a subset of birds of prey). Even just selecting the most notable entries on those lists, there would probably be enough fictional birds of prey for a good sized list. Also, many other lists of fictional animals have been kept at AfD in the past (see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional deer and moose. That being said, I think a list of fictional birds of prey would be redundant with the current lists for birds and owls, so I don't really think there is a need for it.Calathan (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that someone has added many more entries to this list, I've realized that it does make some sense to have this as a separate list in addition to the main list for fictional birds. There are already several lists separated out from the main list, including List of fictional ducks and List of fictional penguins, and the List of fictional owls I mentioned above. I think the lists are more manageable and easy to read when broken up like this. I think the main bird list should link to the sub-lists more promenently, instead of just listing them at the bottom, but I think keeping several lists makes sense. Calathan (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep/merge. There is consensus here to retain the main list, and to accommodate much of the content from the other individual articles somewhere. Magioladitis has smerged many of these articles to Humanx Commonwealth, which is a good point to start addressing this situation from. Recommend that a central discussion be started at Talk:List of Humanx Commonwealth planets on how best to incorporate the individual articles and see if there is consensus for a mass merge. Should this discussion falter, the articles should be relisted in smaller batches. Skomorokh 23:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I'm nominating the following related pages about characters within the Humanx universe. They should also be deleted or merged into the main article.
Merge -- The claim of non-notability is, of course, preposterous, but there's a good case to be made for merger -- the list is short enough not to overbalance the host article, and probably too short to stand on its own. RandomCritic (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - notability is demonstrated by references to 3rd party sources. These articles have none. Even once merged into the parent article, references are still required.--RadioFan (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I wasn't quite finished listing the nominated articles when the above 2 !votes were posted. The last 4 articles in the list above were added to the list after the above comments were made.--RadioFan (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Discussions for similar but separately nominated templates/article:
Delete some, merge others - Looking at the other articles added I can't see what makes them in anyway notable either. I do like the way RandomCritic put it though - "The claim of non-notability is, of course, preposterous" - I would support a merger for the planets and another for the species. I've updated my vote accordingly. -- Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)14:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of these articles have references and I'm not finding references outside of the books themselves. Will merged articles be similarly unreferenced?--RadioFan (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after looking at the two planets in stand-alone AfDs, I looked at the rest of the stuff in the navbox; it's all non-notable stubby in-universe stuff. nb: AAnn#References seems to be asserting that it's a copyvio. Cheers, Jack Merridew14:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list, merge the planets into it. That's how we deal with excessively fine granulation in fictional articles: put 'em in a list. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge list entries; Keep the List. Individual entries lack notability on their own, but they would be fine in the expository context of the aforementioned list. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the planets and the characters. Redirect the list to Humanx Commonwealth#Planets. It's quite obvious. All these planets don't have any real world significance, the articles gave no readl world information and fictional planets are a common subject in... science fiction. Every science fiction novel about other civilitations includes and some fictional planets. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all relevant information from the plants, into one area. Make sure to keep anything not already there. Keep Aann, it having enough valid information to have its own article. Merge the other animals into one place, they short enough to fit together. Preserve, do not destroy. DreamFocus19:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t agree with that. I think we have to evaluate somehow the information. I don't like the idea that Wikipedia can become an indisciminant collection of everything. If we have a book series, you should descrube the book elements as they appear in the books, as part of their plot. We can do more things if some of these elements are described from third party sources. That redirects are cheap that doesn't imply that we create a redirect for every possible word, otherwise we ll end up taking a phone catalog and create articles and redirects for evry single person in this planet (and if we extend our work in science fiction, in other planets as well). -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider separately. A good case can me made for merging most of these, but the merits of each article depend on its particular use in the series (setting for one novel versus five, for example). In any event, several of these (Hivehom, Tran-Ky-Ky, Thranx, AAnn) should certainly be kept as redirects as they are likely search terms for information about the series. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main one, and then discuss separately for each article whether it is appropriate to merge, or whether any actually do warrant a separate article . I'd be surprised if many did, but I'm not going to try to decide that 20 articles at a time. And nominating the combination article along with the detailed ones is the sort of procedure that destroys any hope of compromise on fictional topics. We came pretty near, and perhaps we can get there by consistently keeping all such combination articles at AfD. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Call it a procedural AFD, as I don't think a prod would stick. No sourcing, no references, simply an exhaustive plot summary and list of trivia. No awards to support notability. Yngvarr(t)(c)14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and delete it hard! I can't find any non-trivial coverage of this episode or any evidence it has won awards or any evidence it had a significant real-world impact on anything. PanydThe muffin is not subtle17:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. The article's supporters are invited to strengthen the references used to support Ms. Egerhazi's claims for notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article does not appear to meet any of the WP:Pornbio criteria for Notability, nor does the subject appear to meet the more generalized criteria for BLP Notability. Furthmore, this article has been tagged for both Notability and Sources since January of 2008. The six citations this article has, include two links to IAFD, plus four links to her own, self-published porn website. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She does seem to get sufficient mainstream coverage (this article in index.hu for example - poor quality Google translation for non-Hungarian readers), and this is gibberish in translation but someone obviously considers her worth writing about. I can't see a problem with referencing the subject's own website for uncontroversial claims such as "eye color". – iridescent11:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG critera. WP:PORNBIO are criteria for inclusion, not exclusion and are intended for porn actors, not models. Having tags for additional sources and clean up are requests to fix the article, not reasons for deletion. Chuthya (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure I'll say that the hungarian source represents some level of awareness in hungarian mainstream. She might be a popular figure in hungary or something. The guys at the Hungarian wikipedia should make a good article of her with good sources so it can be translated here, with translated quotes from the sources. The chinese source is a review of a porn tape where she acts, it's explaining the plot of the tape and it's not coverage about her or her carreer, so it shouldn't count at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooooooooooooops, her article was AfD deleted from the Hungarian wikipedia (translation) due to not fullfilling their own PORNBIO (translated) which appears to be very similar to our own. So, delete since it can't even show notability at the hungarian wikpedia, where people can read the language of the sources and are knowledgeable of who is notable at that country. If she gets an article showing notability in the hungarian wikipedia then someone can translate it here. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:BIO: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not. Database sources such as Notable Names Database, Internet Movie Database and Internet Adult Film Database are not considered credible since they are, like wikis, mass-edited with little oversight. Additionally, these databases have low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion." Does not present intersections of reliable and independent sources. Full of Wikipuffery (sources which are either not reliable or does not say anything about the subject). Algébrico (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 I suppose that the users comment on you talk is not quite explicit and clear enough to just db-author, so I guess we have to run through this. NN, delete. Chzz ► 15:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Delete I pretty much agree with Slayer. Because the World Nine-ball Championship is almost only well-known to the public of this sport, its perhaps not that necessary to create articles only about editions of the event. For most pool fans, telling where and when the event was held and who won in that particular year is adequate info. All of that is mentioned in one article. Mickey in a Dress (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Just redundant information. How many encyclopedias out there have articles that are only about specific years of an annual tournament? If you look at most of them, they neither contain articles for editions of the event, nor the annual event itself. Just the name of the sport being played and some important information.Duke17 (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 is a non-notable activist. In the future he may become notable. Being beaten in police custody does not give rise to notability. The cited references do not rise to "significant coverage", nor were any other references I found in a search (note that there appears to be at least one other person of the same name who has received some coverage). Bongomatic13:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I read over the sources listed in the article, the Maldives News website seems like it could be a reliable source and thesearticles seem to refer to the article subject fairly often. However, the article mostly reads like a CV to me, pruning the article could result in very little information that doesn't constitute WP:OR as judging from the contribs of the creator (his only contribs are to this article). -- Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you have any other perspective on this article, please, expand it and place facts that are more important in you oppinion. I think it would make more sence. Samogitia (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Despite that someone may argue that it is a legitimate subarticle of the SO War, it is not. It is a POV fork of some of the content failing WP:TEND among others. (Igny (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Are there any other non-Russian or non-Georgian or non-Ossetian users, who could judge this article? Because I think people from Russia, Georgia, Ossetia or Abhazia would be too biased on this issue. Samogitia (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact there were some human rights abuses directed at civilians on the losing side of a recent war, while unfortunate, is also pretty much a given. It would have to be pretty serious & widespread to justify creating a separate article, apart from the one about the 2008 war itself. However regrettable, a handful of individual circumstances where angry Ossetians behaved like scum towards their Georgian neighbours does not constitute an instance of "genocide." KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references presented on the article don't say a word about the genocide of Georgians. The guy just tried to express his (or her) own opinion. Taamu (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, did you read the article? I mean what kind of article is that, "Oh look that guy said something about genocide or something..." There must be a genocide going on there, if not a genocide then surely an ethnic cleansing... (Igny (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete less than 1% of civilians reported killed/missing is not a genocide. The author has no idea what an actual genocide is. It's rather insulting to those whose families lived through an actual genocide. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article 2 of this convention (1948 United NationsConvention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." So, estimated (by you) 1% of population is a part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Samogitia (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
“We burned these houses. We want to make sure that they [the Georgians] can’t come back, because if they do come back, this will be a Georgian enclave again and this should not happen.” The officer went on to describe events during the fighting, including the execution of a Georgian armed man...[33]
In order to commit Genocide/Ethnic Cleansing, you have to go after people, not houses. Burning an abandoned house isn't even a felony the in US. And you have one execution. One. That's not a genocide. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None. I would guess he thinks listing a bunch of irrelevant articles will strengthen his vote. Much like how the article itself cites irrelevant sources in an attempt to bring credibility to its factual inaccuracies and original research. LokiiT (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Biophys, I'm not sure you read your own sources:
Source 1: Just Putin bashing. That's not even backed up.
Source 2: "But a dozen interviews with those who fled the fighting, and a trip through seven Georgian villages just south of the fighting, indicated the killing this month was not that systematic, nor on that scale — based on what is known so far."
Source 3: “Detailed analysis of the damage depicted in five ethnic Georgian villages shows the destruction of these villages around the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, was caused by intentional burning and not armed combat.” – Houses not people
Source 4: “The organization’s researchers in South Ossetia on August 12, 2008, saw ethnic Georgian villages still burning from fires set by South Ossetian militias, witnessed looting by the militias, and learned firsthand of the plight of ethnic Ossetian villagers who had fled Georgian soldiers during the Georgian-Russian conflict over the breakaway region of South Ossetia” – again houses, not people.
Source 5: “The Russians are starting to control the situation,” said Shura Terashvili, 68, one of the few people left in the village of Brotsleti, south of Irganeti. “Yesterday a Russian armoured vehicle stopped and asked if everything was okay. There have been some food shipments from Tbilisi too,” she said, adding that she rarely ventured on to the main road for fear of what she might run into.”
Source 6: “After Georgian soldiers stormed South Ossetia and killed Vitaly Guzitayev’s friend, he hid in the woods. Once the Georgians left, he set fire to the elegant brick homes of ethnic Georgians who lived nearby.” – I’ve yet to wait Putin get blamed for this.
Source 7: Anyone who thinks Brezhnev was better then any Russian ruler is on crack. Maybe he was better then Yeltsin the Alcoholic, but other then that…
As of today, all Georgian villages in South Ossetia has been destroyed. They are empty, almost no one lives there. People have been forcefully evicted, with a stated purpose to get rid of them (see citation above). They have been evicted or killed based on their ethnicity. This is classic ethnic cleansing (please rename).Biophys (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're an extremely experienced Wikipedia editor. Should I really point to you that it's a matter of policies, not sympathies? — Rankiri (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you read the definition. So here it is again: "Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism referring to the persecution through imprisonment, expulsion, or killing of members of an ethnic minority by a local majority to achieve ethnic homogeneity in majority-controlled territory." It says members of an ethnic minority. Members, i.e. people, i.e. human beings. Homo Sapiens. Not houses. Why is this so hard to get? What happened in the Georgian enclaves of South Ossetia, is that the Georgian population knew that war would come, and they left their houses voluntarily. The others left when the Georgian army was routed. The extreme majority of Georgians left before the Russians and Ossetians even came, before they entered. In the end, gangs of Ossetian hooligans burned abandoned houses. You have to have, what is beyond the wildest imagination possible, to call hooligans burning abandoned houses, "ethnic cleansing". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What else could they have done? Uhhh geez, maybe warn their neighborhoods? Blockade the Georgian Army from entering. Tell the UN everything that's going on, that's about to happen. Instead they saw a conflict, and they chose to flee. They didn't rise up against an invading army. Didn't protest against Grads being used against civilians. Rather, they abandoned their homes and fled. Those homes were abandoned. In came the Ossetian hooligan gangs, and burned down abandoned homes. That's not even a felony, much less ethnic cleansing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename genocide in the title is POV but there is no doubt that there were ethnic cleansings. We might expand the subject by titles like Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia as proposed by Marting (that would include pre2008 expulsion of Georgians from the Ossetian-controlled territories of SO or even Ethnic cleansings in South Ossetia that would additionally discuss alleged forceful expulsion of Ossetians from the Georgian-controlled territories of SO in 1992-2008. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Abandoned homes burned down is now ethnic cleansing? Wow, this is just sad. There would have been ethnic cleansing had the Russians not intervened. They intervened, so no ethnic cleansing took place. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Burning abandoned houses to prevent people of particular ethnicity from returning is indeed ethnic cleansing. If you have sources telling that the purpose of burning was something else you are welcome to introduce it to the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if you are an administrator or not, next time you delete my quotes on the talkpage, action will be taken - I'm glad you understand that Mr. Bakharev. Also, burning abandoned houses is not ethnic cleansing. If people wanted to return, here's the thing: they still own the land, they can still comeback there and rebuild the house. US is giving Georgia over a billion dollars in aid, these houses cost at most $50,000 to build. Say six people per house, 18,000 total, (actual number much less) you're looking at 3,000 houses rebuilt, that's 150 million. If you tried to argue that burning down abandoned houses is ethnic cleansing in any western court, you would be laughed out of court. Please, either make an actual argument, or don't make an argument. I don't know what the purpose of the burning is. I do know that burning abandoned houses isn't ethnic cleansing.
Comment on renaming proposal: We should answer one question: did ethnic Georgians decided to leave themselves, or were they forcefully thrown out of the country by Ossetian militias. If Georgians decided to leave themselves with the retreating Georgian forces, that would clearly not amount to ethnic cleansing. If ethnic Georgians (yes, people, and not houses) were forcefully driven of the Republic of South Ossetia, than it amounts to ethnic cleansing. One more thing: ethnic cleansings are a systematic measure, they are started on government level, and are supported by state forces on state, level, i.e. state versus ethnos, not ethnos vs. ethnos. Otherwise that would be an inter-ethnic conflict. FeelSunny (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Everyone agrees the old name is really bad. Irrespective of the result of the deletion debate, the article should not stay at the old name, so I moved it. --Xeeron (talk) 11:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Rename to Ethnic Cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia ----Bosoxrock88
What facts will you be using? Here, I'll provide some: In 1989, the population of South Ossetia had 65,000 Ossetians and 28,700 Georgians. Before August 8th, the population of South Ossetia had 45,000 Ossetians and 17,500 Georgians. Looks to me like people just left due to war. As a comparison, in 1989 there were 74,913 Russians. By August 2003 only 23,420 Russians remained. Clearly, according to the logic of this article, Russians were ethnically cleansed from Abkhazia. Here's a fun fact Narking: when war hits, people flee. And they don't return. This is voluntary, there's no ethnic cleansing involved. If there's an earthquake in California, in a major region, lots of people are going to flee. This article's logic would then accuse said earthquake of Ethnic Cleansing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As said earlier I'm not taking part of your blogging. And yes, it's voluntary to flee if people shoot and bomb at you. Either you flee or die. Närking (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Riiight. So all those Georgians that didn't flee, died. And then were resurrected and interviewed by HRW. It's magic I tell ya. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)" (This was previously removed by Alex Bakharev, so I'm edited it back in with the original date, I though administrators are above such things. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC) )[reply]
From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary: "Ethnic cleansing: the expulsion, imprisonment, or killing of an ethnic minority by a dominant majority in order to achieve ethnic homogeneity". Närking (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Narking, since you like Merriam Websters so much, why don't we look up expulsion - "the act of expelling or the state of being expelled". Since most of the Georgians left before either Ossetians or Russians got there, "the act of expelling" doesn't really qualify, since in order to perform an act, the people actually have to be there, doing the expulsion. The state of being expelled requires that assumption to be challenged. That requires Georgians, trying to peacefully comeback to Ossetia. This has not been tried. It also requires all Georgians to be expelled. Yet there are still people of Georgian decent, living in South Ossetia. So no matter how many times you highlight expulsion it won't make be actual expulsion taking place. What happened here was that people knew that a war was coming, (on both sides) and ran from war. Then abandoned houses were burned. Using this logic, Americans were "ethnically cleansing" Iraqis from Iraq. It's just so pathetic to watch you people try to grasp onto something, anything, that the Russian Army did wrong, even if the event happened before the Russian Army actually entered the area. Yes, Ossetian hooligans cost Georgians $150 million, in damages. But causing $150 million in damage doesn't qualify as genocide. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This battle of semantics seems irrelevant, as there is documented WP:RS evidence that asserts that some form of ethnic cleansing did occur. After Georgian forces withdrew from South Ossetia on August 10, South Ossetian forces over a period of weeks deliberately and systematically destroyed ethnic Georgian villages. . .looted, beat, threatened, and unlawfully detained numerous ethnic Georgian civilians, and killed several, on the basis of the ethnicity and imputed political affiliations of the residents of these villages, with the express purpose of forcing those who remained to leave and ensuring that no former residents would return. From this, Human Rights Watch has concluded that South Ossetian forces attempted to ethnically cleanse these villages[36]. As I say below, the problem with the renamed article is not that ethnic cleansing didn't happen but that the article is extremely one-sided in its coverage of the subject and some of its ideas are not explicitly supported by any of its references. — Rankiri (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I believe that quote is out of context. There was systematic destruction of property, but the lootings, beatings, unlawful detentions, and killings were not systematic. They were done by hooligans, or those seeking revenge. I find that unacceptable, but we cannot call systematic, that which is not systematic. The official policy set by Medvedev was to prevent civilian deaths, and killings/beatings would be directly counterproductive to that, and lootings/detentions would be indirectly counterproductive to that, as people might try to save their property or escape. I'm all for documenting these horrible events, but it wasn't done a systematic scale. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a rename to something like 2008 attacks on ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia would be okay as well, but with 1% of the people killed (69 civilians in S. Ossetia) there is no substantial source for ethnic cleansing – to say nothing of genocide, even if the Georgians did flee from their houses during the fighting. (Ethnic Georgians fleeing to the Georgian side during a war is not tantamount to an ethnic cleansing.) I have not seen any scholarly, non-partisan source for claims of ethnic cleansing from what has been posted on this AFD so far. Granted, the history here is very fresh, but we don't write encyclopedias based on our take on the news and Wikipedia is not a news blog. The present thing is thus an unreliable POV fork – as also noted by commenters above. PasswordUsername (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete If the other side won't argue, I'm voting twice. So far all of their arguments have been pretty much thrown out of the window. 69 civilians killed, out of 17,500, is "ethnic cleansing". Looks like the blacks "ethnically cleansed" the whites in the Rodney King riot. Yopie - what would you like to rename the article to? Did you even bother reading it? Cause if you did, you would have noticed that it's already been renamed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All information is present in another article, and there is absolutely zero evidence of genocide of Georgians in South Ossetia. There was ethnic cleansing, but no more than the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the tie eater's forces in Tskhinval. As Offliner mentions above Genocide perpetrated by Georgia in South Ossetia is a most viable article, which if this article is kept, is looking more and more viable, particularly when looks at the google results. All top searches for 'genocide south ossetia' is in relation to accusations of genocide by Georgia in South Ossetia. Even worse, is that genocide took place in 1920, 1991-1992 and 2008 --- that's 3 articles that can be built --- well 4 actually --- one article could be an all encompassing article which goes into detail the long, long history of Georgians acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Ossetian people, with main articles for each of the acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing perpetrated against Ossetians. Read Georgia for Georgians for example, where Gamsakhurdia referred to Ossetians as "trash that has to be swept out through a tunnel" -- it is a doctrine and policy that is basically a recipe for genocide and ethnic cleansing, and it is little wonder that Saakashvili admires Gamsakhurdia (and Stalin too) given the genocide and ethnic cleansing that he ordered in August 2008. Anyone like to start those articles? --RussaviaDialogue06:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HRW doesn't confirm ethnic cleaning. "From this, Human Rights Watch has concluded that South Ossetian forces attempted to ethnically cleanse these villages. Approximately 22,000 villagers, the majority of whom had fled South Ossetia before the conflict started, remain displaced." Attempted murder isn't murder. Not the same thing. HRW placed in black and white, for people like you. Furthermore the Georgian population of South Ossetia is 17,500. 22,000 villagers lost property. So 4,500 non-Georgian villagers, lost property, according to British sources and HRW. Ethnic cleansing? Once again, if you want to talk about property damage, feel free to. But the HRW uses the word attempted. It's not hard at all to interpret the word attempted, as attempted. And also 2=2. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However ethnic cleansing has occurred before the war. Alex Bakharev has made a good suggestion with regard to renaming and expanding the scope to discuss ethnic cleansing from 1992 to the present day. --Martintg (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before the war more Ossetians then Georgians fled the region of combat. In addition, between 1989 and 2003, over 50,000 Russians left Abkhazia. Are you going to say that Russians were ethnically cleansed? Alex Bakharev's idea would be wonderful, if those pesky things called actual facts didn't get in the way. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title was changed, but the article's very first sentence still reads "2008 ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia, started during and after the 2008 South Ossetia war genocide of Georgian people was conducted in South Ossetia and other teritories occupied by Russian and South Ossetian force." The article's references appear to be poorly selected and misquoted. The NYT reference, for example, is titled "Ethnic Cleansing in South Ossetia?" and plainly says that [b]oth Russia and Georgia are accusing the other of ethnic cleansing. Some of the references don't even mention the term "ethnic cleansing" and one of them actually puts it in quotes[37]. The only two sources that demonstrate that some form of ethnic cleansing took place are The Norwegian Helsinki Committee and Human Rights Watch, and Human Rights Watch clearly states that All Parties in August/South Ossetia Conflict Violated Laws of War and that in a number of instances Georgian forces carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate artillery attacks on South Ossetia, and in some cases during their ground assault carried out attacks that had an excessive impact on civilians with respect to the anticipated military advantage.[38] Considering that the information is already present in 2008 South Ossetia war#Humanitarian impact and war crimes and Humanitarian impact of the 2008 South Ossetia war and that both of these articles appear to be much more balanced in their treatment of of the subject, my earlier recommendation—delete in accordance with WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, WP:POVFORK—remains unchanged. — Rankiri (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the renamed article still stays mostly POVed, of course. I beleive it's because it was only made to advance pro-Georgian POV in WP - from the very beginning. FeelSunny (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes war does produce refugees, just seems to be a bit weird that all the ethnic Georgian refugees were kicked out of South Ossetia. This is what makes it ethnic cleansing. Also I was unaware that Hurricane Katrina was a war or that Hurricane Katrina was a dominant ethnic group which forced mass expulsion on the population of New Orleans? I must be wrong. I suggest you take a look at a dictionary definition of the term "ethnic cleansing".
"thefreedictionary.com": "The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide./ the practice, by the dominant ethnic group in an area, of removing other ethnic groups by expulsion or extermination"[40]
"dictionary.reference.com": "the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration."[41]
"askoxford.com/concise_oed": "noun the mass expulsion or killing of members of an ethnic or religious group in an area by those of another."[42]
You are comparing 150 million in property damage and 69 deaths to the Holocaust?! Oh I cannot wait to see the Jewish response to this. And in Serbrenica, 8,000 people died. Not 80. You're off by only about 10,000 percent. But your arguments draw a great emotional response. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename It was a bad thing but not a genocide. Info is good and genocide should be mentioned if directly quoted but common sense says it was not a genocide. It could also be mereged into another article if it cannot fill enough space to make editors happy or is a blatant POV fork.Cptnono (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Complete speculation with non-concrete sources. RIM has not stated facts about the phone yet, everything is speculative. Doesn't conform to WP:CRYSTAL. Wait until phone is released with complete specs official from RIM. Ejfetters (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unconfirmed. Sure RIM is planning to release new devices in the future, but there is no source suggesting that it will be a Storm 9550 rather than something else. It would be better to wait until the release of such device is announced. McMarcoP (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Clearly doesn't pass WP:Pornbio, and its difficult to imagine how this could otherwise achieve Notability. Of the three cites, two are to bulletin board posts. Merely having a listing at the IAFD does not confer Notability. And that's all she's got; no awards, no nominations for awards. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So, just out of curiosity, how many of these little throw-away, direct-to-video porn films must a person appear in, in order to satisfy WP:ENT, in your opinion? Because I'm rather getting the impression your answer is any integer > 0. Suffice it to say, there's no indication that appearing in "over 30" of these little films meets WP:ENT, as can be readily ascertained by clicking on that link. And for the record, by adult film industry standards, 30 films is a very brief & minor career. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to pass any notability criteria. The links in the references don't seem to be reliable sources. If it can be shown that they're reliable, my !vote should be discounted. -- Noroton (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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:MUSIC totally; Hungarian Myspace band, yet to release their debut album (it's coming out in September through a non-notable Hungarian indie). No coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources, no extensive concert touring, no indication of notability whatsoever. Should have been an A7 speedy but the tag was removed by one of the Single Purpose Accounts that created the page and added the band's name to every other article they could think of. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because solitary album by above band, not yet released:[reply]
Delete both All content I've found in searches is from user-submitted sites. I'd have {{db-band}}'d this if I found it on new page patrol. The fate of the album seems to rest on the fate on the band, so I say delete both. Nosleepbreak my slumber11:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - I support whoever speedied it to begin with. Totally fails WP:MUSIC. Absolutely no sources on the album article to assert any kind of notability what-so-ever. The only non myspace source on the main band page is in Hungarian so I can't vouch for any content although it did appear to be an independent, journalistic site similar to ones like this. Regardless, one source on a website of contestable reliability with no claims to notability. Speedy. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Well DUH! ;-) I mean, redirect to whatever article exists for the base fictional universe and/or originating text. --EEMIV (talk) 19:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have said merge as usual, but on the basis of the above comment, it would be better to have it as a separate article, and link from the other locations. In any event there would surely be a redirect, so a deletion nomination is not appropriate. And if there are only 5 lines, perhaps we need to expand the discussion, wherever we put it. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 fictional planet. Article lacks references as well. A fictional planet, country, city, location etc. is something very common in... fiction. This doesn't imply that all are notable. Magioladitis (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:PLOT and others. No indication of any significance outside of the film, and much of the content is incorporated into the main film articles anyway. Fancruft and no signs of notability. —Darktalk09:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I might as well add the other related articles into this bundle. All full of non-encyclopedic plotlines etc. I fail to see what the use of a merge will do in the first 4 articles, and the fifth one contains nothing of value in an encyclopedia. Basic plotlines that does nothing but expand the cruft of the films. WP:SALAT and WP:NOT are good guidelines on this. —Darktalk09:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge into one article - the nominator may not see any value in character articles or plot summaries, but the characters are most certainly notable within the context of the movie and should be covered somewhere. Merely being a plot summary is a call for expansion, not a call for deletion. The role the characters lay in the movie ("the plot") is most certainly relevant to the character articles. Wikipedia is a work in progress and we should not remove information that would be valid in a completed version of the article (plot stuff) just because other valid information is currently missing (character development, real world impact - i.e. merchandising, etc.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I disagree that the film has achieved enough notability to warrant a cover of the characters in a separate page to the film articles. The mentioned character development and real world impact is non-existent. As far as I know, merchandise has not been created for the mentioned characters, nor has there been any social impacts of the film. As for character development, that is not verifiable. This differs from other character articles such as the Harry Potter character lists etc. where reliable and independent sources can be found given the large amount of success the films and movies have. Understandably, Wikipedia is a work in progress; but the character articles in question are not able to be developed much further apart from generating a more detailed plot summary. The main film articles have already included a extensive plotline (or rather, they have the potential to do so), outlining the roles of the characters, and I fail to see the importance at creating a separate page detailing the plot over and over again. This differs from articles such as Frodo Baggins or List of original characters in The Lord of the Rings film trilogy, where the information is extensive enough (success and extensive sourcing of the book and the film) to merit inclusion in several articles. —Darktalk06:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not the majority in practice, i.e. not the majority of actual article readers and writers, just a segment of those who however over guideline pages. Anyway, please note that I have indeed begun adding out of universe context on the significance of this character for which the actor was nominated for three awards in his performance and which is considered the big breakthrough role of a notable actor's career. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk15:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the List article and Remove any trivial, very minor characters. Spinning-out the characters into a sub-article is normal for fiction. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. The event made international news and has sparked an international debate about censorship. I hardly think it doesn't meet the notability requirements. The article could definitely use drastic expansion, though. bsmithme 08:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Gddoe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Keep, possibly rename. Either the blogger or the attack is highly notable. How this should be named is another matter. WP:ONEEVENT is just about that, and there are other venues to decide this, see WP:RM. Colchicum (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person has been known in Russian-language blogs for years for his coverage of the previous conflict in Abkhazia and he is gaining even more prominence, assuming iconic status among pro-democracy internet community of Russian-speakers.
--Bete (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Instigator of an international web attack with plenty of media coverage in reliable sources. Support renaming, perhaps to the users real name if that can be attained. -- Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)14:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The guy has become a symbol of modern cyber warfare. It is interesting to note that the nominator appears to be a single-purpose account with strikingly good knowledge of Wikipedia's AfD procedure.--KoberTalk14:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Neutral - I would say strong delete... 1000 ghits is doesn't exactly feel like a notable term - plus I think the advice is terrible. Reprehensible. Your stepkids are just as much your problem as your biological kids. But I think my anger towards any therapist who would give this advice would make it unfair for me to vote here. 7talk | Δ |08:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable. I find about 10 unique hits... the other 1,100 are because someone in a newsgroup has the acronym in his/her signature tag. Location (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, there are no speedy criteria that cover neologisms, whether they claim notability or not. A7 does not apply to neologisms. Anyway, delete, not notable and the therapist claim is unsourced, probably guesswork, and hopefully false. Hairhorn (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The opening line says it all really: "The Unauthorised Biography: Maximum Lostprophets is an unofficial report about the Welsh rock band Lostprophets". An unauthorised, unofficial documentary has no purpose having an article on wikipedia. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNGNouse4aname (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 was nominated previously and got an overwhelming and unanimous "delete", see here [51]. I can't see what's changed. No sources whatsoever, just a couple of lines of text written by an editor. It gives absolutely no indiciation of coverage in reliable sources or notability. WP:NEO, WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:OR all apply. Should be an open and shut case. Google news turns up about 100 results, but consider A) How many of those are actually authoritative heavy metal sources? B) How many of those are just describing Ill Nino with a convenient term? C) How many of those are actually describing a genre in detail, as opposed to using a simple phrase? This last one is particularly important, as if we made an article for every single random phrase used with "-metal" after it, we'd have hundreds of empty articles. Justgimmethedamnaccount (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC) — Justgimmethedamnaccount (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Abstain. The lack of sources prevents me from changing to "keep", however, Jmundo appears to be making an effort to build the article. ThaddeusB's is probably right on the "speedy delete" issue, too. Location (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. Repeated recreation of material previously deleted. 3 discussions and 3 articles without improvement is enough RadioFan (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm actually pretty sure Latin Metal does exist as a perhaps Notable subject (maybe Googling that phrase in Spanish & Portuguese would generate more hits?), but this article doesn't demonstrate its Notability, or even come remotely close (pretty difficult to do, with no sources). If someone wants to write a serious article on this topic, they should be permitted to do so. But this ain't it.KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The thing is, it probably does exist as a term. But not really as a genre: no doubt people use the term "Latin metal" to describe heavy metal with a latin flavour. But people use many such terms, just for convenience. Unless there are sources describing a genre in detail, then there isn't really a need for an article, which is unfortunately what a lot of users overlook. Justgimmethedamnaccount (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm surprised it's even taken this much, wish I'd noticed the "previously deleted" speedy clause, I missed that. As it is I tried a different speedy and a prod, neither worked and so it came to this. Daft really. Justgimmethedamnaccount (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand I don't like the smell of single purpose account nominator. Latin Metal doesn't exist? what about Puya (band) and other bands 1? Expand and fix the article, Wikipedia doesn't have a time limit for a perfect article. --Jmundo (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thaddeus. Not all the references in that search are entirely relevant--not all of them suggest we're dealing with a real genre here. But some of them do, such as this article, which refers to "Bilingual thrash, salsa-core, polyrhythmic Latin metal"--that sounds like a genre to me. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of those arguing for keep with those sources need to ask yourselves two questions: Firstly, how many of those can really be used as sources? How many are reliable on the subject in question? Many of those google results don't have a reputation within the world of music, certainly not heavy metal specifically, and as such cannot be used as authorities on it's genres. Secondly, how many are actually talking about the genre, and how many are just using the term (usually to describe Ill Nino)? The fact is, when you exclude those that aren't truly authoritative, and those that just use it as a term rather than describing it, you've got almost nothing left. As this article stands, it's next to worthless. Oh, and Jmundo please keep such suspicions to yourself: whether I formed this account for this purpose or not is irrelevant, and such comments on editors as opposed to edits could easily come under the heading of personal attacks. Justgimmethedamnaccount (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't tell me what I need to ask myself. Do you think we're all that stupid that we cannot ask such questions and make those determinations ourselves? If you want to convince others you should start by not patronizing them. Drmies (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to patronize, but I wouldn't need to explain things like that if you seemed to have spotted them for yourself, which you haven't by the looks of things. Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing for keep with such a feeble reasoning. Justgimmethedamnaccount (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you can admit to something. Still, I don't feel the need to respond to your objections--you obviously have your mind made up, and while you're here commenting on comments, I was working on the article. This AfD will be closed by an administrator, and whoever closes it will know, I imagine, how to judge references like this and this and this. As DGG has it on their user page, "I do not attempt to convert my opponents--I aim at converting their audience." Drmies (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand Agreed that the single purpose account nominator is a red flag. Seems like there might be an agenda at play. Lets expand and improve the article. Billbowery (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm impressed with the work to rescue the article. Also, kudos to Jmundo for finding the es.wikipedia article. p.s. Lay off the nominator. An IP editor prodded it, and I deprodded for procedural reasons - it had been prodded and deprodded already - and told them to register an account to send it to AfD. Fences&Windows23:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are some factual inaccuracies in the delete !votes. Namely, the article hasn't been recreated 3 times as the 1st AfD (Feb 2007) resulted in keep. The 2nd AfD (Mar 2007) came out delete based on the state of the article (a single sentence plus a list of bands) & GHITS counting. Salting the page certainly isn't appropriate for 1 recreation 2 years and 3 months later. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Loki, thanks for the link, but I don't think that that review provides a very strong argument for a merge, esp. if you look at statements like "Fed up with the nü-metal limitations of his old band, Ortiz formed Ankla as an outlet to create something fresh," combined with "Ankla builds a solid foundation for a new direction of Latin metal"--this suggests a difference from nu-metal. IN fact, this review is good grounds for adding Ankla to the Latin metal article. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the current version? The article has expanded since last night, thanks to Drmies. It now includes reliable sources and wikilinks to Spanish metal bands. We are not talking about the same article that was deleted before. --Jmundo (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references all seem to point the term "Latin" toward the band members of these supposed 'latin metal' bands. There can be a "latin" metal band. But there is no such thing as latin metal 'music'. A "genre" is a musical style, not an ethnic grouping. Wether B (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not correct--that is not what those references point at. They point, in fact, at salsa rhythms, at flamenco-influenced guitar playing, at bilingual vocals. Claiming that they only point at ethnicity is really a misreading of the sources, and I don't think you can prove that from a single one of those sources. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, the phrase "largely unrecognized 'World Metal' sub-genre" is really kind of funny. I won't be writing that article anytime soon. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even in this newly-cited form, how much of worth is there in this article? Most of the footnotes don't actually talk about "latin metal", most of them just use the phrase. Allmusic, for example: it doesn't give "latin metal" as a genre/style, it just uses the phrase as a convenient descriptor for a metal band that features some latin music elements, and that in itself isn't much good for supporting a whole article. Most of that "History" section isn't even related to "latin metal", but rather latin music with occasional mentions of heavy metal; and the rest is just a short band list. In addition, only half the sources really strike me as genuinely authoritative on rock music/heavy metal. Please read and consider my points, even if you ultimately disagree with them, that's all I ask. Justgimmethedamnaccount (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources look pretty solid, and I don't have any issues with the content (except that list sitting in the middle, that could be re-worked). Passes WP:N handily, in my opinion, and I've actually heard the phrase used IRL. --KingÖomie15:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources seem to refer to Metal that is Latin american not "Latin Metal" as a specific genre, making this original research/synthesis. Even still there are issues with notability and WP:UNDUE. Triplestopx316:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if the sources were only referring to "Metal music made by Latinos" (which does not appear to be the case) that wouldn't be a reason for deletion. "Isn't a real music genre" isn't a deletion criteria outlined in any policy document, but instead is a type of IDONTLIKEIT argument. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thaddeus. As I said above, the sources do not make any such statement. See, for instance, the Allmusicoverview of Ill Nino: "The New Jersey-based Latin metal sextet Ill Nino ... Most of its members are of South American descent, resulting in a type of music that combines crunchy heavy metal with Latin rhythms and lyrics that alternate between English and Spanish. ... to quote Chavarri, "The idea is to be as heavy as possible and as melodic as possible -- with a Latin twist")." The terminology here is crystal clear. The band comes from New Jersey, which is not a "Latin" state. Most of its members are "of South American descent" (and there's a lot more to South American than just Latin!), but not all. The remark on Latin rhythms and bilingual lyrics clearly establishes that we are dealing here NOT with a geographical or racial application of the term, but with a cultural one. In the same way that Celtic metal isn't necessarily made by Celts (whatever that may mean today), Latin metal isn't metal made by "Latins" or in "Latinia" (it's made in New Jersey, California, Spain, Argentina, etc.). Drmies (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Article could use expansion but from his credits looks notable. I'm not familiar with his German works, but as a note he had an entry in the German Wiki long before his latest role. I know that's not a reason on it's own, but IMHO adds a bit of weight to his earlier work.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Who the hell was Walter Willis before Pulp Fiction?
Keep I am linking to his page right now in his capacity as a director of plays by Aeschylus for German TV. Delete Quentin's page instead. Isn't everyone tired of him by now? Varlaam (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the PROD: No context of what this is. Seems like madeup story. I also cannot find anything that can provide any verifability of this game or the story behind it. MuZemike07:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – OK, I'm at a loss of words here. It looks like most of the article is a copypaste of Pooyan, but at the same time the creator of the article, mostly per [54], changes the article to something completely different or whatever. Here, the creator changed it back [55]. Is this some sort of a practical joke? MuZemike14:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete obvious hoax. Even the sources link to Pooyan sources from which this article was obviously copied from. Still the concept of the game is some-what amusing :p -- Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. This is a wonderful blog piece and inspiring in its novel synthesis but we are lacking actual encyclopedic content that supports a stand alone article. Absent a stubbifying process that removes all the original research and replaces it with reliable sourcing to demonstrate the need for a stand alone article I think this has to be deleted. A protected redirect to group sex may encourage the creator to build a reliably sourced and non-original research version in their userspace instead. -- Banjeboi07:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This type of activity is already covered in group sex in the "daisy chain" section, which is a much more common name for this. Not enough to write to merit a separate article on the subject, and if there were, it should not be under a neologistic title. Every few years teenagers think they have invented some clever sex act, without understanding that they already exist under established names; these don't all need separate articles. Protected redirect would be fine too, if anyone finds a reliable source showing the term has any popularity.YobMod07:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is covered elsewhere, and is not sufficiently Notable to warrant its own article, anyway. Plus, I have never heard this term before in my life (and suffice it to say I have not lived a sheltered one). I've heard of "pulling a train" on probably hundreds of occasions, but "trainfuck?" I don't think people really say that. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect. Beat me to the AfD. I can't find a single reliable source that even uses "trainfuck"; the only hit for "train fuck" in this context seems to be Gay-2-zee: a dictionary of sex, subtext, and the sublime. DF Reuter - 2006 - St. Martin's Griffin. The author of the article was using far too much original research and synthesis. It might be a slang phrase using in porn or the gay scene, but it's not a notable one. Fences&Windows16:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the article's creator has effectively supported deletion by redirecting the article to List of sex positions (the redirect was undone while this AFD is open, however). Exploding Boy (talk) 06:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. The article is not unsourced, and this was pointed out in the previous AFD - which, btw, was a keep. If it contains apparent nonsense, you clean it up. If it's got bleeding links, you delink. WP:BLP may be in violation, but I don't think so here. This is an article that can be fixed up, but there's no need to nuke it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire premise for deletion is that the average reader (such as myself) is not able to discern the meaning or context of the article. Thus I think it is imprudent to befall us with the responsibility of cleaning it up. If you look at the history of the article it has been problematic from the beginning and nobody with an apparent understanding of the meaning of the article has ever bothered to clean it up after its first nomination. This in my opinion warrants it for nomination even if it's a second time. -- bsmithme 06:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Alright, this is a fluff piece that really needs work, and I strongly disagree that this is a notable subject. However ... the main source I read isn't a couple of fluff promotional paragraphs; it's a lengthy, indepth article put out by the Los Angeles Times. It's tough to argue that this doesn't pass WP:GNG, more's the pity. Ravenswing 23:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if I assume that the LA Times blog is RS (which I don't, necessarily) it's a good example of why the policies for notability demand multiple references. A single swallow does not make a summer. Not notable = delete. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 nominated for deletion before. Not only was nothing done to clean up any of the deletion concerns since then, none of the "keep" votes even argued the notability of the subject. Simply put, this is a non-notable fictional team that only appears in a single comic book series. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rewrite. The subject is notable, albeit marginally, but the sourcing and the out-of-universe references are missing, and it needs editing. McMarcoP (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unreferenced, biased, original research which appears (based on proper noun capitlization) to be a setup for promoting a blog of exactly the same name. PROD'd and communicated with author multiple times but they have deproded without improvement or comment. Any evidence of any actual hysteria should be sourced and added to the existing global warming article. 7talk | Δ |03:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is getting itself a bad name by only allowing one side of the climate debate to be heard. This entry provides a modicum of balance. It should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.117.100 (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The idea behind refusing to allow content forks is that it is a way out of reaching consensus on what to include in the main article. Sometimes the "losing" side creates the fork article to get their way, and sometimes a member of the majority in the main article creates the fork to purge the material from "their" article. Abductive (reasoning)06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP has both sides of this debate. Please see here as well as it's see-also sections like this. Please contribute reliably sourced information there. Thanks 7talk | Δ |06:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an (inherently) biased content fork, if content relating to this subject is encyclopedic there are already established articles where it should go. In its current form it is essentially a dictionary definition. Hut 8.512:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
keep The article seems to cite four references. A high ranked pod cast, would seem at least as notable as a TV show and TV shows are notable. If it is a popular podcast people will be searching for in seeking more information so the article will be of value to them, but it could use some expansion.TeamQuaternion (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy delete - neither having its articles user-submitted to places like Digg.com, nor having "several comments" posted about its articles, is an indication of importance.
Comment the original version of this article said that "The site was named "Website Of The Month" by the Official Australian Xbox Magazine in its October 2006 issue", which is an assertion of significance. It was removed without explanation. Hut 8.512:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
whilst Mongolia has a resident embassy, Egypt doesn't. I've checked the first 70 articles of gnews search [56], yes there was 2 or 3 high level visits and police going for training but not much else. yes they have some coooperation (not as strong as a trade or similar) agreements [57] but doesn't have hardly any third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep depending on the extent to which the embassy in Cairo is a link to Mongolia's relations with other nations. In looking at List of diplomatic missions of Mongolia, there is no indication that Mongolia has an embassy anywhere else in Africa or in the Middle East, or (with the exception of France) any other nation on the Mediterranean Sea. It's unclear why Mongolia started a relationship with Gamel Nasser's regime 45 years ago, or has continued to have representation since then; unlike most of this type articles, I can see the potential for more. Mandsford (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nasser had Soviet backing, and Mongolia was a Soviet puppet state (I don't think either of those assertions are in dispute), which probably explains why Mongolia sought to establish diplomatic relations shortly before the Suez conflict; because the USSR was trying to use the dubious distinction of diplomatic relations with Mongolia (presumably, in conjunction with other measures) to foster a positive image for Nasser's regime, in the lead-up to Nasser's Soviet-backed move on Suez. I doubt anyone in the present Mongolian regime is even aware of this, and that the Embassy persists entirely due to inertia. History buffs like me, and perhaps the guy who voted before me, may find such trivia interesting...but it doesn't justify a whole article. And frankly, if my OR explanation is inaccurate, well, any other explanation is liable to be less interesting (and even less Notable). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I doubt anyone in the present Mongolian regime is even aware of this, and that the Embassy persists entirely due to inertia" That may have been intended as humorous, but I think that what is suggested about the intelligence of people in Mongolia is offensive. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suppose the Battle of Ain Jalut is relevant. There is nothing in the title that says the article only discusses current relations. I have added this and other content. Nothing out of the ordinary, but a verifiable and notable ongoing relationship - plenty of independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relations between these countries are notable. The high level visits which were covered by the press were even mentioned by the nominator. This article has also been substantially improved bringing to light the long relations between these two peoples.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 individual unreferenced article. No GNEWS hits for ("Prakash Chand" "Chand Group") and no substantial GHits for ("Prakash Chand" "Chand Group"). Perhaps a hoax. SPA used to remove CSD. Appears to fail WP:BIOttonyb1 (talk) 02:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Duplication of material already in multiple articles. A non-notable event, irrespective of whether some people think it "sounded cool". (One day in Chicago during the late 1980s, somebody broadcast a clip of a person wearing a mask and waving a flyswatter around. Over in a minute, it was largely soon forgotten.) Nothing is present here that isn't in the other articles, nor is this a plausible redirect. Therefore, deletion not merging is appropriate.
Poorly sourced, the references are generally a snippet-piece news item of the time or, free websites which parrot the news item, or YouTube. My Lexis-Nexis search returned only a filler piece or two. Beyond that I was unable to find any substantive sources.
Despite the show not being referenced in the broadcast at all, an episode of the series which happened to be airing at the time has it repeated in its own article; it's been removed several times. I'd have thought the article on the news station, which it momentarily interrupted, wouldn't include it; unfortunately it's been added there as well. For whatever reason, perhaps an idealistic anti-authoritarianism appeal, mentions of it and repetitions of the material are frequently inserted by IPs and occasionally blocked users. The only links to it are a) IP-editor Talk page vandalism warnings and similar, b) repetitions in various articles, in which it generally doesn't belong c) desperately tenuous claimed links:
November 22 & 1987 (as claim of its importance to those overall)
Doctor Who in North America (formerly in main Doctor Who article, discussion implies it was put here, where it doesn't belong either, to pacify those adding it there)
Exile (Doctor Who audio) (one of several unreferenced (likely OR) December, 2008 anon-IP additions)
Clutch Cargo (bizarre original research single sentence)
Postings on A/N, spamreports board (appears to be spam magnet, e.g. the three IPs all at University of Miami), 3RR board, etc.
If it should be mentioned onsite at all, it should be limited to the main "Max Headroom (character)" page, perhaps a mention on "Broadcast signal intrusion". The subject of this AfD just duplicates that existing coverage, with redundant scene-by-scene or moment-by-moment description and verbose wording. Whitehorse101:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable, but it seems that there is cleanup necessary on other articles, because this is the title where the information should be. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Obviously notable" based on what? There are virtually no sources. No analysis. No reliably sourced suggestion of importance. Not that I could find on Lexis-Nexis, Google News, JSTOR, etc. Notable, requires sufficient reliable sources to have taken notice already. A YouTube clip is not a reliable source. A 'light news' snippet at the time (and, all such few news snippets, saying the same brief thing, were between November 23, 1987, and November 30) is not significant, nor sufficient for an article. –Whitehorse104:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sorta mentions it. I re-checked the filler-item on seeing your comment: "..., a spokesman for WTTW, Channel 11 said..." (Assoc. Press Nov. 23, '87). The article just doesn't mention the channel #. –Whitehorse105:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The signal intrusion made the news outside of Chicago in the Philadelphia Inquirer and San Francisco Chronicle (available on ProQuest; search for "Max Headroom Moons Chicago"). It's also been discussed at varying lengths in several books published several years after the incident: [58], [59], [60]. The page could use some cleanup, but it's not hopeless, and I think an independent article is the best way to present this information. Zagalejo^^^05:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd link you cited, on your gbooks search string '"max headroom" wgn', is 11/2 small sentences. A mere mention. As for the other 2, they're no preview. What discussion are you asserting is in them? (WP:GHITS?) As far as the Philadelphia (news?) short article goes, I don't think I have access to that paper under it. The abstract, is visible though. It includes "But the bogus "Max" appeared to be but a pale shadow of the real TV hero. The real Max, a futuristic computer-generated character, was full of offbeat humor and routinely saved the world, although he couldn't save his own short-lived series on ABC." Literally word for word identical to the Associated Press (Dateline: Chicago) piece—see my comment above. I note the character article's just 5.4k; and, minutiae aside, contains all the info. There is sparse information as no substantive reliable sources have come to light. Please, if you're willing, could you explain your belief that repeating that in an independent article best supports its presentation? –Whitehorse106:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can access both of those articles in ProQuest. I only compared them to each other, and they are definitely different from each other. The Inquirer piece is 432 words long, while the San Francisco Chronicle article is 324 words long. To name one specific content-related difference: the first article quotes WTTW spokesperson Anders Yocum, while the second quotes WGN engineer Wally Wright and FCC spokesperson Christine Jelinek. Both articles offer fairly informative recaps of the incident. The first one may indeed be a reprint of an AP article, but the second appears unique, as far as I can tell.
Yes, the books don't devote that much space to the incident, but IMO, the short mentions are enough to push the incident beyond NOTNEWS status. And I think the information is best presented in an independent article because, IMO, the subject is just as relevant to the history of WGN, WTTW, etc as it is to Max Headroom. One merge topic does not seem any better than the others, so we might as well just leave the article as it is. (That said, I wouldn't necessarily stop you from merging this to Max Headroom (character), as long as you agreed to preserve most of the detail in the present article - which I know is mostly verifiable.) Zagalejo^^^06:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, they're both small w/low wordcounts; all the pieces are pretty much identical. As for those two names, the 333-word Chicago Tribune article includes *both*. That's a near carbon copy of all the other articles. No, I don't want to be rude here, but I really think we're at crossed purposes. There IS nothing to merge, because minutiae aside it's all covered in the other articles, which I linked. If a merger was the suitable option then I would not have brought it to AfD, I would've brought it to Proposed Mergers or even merged it. As for the sourced detail, there's mainly unreliable sourcing there plus 'echo chambered' similar news fillers. How do you know there are even short mentions in those books? A search hit proves nothing. They're not browseable online; there's a picture of the cover and a synopsis, which include no information on this topic. –Whitehorse107:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can view all the relevant pages in those books. No, none of them contain substantial analysis, but they do all mention the incident. Maybe you should try again later (or look for the books on Amazon, and see if you can preview the pages there.) Zagalejo^^^07:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re merging: I believe that at least two or three paragraphs of information on this topic is fair. The sources (especially the John Camper one for the Chicago Tribune) did describe the event in some detail. And I don't want to get into a debate over whether or not the details are "minutiae", because that's all subjective. I've said enough here. I'll leave it to others to chime in. Zagalejo^^^07:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A procedural request, please try not to change your comment after people reply? (I get you were tweaking, but it makes it harder for others to follow the discussion.) In any event, your links provided no substantive material. Merely mentioning it...is a mere mention. Right now the verifiability (particularly in terms of lacking sufficient sources to build encyclopedic content), notnews, notability (which, is very much not the sole issue), and duplication issues remain clear. –Whitehorse107:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no suggestion nothing ever occurred. No sufficient reliable sourcing (bar the small contemporaneous news filler items) have come to light though. You know it's already amply-covered in the character (and broadcast sig. int) articles, right? –Whitehorse106:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, are these sorts of intrusions common? These incidents are an eerie precursor for the Guy Fawkes masked intruder in V for Vendetta (film). If they happened a lot in that era, or have occurred with some regularity in the history of broadcast TV, one could make the case that this one is nothing special, that it is news of the five-legged farm animal variety. Abductive (reasoning)07:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this book says it was "pretty unusual". (Whitehorse says he can't view it, but I can. And you can also find the page (53) with Amazon's preview. (I just checked.) Zagalejo^^^07:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the book reference found by Zagalejo says that this was "pretty unusual", "incredibly expensive and difficult" and "the most recent" in US history. Given that the book was published in 2008, that means 21 years have passed without a similar incident. Abductive (reasoning)07:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I managed to read it on Amazon (and it was the pg Zagalejo said). Details beyond those given in the news attention over those few days spanned only that small sentence tho. fwiw the lack of subsequent incidents derives from introduced contingency plans and backup channels (why one lasted only 25s) mentioned in one of the articles at the time. –Whitehorse108:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)(meant to say: "spanned only that 'pretty unusual' point tho") Whitehorse1[reply]
So, this incident resulted in a change to the way that TV stations worldwide operate that continues to this day? (Or at least until June 12, 2009, the digital switchover day.) Abductive (reasoning)08:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a huge leap. Details mentioned in one of the newsitems are the earlier WGN-TV one lasted only 25s, because the engineers just flicked a switch; the other, on noncommercial WTTW (less $ for staff?), 90s since they didn't have a contingency plan (which might be "hey, lets keep someone on duty who can flick a switch" "yes, lets"), apparently. Every other TV station in the world might well (like WGN-TV) have already had and continue to have such measures. –Whitehorse108:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's all OR territory in the absence of sources that give more than passing mention, and have content beyond reiterating the news statements, past the possible repackaging of station PR comments (e.g oh, we're secure; exceptional case that would've taken specialist knowledge/equipt; it's pretty unusual?) –Whitehorse108:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I was getting at was; the fact that these reliable sources are saying stuff about the ramifications of these intrusions all these years later is saying that it is notable. If these intrusions were only remembered on a few hackers' blogs, then they wouldn't be notable. If this was an article on a particular streaker at a football game from 1987, I might be inclined to say it wasn't notable. But intrusions like these have never happened since, almost a human generation later. Abductive (reasoning)08:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where I was going with that was, there aren't any reliable sources saying anything beyond mere mentions (and, for the most part, reiterating points from the contemporary newsitems). I mean, zero analysis, no counterculture-focused academic material specifically exploring it, no study about its impact, no sources saying transmitter/satellite security improved as a direct result of it, etc., to actually build an encyclopedic article. There may've been no other incidents, but correlation does not equal causation. Maybe nobody felt the urge to repeat it, maybe the ordinary progression of improvements in broadcast technology over the years mean it's not something that could happen anymore, maybe any number of things. What's left is news snippets at the time, non-RS hacker blogs as you say, and basic references to the incident. I'd never suggest it's beneath all mention, and it exists fine in the other one or two articles; here though, each and every facet is detailed. –Whitehorse109:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Or at least until June 12, 2009, the digital switchover day." I don't mean to sound rude or like I'm attacking you, but please remember that there are Wikipedians outside the United States - the United Kingdom is gradually being switched-over between now (well, 2007) and 2012. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done)09:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not keep? If the event is related in so many places across Wikipedia, so why not have a central article where the info is detailed and referenced? Another option would be to have the material moved to a central article like Broadcast signal intrusion and create a redirect to this article, but the length of the material might create an imbalance in the "Broadcast signal intrusion" article. If is is PR biased toward stations' security, then the bias can probably be balanced. olivier (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Among ;) My points was it really *isn't* related to so many places, and is ill-placed in many of the articles into which it's been added. The most appropriate place is the character article, where it already is, just more verbose here, and mentioned in due weight in the B.Sig.Int. article. –Whitehorse109:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[61] another GBook source, from 1995. Note that it has a tiny superscript number 25, meaning this intrusion was the subject of scholarly interest 8 years after it happened. Abductive (reasoning)10:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:( It's the same. I don't know why GBooks isn't letting me preview some of these; viewed it on Amazon again though. A slightly different edition, so it was subscript 28. The #28 was in the notes section, just listing all the works the author referenced. Those works were the same newspaper refs we were looking at earlier. The actual page with the citation was a brief rehash of the trio of incidents (this, Playboy Channel one, another), giving pretty much the same information as the newspaper pieces it sourced from, which is pretty much the same information in the broadcast signal intrusion article on here. In terms of using it as a source, given its the same content it'd be the same as using news reports solo. There was no actual scholarly comment. No psychological analysis, anything. –Whitehorse110:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Streaker in football game, 1987; brief flurry of news stories and nothing further; not notable. Max Headroom hijacks TV signals, 1987; brief flurry of news stories, commentary in books and other reliable sources continues to present day; notable. Abductive (reasoning)11:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there isn't commentary in books and other reliable sources. You've just repeated, as the last item in the comment thread, the commment you made at 08:56, where we already established lack of substantive coverage. –Whitehorse119:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--there really shouldn't be much dispute about notability, and the above contributors have given plenty of examples. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Again comments seemingly spuriously throwing out the word "notable" despite the fact no sources have come to light taking sufficient notice to actually discuss and explore anything. (Not to mention the aspects beside notability.) Merely mentioning it regurgitating the basic facts in the news minireports from the week it happened = nothing substantive. If news reports aren't suitable for Wikipedia then basic parrot reciting of what's in them during passing mention in a source doesn't magically transform them or change that. –Whitehorse117:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Settle down. Yelling the same stuff at every editor who is convinced of the notability of this topic does not help your case, and makes you sound like you're parroting yourself. I look forward to an apology where you tell me you really didn't mean to accuse me of rehashing what others have said. Drmies (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon? Nobody in this community discussion has been yelling or otherwise verbally aggressive. Also, my general outdented comment was not specifically directed to you, and certainly contained no personal accusation toward you. –Whitehorse122:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could consider reading your own comments carefully before interpreting them for me. Spuriously...regurgitating...parrot... But you said "pardon" and I accept your apology. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The matter of actual decent source material being present or absent aside, the nomination & discussion simply isn't limited to wp:n. I appreciate these discussions often can incorrectly tend to focus on that to exclude all other issues, such as duplication, but please lets try and look at the matter overall. –Whitehorse119:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable incident which is still mentioned today, ex. after the pornographic interruption during the Super Bowl, many articles mentioned this incident. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course it was notable. It was the only successful intrusion ever (I believe). It sounds like this person **may** be affiliated with the station or in some other way annoyed that this article exists - I don't see how any reasonable person could possibly believe that deleting an informational article because "it only lasted less than a minute" is appropriate. Please also remove the Kent State Shootings, as it lasted under a minute and was over. Please delete every assassination, as they lasted less than a minute so they're not really a big deal. Danfm1 (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable even without "proper" sources, this is one of the only major signal intrusions in broadcasting history. Feel free to look around at some of the articles related to invertebrates, tons of those are held afloat by only one source, and that provides no information, just the fact that the thing exists. Unless you have found a way to take something like this that is obviously notable and make it completely disappear from public record, there is no reason to even consider deleting it. If you would like to delete some of the links to the page, that is fine/reasonable; deleting the article just because of those links is not. Subverted (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repeating stuff, to clarify the afd concerns an article that is a duplicate (not 'summary style') of information in another article. Mentioning sources not previously used in the article (Chicago Tribune) is not the action of someone wishing to make anything completely disappear from public record! I probably won't take up your suggestion to browse invertebrate articles, but I wouldn't suggest they shouldn't have an article; just, not multiple articles on the same one. Thanks, Whitehorse1.18:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I had not voted a "why not keep?" before, I would close the case as a "keep" at this point. All opinions, except the one of Whithorse1 are in favor of keeping the article. The event was noted and of is importance in the history of broadcasting, if it really was "the last major TV pirating event in the US". It also generates abundant interest (see the length of this page). Whitehorse1 is essentially saying that the content should be in Wikipedia, somewhere in an article, but should not have its own article. Whitehorse1 seems also to disagree with the prose of the article which looks like overemphasizing the current security of the networks involved. I can address 2 points here: 1) if the content of the article is biased, it can be rewritten, nobody has objected to this. 2) where the content of this article belongs, if not in a separate article, probably depends on one's background. Whithorse1 is suggesting that it belongs to the Max Headroom (character) article, I personally would rather see it in the Broadcast signal intrusion article, and some others might see it in the one of the networks' article. Again, having the material in its own article ensures that it is maintained and referenced easily in one place. Just keep it separate and reduce the amount of text in the articles mentioning it - again, no-one is objecting to this. So just bring another admin over to close the case and all go have a walk in the park and/or send flowers to your secret lover. If you have time and interest, go and browse the invertebrate articles. Finally, on a personal note, thank you for putting this article on AfD, thus bringing it to my attention: the videos are hilarious. Now, if you have no park, no secret lover and no interest in invertebrates, just compare this to another extremely minor event, The Bus Uncle (featured article!) which became very big because of internet. If youtube had existed back in 1987, no doubt the Max Headroom broadcast would have been a much bigger deal. olivier (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you've asserted 'things I said', it's best to clear up confusion and misinterpretation. I can't determine how you infer an objection to the prose of 'over-emphasizing current security of the networks', from reference to trivial detail or verboseness. My suggestion wasn't the content "belongs instead" to one article, Max Headroom (character), over this one. What I said was that it is less verbosely already in that article. It's easier to maintain fewer articles than many. We use summary style, which is distinct from a fork, to fully explore topic aspects without overburdening a longer parent article, which here is only 5.4kb. It's necessary to address subjects in more than one article, like Broadcast signal intrusion, in covering main areas of the article topic. Incidentally, by contrast the Bus Uncle incident generated vigorous and substantial cultural, lifestyle, etiquette, and ethics debate, discussion and analysis. Nonetheless, I second your advice to everyone to enjoy nature and rekindle relationships. Have a pleasant day. –Whitehorse121:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(interject) The word choice 'misinterpretation' was deliberate. Manipulation is loaded and unsuitable, implying bad faith motive, none of which seemed or seem present. The segment about their downplaying the incident is a dependent clause in a sentence, that lacks context when divorced from the rest. As you indicate uninterest in continuing conversation, there isn't much point to my replying to your questions. Be well. –Whitehorse115:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2: since I do not want others to think that I am manipulating what you had said previously, here it is:
Whitehorse1: "possible repackaging of station PR comments (e.g oh, we're secure; exceptional case that would've taken specialist knowledge/equipt; it's pretty unusual?) "
Whitehorse1: "The most appropriate place is the character article, where it already is"
So now that you have given your opinion extensively, why don't you just say clearly what you suggest? 1) delete? 2) merge and if so where? olivier (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
This article seems to go in great detail about a single scientist's theory of identity in Sociology. It doesn't establish any notability, goes into irrelevant technical detail and background information, relies heavily on a single source by the creator of the theory (Peter Burke), and the sub-section on Peter Burke seems like self-promotion. This article has existed for a long time without significant improvement. Until there are sources that demonstrate this isn't original research, it should be deleted. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about, for starters,
Jonathan H. Turner (2005). "Peter J. Burke's Identity Control Theory". In Jan E. Stets (ed.). The sociology of emotions. Cambridge University Press. pp. 124–133. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
? It even has a picture, on page 125. Or you can read about Identity Control Theory on pages 221–224 of
Timorthy J. Owens (2003). "Self and Identity". In John D. DeLamater (ed.). Handbook of social psychology. Springer. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
. Or you can read the "Another View of Identity Control" section of
L. Smith-Lovin (2002). "Roles, Identities, and Emotions: Parallel Processing and the Production of Mixed Emotions". In Yoshihisa Kashima; Margaret Foddy; Michael Platow (eds.). Self and identity: personal, social, and symbolic. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. pp. 136–137. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
. Or you can read the "Identity Control Theory" section on pages 119–120 of
Lynn Rew (2004). "Theories of Self: Identities and Self-Care". Adolescent health: a multidisciplinary approach to theory, research, and intervention. SAGE. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
Because there are no parenthetical referencing or footnotes for the references cited, it was difficult to tell whether the works cited specifically mention Identity control theory or whether they were just cited for information related to the theory. If this is a new but prominent theory in Sociology and Social Psychology, and not merely the work of one scientist that has yet to be accepted, it should be kept but definitely re-written. Based on what you've just said, assuming the sources you cited are legitimate, I agree with you: it should be kept but re-written. ☯Zenwhat (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are no parenthetical referencing or footnotes for the references cited — False. I refer you to the first sentence of the "functions" section of the article for just one example of many:
The functions of coping resposes are to reduce stress; they help restore an equilibrium (Foulton, 1982).
See that "(Foulton, 1982)" there? That's a parenthetical cross-reference to one of the works cited in the references section. Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for the time being, but I'm wondering what influence WP:NOT PAPER has here. Policy regarding scientific journals and research papers states: "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic." It would be nice if the article started "Identity control theory is..." because I cannot figure it out. Do any of the above references explicitly state what it is? Location (talk) 11:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't have access to the references and I cannot find it explicitly stated in the one online link, perhaps you could rewrite the introductory sentence with "Identity control theory is..." Just one sentence. Location (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite - My understanding of WP:NOT PAPER is to do with the way the article is written as opposed to the sources. Using published scientific papers is fine under WP:RS. The article demonstrates notability and all that jazz so I'm sure it should be kept. However Location is write to say it is written to a standard in the area that most readers will not be at -- Cabe6403(Talk•Sign)14:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve and source, maybe one scientist's idea but Google Scholar doesn't come empty, 1. Instead of discussing about deleting why we don't fix and expand the article including all these academic sources? --Jmundo (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio concerns have been addressed, there seems to be a strong consensus to suggest that the magazine is not sufficiently notable. –Juliancolton | Talk17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Local, free magazine. Claims to be nationally recognised but provides no evidence to this effect. Indeed provides no evidence that it is notable within Portland, Oregon. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michigan State University Libraries, Special Collections Division, Reading Room Index to the Comic Art Collection MSU Reading Room Index
Search page for Exotic Magazine.
"Frank Miller, Comics' Most Sinful Hero" / scripted by
Phillip Ray Simon. p. 15 in Exotic Magazine (Portland,
Ore.), v. 3, no. 12 (June 1996). -- Brief article on Miller
(cover story). -- Call no.: HQ450.E9v.3no.12
Exotic Magazine is the onlysex industry publication in the region and supports the industry through news coverage, editorial, photography and advertising.
My point wasn't to use Wikipedia as a source for itself. The point was that Exotic Magazine was mentioned as a main media format in Portland, Oregon which should suggest notability in Portland. All other media forms mentioned in the entry have at least a stub page (aside from the now defunct BarFly Magazine). In the case of Just Out and The Portland Mercury, I would definitely be interested to know why they haven't been put through this same level of scrutiny concerning notability as I am sure it is common practice to apply all Wikipedia guidelines uniformly (regardless of the subject matter of the topic).
Concerning your last two comments, I felt that it indirectly helped to prove notability that Portland, Oregon is known to have the most adult business per capita and that Exotic Magazine is the only media form in the region that supports this widespread industry. bryan 04:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryanbybee (talk • contribs)
The third party references were in the form of video and it was not completely clear as to how this should be placed in the article (due to direct nudity as well as external linking). Bryanbybee (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can reference the videos using normal <ref></ref> tags, or a normal link, so long as it isn't a copyright violation. Wikipedia is not censored. The JPStalk to me14:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources showing notability. Articles have to be verifiable, and this is. there is no rule about making editors jump through hoops adding sources, if the sources are shown to exist. The nominator is supposed to search for sources themselves before nominating, not just assume they don't exist. If a newbie editor adds sources to the talk page, that is not a reason to delete - it should be a reason to help said newbie.YobMod09:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your insight, Yob. I noticed the following points on the Articles for deletion page, but couldn't understand why they weren't being applied in this case, hence my original feelings posted on the Talk:Exotic Magazine page that the topic's content must be playing a role in the matter.
When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.
Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator or notifying an associated wikiproject, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
Delete. None of the sources mentioned or listed in the article appears to be a substantial piece about the magazine, rather they are passing mentions. Unless a better source establishing notability can be supplied, it should be deleted for lack of notability. If such a source is supplied, the article should be cut back to a stub reflecting basic facts from that source, as the present content is not at all in compliance with Wikipedia content or style guidelines. -Pete (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's really nothing that states notability. Just because something has been mentioned in passing doesn't mean that it is well-known. Sources need more solidity (for example, an article in a reliable newspaper on the magazine would be great). Master of PuppetsCall me MoP! :D00:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've stated this previously but it has (oddly) gone unanswered... Exotic Magazine was mentioned as a main media format in Portland, Oregon's Wikipedia entry (under the media subsection) which would suggest notability in Portland (why mention something that isn't worth talking about?) All other media forms mentioned in the entry have at least a stub page (aside from the now defunct BarFly Magazine). In the case of Just Out and The Portland Mercury, where are the sources stating notability??? I would definitely be interested to know why these entries haven't been put through this same level of scrutiny concerning notability as I am sure it is common practice to apply all Wikipedia guidelines uniformly (regardless of the subject matter of the topic). bryan (talk • contribs) 05:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"..When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.""bryan (talk • contribs) 06:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, both the article on Just Out and on the Mercury contain reliable sources supporting a claim of notability. That's not to say you couldn't nominate them for deletion. In this discussion though, we're here to discuss the merits of Exotic in terms of our inclusion criterion, not other unrelated publications. -Pete (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Just Out is referencing a blog entry from a local website and The Portland Mercury is referencing the AAN (Association of Alternative Newsweeklies) which is no more than paying for a membership and getting a listing on their site. The The Portland Mercury's listing on the AAN's is no different than Exotic Magazine's listing on Strip Club Publications and other "membership-based" sites. Concerning deletion of these other publications, of course I wouldn't nominate either of them because they ARE notable media forms within Portland, Oregon but if they were being scrutinized in the same fashion as Exotic Magazine's sources and references are, they would most certainly face deletion -- and this is my point. bryan (talk • contribs) 08:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Just Out, I stand corrected. Usually the content on blog.oregonlive.com qualifies as RS (it would be a major tangent to explain that), but in this case you're absolutely right. However, searching the Oregonian's archives, there's a similar article about their 5th anniversary in 1988, so I'll replace that citation.
Regarding the Mercury, no, the source is fine. It may not be sufficient to establish notability, but it certainly supports a claim of notability, and it's certainly a reliable source for the fact it's use to support. Your analogy is incorrect, because it's not a mere paid listing; an organization like the AAN has its own standards for accuracy. Also see my comments about audits, below. -Pete (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To go into a bit more detail. What follows is not a policy-based argument, but is meant to explain some of the context behind my position. I am a longtime resident of Portland, and am familiar with all three publications.
Exotic, as I understand it, is generally a trade publication, meant to promote an industry, more than it is a news-breaking publication. This is not a value judgment, but provides some context for its importance in a community. The Mercury is an active member of the Portland media community, and competes to break stories, etc. Just Out aims to serve LGBT community in a variety of ways. Both publications take editorial positions. Exotic, by contrast, has a very high ratio of advertising to copy. There is indeed copy that is substantive; however, I don't believe there's any policy for adherence to journalistic ethics as far as keeping a strong distinction between advertising and editorial. So the advertising content may be effectively more than what is immediately obvious as advertising. All of this suggests that Exotic does not really even seek to distinguish itself as a publication in the way that the Mercury or Just Out do; those other pubs are routinely discussed in other media for the editorial positions they take, etc. I don't think this is the case for Exotic. Exotic generally exists to make money through advertising. I suspect there are many similar magazines out there in other markets, and I doubt they differ significantly in their content. (This is not to say there isn't the occasional bit of unique content.)
The Mercury has an independently-cited, audited circulation of about 40,000. Exotic publishes its own figures, but makes no mention of audits: 30,000 print run, 70,000 circulation. Presumably, they're basing these numbers off multiple people reading an individual issue. This is exactly the sort of thing an independent auditing firm is needed to verify.
Yes. It's a complete waste of everybody's time and energy. It's a blatant copvio, it's undeniably advertising, since it was copied from the magazine's presskit; there's a consensus to delete, once you discount the !vote and comments of the article creator, who turns out to be an employee of the magazine [63]. Just speedy delete it as is the normal process for cases like this, and in the unlikely event a legitimate editor chooses to write a legitimate article on the subject in the future, the question can be looked at in a different light. Stick a fork in it, it's done. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you've decided to ignore the process called for by [[WP:COPYVIO], the only way to handle the current article is to delete since the article is completely unsourced and lacks anything resembling an assertion of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo, I think Tedder's action is entirely consistent with WP:COPYVIO, which explicitly states that if the poster owns the content or is authorized to make decisions about its licensing, they're perfectly entitled to release it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA just like any other contributor. That's not to say the content should be included; but it appears unlikely that it is a copyright violation. (See the discussion on Tedder's talk page.) -Pete (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 lacks notability. It has been unsourced for the entirety of its existence, and a lot of the article consist of nonsense claims (i.e. all of def. 5 on the page; it calls ASEAN+3 Northeast Asia, remember ASEAN refers Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much of this definitions are merely just East Asia as it is. I removed nonsensical definition 5 as it made no sense. It would make more sense to just have a small section on East Asia's page about NE Asia Thegreyanomaly (talk) 00:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Council of Foreign Relations defines it as Japan and Korea, but this excludes China (ROC and PRC), so the term is different. Maybe in some instances it refers to East Asia, but we need to collect more sources to determine which agencies define it as which. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure where I fall on this. I think it's a pretty non-notable term made up by some specific thinktanks/centers (such as the one at Brookings) but not used in mainstream academia. That being said, if enough people are searching for this term on WP (see pageview stats for July) maintaining at least a dab page or dicdef may be useful for readers. (A dab page for this would be something along the lines of:
Northeast Asia is a term used by some groups[1][2][3] to refer to the part of East Asia that is made up of Korea and Japan
For a "term made up by some specific thinktanks", it does seem to be in a lot of book titles. Witness The international relations of northeast Asia (ISBN9780742516953), Naval strategy in Northeast Asia (ISBN9780714649665), The law of the sea and Northeast Asia (ISBN9789041114075), The energy balance in Northeast Asia (ISBN9780815796725), and Northeast Asia in prehistory (ISBN9780299064303), just for starters. Given this, the choices seem to be redirect, disambiguation, or article. None of those require or involve deletion. From the book titles, it seems likely that "article" is going to be the appropriate choice.
Delete This is what did it for me: "The Council on Foreign Relations defines Northeast Asia as Japan and Korea." I mean, if the term referred to, say, Japan, Korea, Manchuria, Sakhalin, the Russian Far East, and the Kiril Islands, then it might have a little geopolitical oomph, so to speak. But a term for basically two countries (or three nation-states, if you prefer)...I'm just not seeing it as a term that has any real use. People who want to refer to Japan & Korea can say "Japan and Korea," just as easily as they can say "Northeast Asia." KevinOKeeffe (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Can find no indication that this software has been the subject of any nontrivial commentary by reliable secondary sources. Contested prod. Sixtysixstar (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget00:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion : Notability comes up a lot LOL. In as much as it is the burden of author to at some point establish this, perhaps a space on talk page could be reserved for search links that point the way to notability. I had search links deleted from stubs and gave up arguing about their merit, certainly if search criteria are not obvious ( related term or specialty search DB, or maybe there is a lot of pointless blog coverage and only a few domains with reliable coverage- if you already have a search that highlights these but didn't bother to put in article yet that would save us time. ) this saves us all time. Some way to make it easy to insert search links that create a presumption of notability would help, but I certainly wouldn't require this as often obscure but notable/ultimately verifiable information is from dead tree sources and it may take a while to satisfy everyone these exist. However, there are a lot of notability claims that "should" be substantiable from goog and just making a one click test is a lot easier than getting everyone to type the same link... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seemingly non-notable book. No claims to it's notability. In fact the article seems less about the book and more about other topics already covered in other articles. The style and grammar of the article could be cleaned up if a keep decision is made so that shouldn't be a considering factor. Canterbury Tailtalk11:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have never read this book, and and am thus not sufficiently familiar with it to make a definitive judgment (the same can probably be said of every other person associated with this discussion), but it seems like it may well be notable. The article has issues, yes, but they don't seem sufficient to warrant its deletion. It is a book on an important and notable topic (Wikipedia has several articles related to the topic of the post-World War II terrorism in Italy), by a notable author, Giovanni Pellegrino. Deletion seems premature. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neutral I haven't read the book either, and the article clearly needs a lot of cleaning up -- but the author seems to be notable and the subject certainly is. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Yes the author is notable, as is the subject, but is the book? That's the reason I nominated it. Is the book notable in itself, or is it only notable because it was written by the particular author? I can't find any non-trivial coverage of it in external sources, most results for the book are Wikipedia mirrors, no news, no reviews, no academic sources citing it as a source. Doesn't seem to meet with any of the standards of notability outside of the author. Canterbury Tailtalk11:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I tend to think that any book by a notable author is notable, but I have changed my position to neutral until someone familiar with the book weighs in. HyperCapitalist (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability of book. Note to closing admin - if this is kept, the article name should be disambiguated and clarified using "(book)" as a suffix - this currently appears to be an article about a topic, not about a book, and is thus misleading. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article makes no assertion of notability and does not contain any references to 3rd party sources, as external links are self-published by universities that participate in the program. Written like an advert for the program and does not provide ways to varify its claimed successes. Joint programs are not the same as higher education consortia and are not inherantly notable. Masonpatriot (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget00:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. If you take what's in the article as given then the subject is pretty obviously notable: "an award as the best professor of Ukraine in 1987". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not aware that Google Scholar has any significant coverage of work in Russian and Ukrainian, especially when the search is done in the Latin alphabet. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
