Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 10

< 9 November	11 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bobby D Show

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

Prod removed by SPA (Bobbydradio (talk · contribs)) and replaced with a disclaimer. No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a small-time radio show. Even Google sees a show in Florida as being a better match. tedder (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the content, lack of notability, and the page's author all just convince me that this is an attempt to use Wikipedia for advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redlock (talk • contribs) 00:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, and it does seem to be trying to advertise. Endofskull (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable show in an incredibly non-notable market. Nate • (chatter) 05:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 21 Google hits, mostly social networking with the others being advertising. For notability to be likely, there would have to be at least a few news sources in the hits. —EncMstr (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced, poorly written article not especially notable and with a biased tone. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michele O'Shea

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

Biography with no references and hardly any content at all —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 23:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait before voting The article had much more content until a few hours ago. The original author pulled back most of the material, and writes that more time is needed. Review the edit history before voting, please. Cullen328 (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. Yeah, let's just wait. Delete. There's no more edits. So delete since it's not gonna be fixed. Endofskull (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After looking at the present and previous versions of the article it is clear that notability is not likely to be satisfied. Xxanthippe (talk).
Speedy delete, no claims of notability, at least there should have been a subst:prod blp added to it. Corvus cornix_talk 03:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should not be deleted. I just need some more time to verify all the data I have. For instance, the subject of the biography has had an important impact in the field of mental retardation perception in developing countries. Gonzalink (talk). —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC). — Gonzalink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Promising student. Not yet notable, per Xxan. Gscholar and Gnews turned up little. Ray^Talk 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with RayAYang that this is a promising student, but does not currently meet our general notability guidelines, nor that for an academic. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think any disinterested ed will come to the same conclusion after reviewing the article history. The subject is basically a student who is a country mile from fulfilling any of the broad collection of possible notability criteria we have here. The original article was a CV, filled mostly with WP:OR. The current version is a gutted shell. This is an uncontroversial delete. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some sort of Merge/Redirect is probably indicated, but since there's also no consensus about where that should be, I don't see any other close. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1944 NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament

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

This basketball tournament never existed. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say Merge with 1945 NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament. Endofskull (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Endofskull suggests. I think it's worth keeping around the information (and its citation) that there was no 1944 tournament due to the US involvement in WWII. I don't think that's enough information to warrant a whole article. Susfele (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barring more details on the tournament, such as the structure it would have had if it had not been canceled, I'd say a merge/redirect is the best solution. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Vodello (talk) 02:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It "existed"; it didn't take place as scheduled, similar to the 1994 World Series or the 1940 Summer Olympics, all of which are notable because they are part of a regularly scheduled set of events that are notable, hence there's a template to . The background of a cancellation of an event for which preparations were made (in this case, wartime restrictions on travel) is sufficient for a stand-alone article. In any event, Wikipedia articles aren't limited to successful ventures. Mandsford 03:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless somebody has some info about the context surrounding the tournament, it should go in my opinion. This is not at the level of the Olympics in terms of how the event venue is awarded, etc. If it was just another NAIA tourney set for Kansas City, I fail to see why an entry is required. Definitely do NOT merge with 1945 - it isn't the same year. Why not merge with 1943 if you're gpoing to use that logic? Rikster2 (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as stand-alone article per Mandsford. Ok, so there's no statistical information to include, but personally I'd like to know why it never occurred. I'm an intelligent enough person to figure out that it was probably due to WWII (assuming this article didn't exist), but I can't speak for every single Wikipedia user out there. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

- Comment. I went ahead and added a ~~strike-through~~ on 1944 on the NAIA template. It shows that the event did not take place, but if you want to know anything further, you can still click on it. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I changed my mind, this isn't worth keeping. I removed the strike-through, de-linked the year, made "1944" a light grey and also added an in-template footnote. I don't think anything more needs to be said about the tournament. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - You could always find the reasoning at the main NAIA tournament article, which would be a good target to redirect to, if anything. The fact is, there simply isn't that much historical significance with this, unlike the two World Series. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it should be up to the reader to have to research what happened to the 1944 tournament. Providing the 1944 tournament's link/article makes it accessible. In terms of historical significance, the NAIA was still very much a respected governing body for basketball back in the 1940s. The NCAA Tournament was still new (only 5 years old at the time), and the NIT was the top basketball tournament. In context, the NAIA tournaments are important, whether the event was held or not. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Meh, there isn't any information in this article. You could just as easily asterisk the 1944 entry on the template and main NAIA tourney article with a key at the bottom that says "Cancelled due to WWII" and achieve the same level of info given in the article itself. What's next? A 1998 Pac-10 Tournament article? I don't have a ton of passion around this eaither way, but common sense tells me there is no useful info here. Rikster2 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lack of an event probably received as much coverage as the actualized events listed at Category:NAIA Men's Basketball Championship, all of which do not have more sourcing then this article. --Pink Bull 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Common sense. We have entries for every year and leaving a blank is going to mess up the organization style. So this one is not very detailed, for good reason. But the organization scheme of the subject's coverage demands it. Don't merge with 1945, that would not be user-friendly.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 07:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It didn't happen, and for good reason. Leaving a blank makes perfect sense, if it didn't happen. I'd go with Rikster2's suggestion of asterisking. --Worm 15:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that something did not happen is not by itself a reason for deletion. See Year 2000 problem, an article about something that did not happen. As with everything else, its notability and verfiability that decide whether we should or should not have an article about a subject and this subject appears to meet both criteria. --Pink Bull 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Merge: As author it was the intention of all the tournament years would get pages, as I was primarily doing this by myself it was a bigger undertaking than I first thought. But as information from reliable sources comes it, it would be great to keep it. Or have a merged link in the 1945? so that there wouldn't be a dead year in the easy-directional quick links at the bottom of each page.
- As others have said, we could simply strike the year out and asterisk the bottom. That's all that would ever be on this page. Other non-occuring pages are different, they were a huge event with a lot of planning and/or contain context as to why it didn't happen. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as obvious vandalism. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers

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

Obviously non-notable show, along with almost the entire deleted collection of characters. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a hoax. AntiTransMaster (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Obviously notable show. I wouldn't be surprised if this was a sock. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close as withdrawn nomination that was created by mistake. (non-admin closure) ----Divebomb is not British 12:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transmetal Driver

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

Purely in-universe content with very low likelihood of establishing its notability through independent secondary sources. SeventhBase (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. There are no sources on the internet about any of the information on that article. Endofskull (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY CLOSE - The last nomination for deletion ended in a merge result. Someone just impliment that please, and ignore this nomination. Mathewignash (talk) 02:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY CLOSE and JUST MERGE IT per Mathewignash, Sadads (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no information to cut-and-paste. NotARealWord (talk) 10:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Beast Wars: Transformers. Someone's bound to search for it, which means it meets WP:R#KEEP Criteria 5.--hkr (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close and Smack Nominator with Trout Seriously, if you can't be bothered to read the article, then you shouldn't be nominating it in the first place. And, in the event that you did read the article, well, then how the hell did you not notice the Afd-merge tag? ----Divebomb is not British 18:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw and screw the Opera web browser for not showing the notice. SeventhBase (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See, this is why I don't use Opera ----Divebomb is not British 12:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orangehaus Records

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

Non notable college record label no significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources fails WP:ORG Mo ainm~Talk 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 22:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 22:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable coverage.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with GordonRox24. Endofskull (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two reliable sources included, Billboard and The Times. One of the links even leads to an article done by a local news station. The page has creditability and should be kept. It is informational letting people know where artists such as John McLaughlin have come from as well as informs students about potential in music programs at Universities.Meghan solo (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Anderson University, I agree with Meghan solo that there is coverage, but it doesn't seem notable enough to have it's own article. --Worm 15:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of YouTube personalities. Ruslik_Zero 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Davison

AfDs for this article:

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

As a biography, the subject fails the guideline WP:POLITICIAN, but there is a suggestion that this subject has received adequate persistent coverage to no longer qualify as a WP:BLP1E. Starting a second AfD to obtain broader discussion. VQuakr (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 1st deleted article had a tons of sources cited, I don't know if that history can be restored for the AfD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Phil Davison is currently the focus of eight recent news articles. This proves that coverage of him is persistent and he has become a subject of pop culture. Additionally, he is not known for just one event: he is a city official, has been the subject of numerous public interviews and has gained mention in three sources as a potential presidential candidate, which qualifies him to be listed at United States presidential election, 2012. I request that the previous version of the article be restored to which updates can be added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William, I can't tell if you are being serious. I mean, I love Phil and would actually love it if he had an article, but jokes about him running for president are still jokes.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If Alvin Greene can run for president, so can Phil Davison.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also a joke. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 We just had this AfD less than a month ago! He was non-notable and a flash in the pan then, mostly a joke in the context of the election cycle, and his notability remains no more than that. Ray^Talk 15:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False. Coverage is persistent. Speculation is real.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. We did have this AfD less than a month ago. There was consensus to delete. Casual offhand mentions of an amusing anecdote do not constitute significant and persistent coverage surpassing WP:BLP1E, and they certainly do not constitute reasons to overturn previous consensus in less than a month. Ray^Talk 17:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I listed above, there are 8 recent news stories about Phil Davison thus proving that his notability is persistent. Phil Davison was slightly notable before his speech because of his status in Minerva and Stark County. The speech, national interviews, news reports and presidential speculation have pushed him beyond the threshold of wikipedia notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Please be more specific when you say "false." It seems you are making an argument that the original AfD was wrongly decided, not disputing that it happened - and contesting a more offhand observation on my part which was shared by the commentators at the previous AfD. WP:DRV is that way. Ray^Talk 17:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules. I didn't recreate the page or open this AFD, but it's been recreated and this AFD is open. We should understand and note that coverage is persistent and restore the article and add all the necessary updates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming troll-like, William. I think Phil is awesome and I improved his article significantly before deletion with the intention of reposting it on my blog (which I haven't done yet). The subsequent stuff you reference is just tail-end coverage of the original story.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be troll-like to delete the article simply because people think he's some kind of joke. Even if he is a joke, he's a notable joke like Antoine Dodson.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because he's the definition of WP:BLP1E --Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain. Keep in mind that I am using the statement "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" to support my argument. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explain? He was involved in one event and has no notability outside of that one event. To quote BLP1E, "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." What news coverage has there been of him outside of this one viral video? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, before the video, he received coverage as a candidate for office and councilman in Minerva, since the video he has received coverage as a potential presidential candidate. If you combine this with the impact of the video, it pushes him past the threshold of notability especially since coverage is persistent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POLITICIAN states that being a candidate for office is not sufficient to guarantee notability. Being a councilman in Minerva is also not enough to establish notability. This video is based on the one event that establishes his BLP1E, and does not establish a "second event". This isn't "persistent coverage", this is his fifteen minutes of fame winding down. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you combine the four things he is notable for and has received significant coverage for in reliable sources, the threshold of notability is passed. For clarity, the four things are his position as councilman in Minerva, his candidacies in Stark County, his video and his mentions in the press as a potential presidential candidate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. Those four things: (1) not notable, (2) not notable, (3) BLP1E, (4) the extension of his BLP1E. Clearly they don't establish notability on their own, with that I'm sure you agree. As to whether those things together form a notable subject, I say no. You pointed out the "bed intruder" guy earlier in this AfD as a comparable, but that guy spawned a single that charted. This guy is a local politician who had one moment get caught on YouTube and has done nothing since. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the four are notable as they have been covered in reliable sources. This is very similar to Alvin Greene who is notable for winning the Democratic primary for Senate in South Carolina, which spawned media interest and a potential presidential candidate. The difference is that Alvin Greene had zero notability before the one event that made him famous. Davison had some from his position in Minerva and Stark County candidacies.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't establish notability for local politicians with no national visibility. That would be unmanageable. Alvin Greene isn't BLP1E because his actions are more than just one event. Greene had all those moments that put together establish his notability. This guy had one video clip. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What moments? Media interviews? Media reports? Phil Davison received (and still receives) such coverage. The only difference is that Phil Davison is an elected official that had some name recognition in his native county before his breakthrough event.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's the questions about how he raised the filing fee with no income, the obscenity charge, the job creation idea of selling Alvin Greene action figures, being denounced by one of the top members of his party from his state, the charges that Republicans somehow rigged the primary, and that's just from the top of my head. Davison has one viral video. Davison's coverage is based on that one viral video. Therefore, BLP1E. There's not much more I can say about this. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But those all spawned from the one event and are just questions about the man. An obscenity charge doesn't necessarily make one notable. In Davison's case there are many questions as well and notable jokes made in the media. Look up his notable interview on Red Eye; much more is discussed here than just the speech.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability zero. --Data Cube (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False as proven above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this troll debate.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very important debate about notability.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable local official plus non-notable viral video does not equal notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate description. Please see above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The person fails WP:POLITICIAN and his speech fails WP:EVENT, WP:BLP1E, and likely WP:NOTNEWS. I agree with Moboshgu that the threshold for "persistent coverage" has not been met. Location (talk) 05:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread #3 of WP:Politician. The significance of coverage has already been established. You are simply making assertions without evidence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the "significant coverage" has been established and would contend that you are making assertions without evidence. Location (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that I am making assertions without evidence, however, this is not backed by evidence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion. You have asserted that "[t]he significance of coverage has already been established", but have failed to show to us that reports of a candidate's impassioned speech establishes "significant coverage" of the subject. Location (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to recent news stories about Phil Davison proving persistence. Here are some articles from the past and present proving that he is notable for other things, here's some more. 7 other stories found here. Many, many others.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PERSISTENCE: "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable". Or, as someone else as stated: "This isn't 'persistent coverage', this is his fifteen minutes of fame winding down." Of the other sources, local news coverage of a local politician fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to recognize the coverage from before the video and the coverage that is currently being published, two months after the video. Being a local politician does not mean someone is automatically non-notable. It adds to their notability if they are notable for something else.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered the various news reports and find that they are insufficient to establish notability of the subject or his speech. The person fails WP:POLITICIAN and his speech fails WP:EVENT, WP:BLP1E, and likely WP:NOTNEWS. Location (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you consider the various reports as insufficient (there was a great quantity so I forgive if you didn't read them all). Also, it is not necessary to continuously link to guideline pages. You've already linked to them previously in this discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The links are the rational. I'll forgive you if you didn't read them all.Location (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as in articles, overlinking in discussion is not ideal. I know you can link to guideline pages, but that does not prove you understand what you linked to.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus says otherwise. Cheers!Location (talk) 21:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, policy is formed by long term consensus rather than flawed short term consensus.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The issues of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT need to be addressed, and the arguments that follow such reasoning should be discounted. Clearly Phil Davison is notable; 92,000 g-hits proves this. The question of persistence is answered by the fact that there are still recent news stories about Davison, over 2 months after his speech. We must understand that he is notable not just for the speech, but for three other things, which have been listed above. Those that are voting delete have not disputed his notability with evidence, instead they have resorted to the arguments of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, WP:GHITS is an argument to avoid from the same essay. This essentially boils down to a balance between WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E. In my opinion, the BLP1E carries more weight in this instance because it presumes that the subject will receive some coverage in connection with the singular event. Alvin Greene was a poor counter example; he has received much more media coverage over a longer period of time and received more than a quarter of the vote in the general election for national office. VQuakr (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still stay he's not "clearly notable." The number of Google hits doesn't establish notability. He's a BLP1E. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I proved above. He is notable for four events. Coverage is persistent since he is still discussed in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've made our points and made them well. To borrow from my favorite TV pundit, you sir are a formidable opponent. Any more debate between us on this would be going around in circles. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed compromise solution: How about adding Davison to the List of YouTube personalities, certainly he is deserving of a listing on that page. Then create a redirect linking to that page. If he continues to receive enough publicity in reliable sources to make him clearly worthy of a page, then replace the redirect with article content. If his publicity flickers out, then he at least has some acknowledgement on Wikipedia. Certainly Davison has gained enough notoriety to be deserving of a least a mention and a redirect, has he not?--Rollins83 (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have now added Davison to the List of YouTube personalities page. Replacing the current content on Phil Davison with #REDIRECT List of YouTube personalities#YouTube personalities would be a very simple task.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Will Saturn, and I am here to fight Wikipedia's nomination,

for the deletion of Phil Davison, the not-Stark County Treasurer,
in November 10th...November of 2010 excuse me.

In terms of my background, I am from the village of Inclusionista,
where I am serving my 3th year of elected service, as as Anti-Deletionist council member.

In terms of education, I have a bachelors degree in rhetoric,
a bachelors degree in whoopass at AFD, a masters degree in public shaming of opponents,
and a masters degree in communication.

In terms of edits across Wikipedia, I have represented Wikipedia well to the public,
in both AfD and PRODs,
and I will not apologize for my tone tonight.

I have been a Wikipedian in times good, and I have been a Wikipedian in times bad.

Albert Einstein issued one of my most favorite quotes, in the history of the spoken word,
And it is as follows:

In the middle of opportunity...oh...excuse me...
"in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity..."
I'm going to repeat that so I have clarity tonight:
"in the middle of difficulty lies opportunity."

This is the AfD of Opportunity we've been waiting for.

The Ariticles for Deletion process is a mess,
It is in dire need of structure and guidance
And now is the time to seize this opportunity,
With an aggressive campaign, and an even more aggressive campaigner.

I promise each and every person in this room,
I am hitting the ground running,
coming out swinging, and I will end up winning!

Let's send the message tonight, to all the editors of Wikipedia,
and to the public who google "Phil Davison wiki" in vain
We're tired of business as usual.

Drastic times require what?... (milo says: Drastic Measures!!!)
Drastic measures! YES! Who said that??
Thank YOU!
Drastic times require drastic measures!

We will not tolerate incompetence and irresponsibility any longer,
Now is the time to snap the Deletionist Stranglehold on Articles for Deletion process!

And I hearken back to what my friend Milo just said.
He defended William Swanberg and
Debrahlee Lorenzana in the past,
It was a problem then, Its a problem now.

AfD is not touch football,
AfD is winner take all.
It always has been, and it always will be.

If you !vote keep tonight, I want to develop and expand my campaign,
For what I believe is the greatest strength of Wikipedia,
and that is its breadth, depth, and 1000s of articles just about The Simpsons.

I believe in the axiom that all politics (including at AfD) is local (i.e., it depends who shows up).
And because of this belief, I want to harness the thoughts and ideas,
That individuals in our Project have
concerning Wikipedia and its many supposed cabals...
and use that to its fullest extent. Knowledge is power.

Lets tap into this knowledge, and use it as a tool to win for Phil Davison's survival.
Lets use this knowledge not only as a tool, but as a weapon.

We must win this AfD,
If you !vote keep tonight I will win this discussion,
And I'm going to say that again --- so there is no miscommunication tonight,
If you !vote keep tonight I WIN! (or least get a no consensus close!!!)

Tell your Friends, Tell your neighbors,
Tell Randy Gonzalez,
I'm coming, both barrels, guns loaded.

I believe in the principles,
on which Wikipedia was founded,
That this is the Encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit,
And that THIS article is surely more notable than Mzoli's.

And I will not hide those beliefs,
On my march to victory for Phil and Alvin Greene as candidates for US President.
And I can guarantee with 100% certainty, that what you are seeing from me tonight,
Is what everyone on Wikipedia is going to get over the next Steven Slater/Falcon Heene/Cigar guy debate.

I used to be an idealistic figure, I am now a pragmatic figure.
Wikipedia may be about service, but AfD is about winning.

Tonight as an editor, seeking the survival of Phil Davison, not-Stark County Treasurer,
I humbly ask for your keep !vote as editors of the Wikipedia project.
Thank you!

With all due respect to Will.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have enjoyed this greatly and added it to my userpage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome, this might be the greatest AfD ever. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rollins. I agree with Muboshgu, this AfD discussion is priceless. Thanks, Milowent, you made my night. But there is still no way this guy should have an article on Wikipedia. Sure I saw the video, we all did. It was memorable, in a scary kind of way. It got some mentions in mainstream media at the time (there are a lot more that could be added to the article, ranging from CBS to PBS to the Huffington Post) and was a big hit on youtube. But his was not an enduring notability, it was a one-week wonder. The "recent articles" being promoted here are not from Reliable Sources. Nobody serious has nominated the guy for president or anything else. He did not get the nomination to minor office that he was seeking. He's simply not a notable individual in spite of his moment in the sun - living proof of Andy Warhol's prediction that "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." --MelanieN (talk) 05:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with Rollins' compromise as well. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, but would like to see the original page history restored before it is redirected.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a redirect, or a restoration of the page history. Ray^Talk 05:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pqcell

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

I have been unable to find any coverage about this company in reliable sources. This article originally claimed that this is India's largest value added services company, and after I questioned it the claim was reduced to being one of the largest such companies, but the reference provided for that statement says nothing of the sort, and I find it very hard to believe that a 150-employee company is anywhere near one of the largest. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. I originally Proposed the article for deletion after carrying out an extensive research for sources and notability. --Kudpung (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victory mosque

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

Original research. Xyz or die (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11, attack page and possibly G3, blatant misinformation (The Mosque of Rome is a "victory mosque"? Pull the other one, it's got bells on). No reliable sources, extreme unbalanced POV, unverifiable. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur the sources given are not impartial and this article seems more like an anti-islamic rant than a source of information. -Sensemaker
Keep but rewrite to conform to WP:NPOV. A quick Google confirms that "victory mosque" is a very common piece of political rhetoric about which readers would be understandably curious. Ray^Talk 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ban creator User:Amandajm for spreading biased unsourced propaganda. --Data Cube (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. No attested use before this current year. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article seems to exist to advance a strongly held point of view on a current controversy. It tries to create a facade of respectability by listing other mosques through history but doesn't show that this term or anything similar was ever used in connection with those mosques prior to the current controversy. No attempt whatsoever is made to provide a balance of views. The Christian Science Monitor reference looks impressive only at first glance - it is an advocacy opinion piece by someone who is spreading this term, and is therefore not an independent, secondary, reliable source. The second reference doesn't even mention the "victory mosque" and is instead an article about the overall controversy. Both are worthless as references.Cullen328 (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the most charitable thing anyone could say about this is that it's completely unsourced original research, but I'm going to skip charity and call it Islamophobic fearmongering. (However, I would like to point out to Data Cube that Amandajm did not create the article and is actually the only editor to add sourced information. Granted, it's about the use of the neologism by racist idiots, but unlike the article creator User:Pewterschmidt Industries, Amandajm is not actually asserting that their claims are true.) Roscelese (talk) 04:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Amandajm is the one who's responsible for writing "Victory mosques include (...) the Baitul Futuh Mosque in Morden, London, United Kingdom and the Mosque of Rome, Italy." And User:Amandajm does not assert that the sentence is false. Indeed, no encyclopedia article has ever said "The above sentence is true," because that's not necessary. A statement like that ("the above is false") is only necessary if something is not true. Therefore User:Amandajm promotes racist and xenophobic ideologies and should be banned. --Juno the pregnant little girl (talk) 08:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right. I didn't look properly. (Wrt "the above is false," it's the difference between saying "Park51 is a 'victory mosque'" and "Racist X says Park51 is a 'victory mosque'" - both contain the phrase "Park51 is a 'victory mosque,'" but only the first indicates that the editor believes that to be true. But again, I misread the edit and didn't realize it was Amandajm who had added that content.) Roscelese (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO and Comment Data Cube and Juno are likely socks of article creator Pewterschmidt Industries. SPI is here. --JaGa^talk 04:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up I think this has the potential to be cleaned up, since the name of at least a couple of these mosques actually means "Victory". Personally I've never heard the term before (and missed most of the Park51 stuff), but it seems that an NPOV article could be written on this topic. I've added a couple of citations. --99of9 (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zebra Girl

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

No notability, no sources found. Tagged for primary sources since May. Being on Keenspot is not an assertation of notability if no reliable sources exist. Precedent is also that the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award does not confer notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sources outside the comic itself is a delete from me. Kansan (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do find 2004 Web Cartoonist's Choice Award for Black and White Art to be a strong indicator of notability and reviews like [1] to also lean that way (though self-published, it's a darn solid source in the field). I agree it certainly is borderline. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I believe that winning a single WCCA *together* with another reliable source is enough for notability. If no additional source is to be found, this webcomic may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:WEB, WP:N. No coverage at all in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" are neither 1) well-known nor 2) independent. They 1) are of questionable notability themselves and 2) are hosted by the same site that hosted this webcomic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Nolan

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

This is an article where the person's connection to rugby union is the main field to his notability, though no reference is given to his playing career. He only appears to have coached at under-15 (years of age) level. He has no international experience, has not played in a top flight match, and as a member of WP:Rugby union I find him not notable. FruitMonkey (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Subject of article is completely non-notable. Jenks24 (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be a notable sports person. --Worm 16:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wotch

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely no secondary sources found anywhere. Utterly fails WP:WEB. I removed a "critical reception" section that was sourced entirely to thinks like "Bad Webcomics Wiki" and personal blogs. No notability asserted in any way. Last AFD was 4 years ago. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Entirely self-sourced and, shockingly, not even an attempt to claim notability, not even the usual "it's popular" or "it gets lots of hits" type thing that the webcomics self-promoters often try to get away with. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless something other than the comic's own website can be found for a reference. The Interior (Talk) 21:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think you really should not remove “Reception” sections in articles before an AFD, even if all the references in it are not notable (such as in this case). --Novil Ariandis (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 192.112.54.2 (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Luck Charlie (Film)

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

Fails WP:NFF, no reliable sources. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL at its finest. The only sources that this can be traced to in themselves cite no source, and most are from a few months ago. No prejudice to recreation if, well, there's anything actually worth saying. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Partially duplicates earlier premature effort to add an article. Sources are indeed vague, blue-sky items; Disney and Hollywood Reporter said only (in July) that a movie is "in development", so I picture the idea coming up at lunches occasionally when producers remember to mention it to each other; meanwhile we've got WP articles with cast lists and writers. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced to a non-notable Disney gossip site and it takes awhile for their sitcoms to graduate to movie status. Too soon yet. Nate • (chatter) 05:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only source in the article is of dubious reliability. Possibly fan-fiction based on the brief announcements; there seems to be a lot of it about, which is pretty typical for Disney articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Hopelessly compromised. I really fail to see how any admin can find any useful consensus from a discussion which has been so completely railroaded by a page move that for 5 days we have been discussing a different article. . Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft design (neé Aircraft design process)

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

Contested PROD from August. This article was created as a WP:COAT for some fanciful theorising on bionic aircraft (see this version). Since then it has rightly been trimmed down to "design process" and no more. However that has left it almost entirely devoid of content. There isn't anything left in this article that isn't a self-evident platitude. As such, we'd be better off without it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
Keep We are not "voting" on the history of the article. Obviously airplanes have to be designed so this is a notable topic. I only skimmed over the article but the information seems solid enough and good sources are given. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a notable topic, but this article is a travesty and isn't even a starting point for something better. It's just boilerplate. Repeated sections all begin, "<section> design is looked into in each phase, thus allowing the elimination of errors." You might as well replace it with "airplanes have wings, so we have a wing design phase. Make sure they stay attached!"

As to "sources" ? Two coffee-table encyclopedias and a website selling its own book? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article subject is non-notable in that the minimal references do not establish notability. My own search though aircraft design and certification documentation indicates that much of the text here seems to be highly generalized original research and is in fact not correct in that it is so general that it is mostly not applicable to many actual real-world aircraft design projects. The whole of the Conceptual design and Structural design sections are verbatim copyright violations from the ref cited Designing Aircraft. If the final outcome of this article does turn out to be "keep" then the article should be stubbified down to the referenced text. - Ahunt (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has its faults, but I think that most people would say that the process of aircraft design is a very notable topic-- and, hence, deserving of a better article than this. Copyvios do need to be removed, but a general overview is appropriate for the subject. Mandsford 18:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AHunt. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are tens of thousands of books about this topic. Our editing policy is to improve weak starts, not to delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see an article on this topic. Best route to getting one is, IMHO, clean-slate deletion. This is a fairly large (10K) article, yet it says nothing. There's nothing on this page capable of being rescued. There's also a copyvio issue floating around. The quickest and simplest way to a usable article is to demolish this first. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is nice to see the article rescue cavalry arrive as usual, but the problem is they often vote "keep" and then ride away into the sunset without actually fixing the article and solving the problem. I would say that if you are serious about rescuing the article then please show us that by starting to fix it up now. That would be much more convincing that the usual "life-ring" tagging. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love articles being rescued, but the whole premise of the ARS is that of journalism: a competent writer can write well on any topic. Whilst this response to WP:SOFIXIT is indeed welcome when it's good content hidden beneath a mire of pooor copywriting (please someone, take a look at Resonance method of ice destruction) I don't believe that any copyeditor (a breed for whom I have great respect) can take Aircraft design process and make something good from it. It needs creation and structure to begin with, by someone who already understands its technical domain. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It this point we seem to be heading towards one of three outcomes for this article: 1. The ARS cavalry use their "tens of thousands" of references to rewrite this into a sterling article, 2. It gets deleted here at AFD, or 3. It gets "kept" and then stubbified down to remove the copyright violations and unsourced OR, leaving about three sentences. - Ahunt (talk)

I'd be OK with just three sentences. They wouldn't be useful, but at least it would be quicker for readers to realise there's no useful article there (which a redlink could do more effectively). The worst case though, and most likely outcome, is that an article of modest size gets left behind, it takes time to read it, but it still doesn't say anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any consensus here for a keep vote followed by not removing the copyright vios and OR. I am okay with any of those three outcomes I listed above, but I agree that deleting it is preferable for the reasons you have stated: there is no useful content right now. - Ahunt (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the article's subject is notable, then the article has a right to exist. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. And anything is better than no article at all. People would be less likely to create a new article by this name if they saw a previous one existed and was deleted. Destroying something in the hopes that something better comes around, is absolutely ridiculous. With the massive number of books published on the subject, it is clearly notable. Dream Focus 18:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Colonel Warden has moved the article to Aircraft design. I really don't think this is appropriate while an AfD is in process. His edit summary says "common name", but this is incorrect. An "aircraft design" refers to a specific model of an aircraft, which is created via the "aircraft design process" which is the subject of this article. This was the original title of this article and has already debated and discussed at Talk:Aircraft design and subject to consensus there. I am not sure this editor understands the terminology involved and therefore this should be reversed.- Ahunt (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have knocked the article back to a stub which is supported by the excellent text, Introduction to aircraft design. Doing this was a simple matter of ordinary editing, not requiring or necessitating deletion. Does the aviation project really require more help in taking it from here? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you call rescuing an article? You have moved to to an inappropriate name that was rejected by consensus (you did read the article talk page, right?) and then stubbified it in the middle of an AfD. I think this is totally inappropriete. - Ahunt (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was then and this is now. The source which now supports the article calls the topic aircraft design. It is a reliable source. Please produce sources if you wish to dispute the title. Opinionated discussions which are not supported by sources carry little weight here. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have eliminated it and replaced it with a different article. Are you going to add back in all the valid information? [2] There should be a wikiproject for aircraft, so I'll go find them and get their opinions. Someone who understand the information is bested suited to comment on this article. Dream Focus 20:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already did. [3]. Dream Focus 20:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was me that posted that notification when this AfD started. I am a member of WikiProject Aircraft. Yes indeed it seems User:Colonel Warden has moved this article, up for AfD, to a new (and previously rejected) name and changed the subject of the article as well. I am assuming this is just subject matter ignorance on his part as exemplified by his answer above "That was then and this is now", indicting he isn't familiar with the subject at all. I am not impressed with this attempt to subvert an in-progress AfD, nor with his rude and dismissive response above, although it seems to be in-line with recent behaviour by this user. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(reply to DreamFocus) The only thing I'm not understanding here is why we're even discussing deleting a topic of such immense notability. Any editors who think they can do a better job than myself or the previous editor(s) are welcome to have a go — I have just demonstrated how easy it is. Deleting previous version by means of the deletion function rather than the ordinary process of editing revisions is not our editing policy because it makes the edit history inaccessible and disrupts the standard wiki process of update, amendment and attribution. Deletion/AFD are for hopeless topics with no merit and that is manifestly not the case here.

(reply to Ahunt) Please see WP:BOLD. Is it a lack of such boldness which has prevented you from rolling your sleeves up and working upon this topic? Or what? I just don't get it. What do you do in the aviation project? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Colonel Warden: Just as recently as 10 November 2010 it was decided by consensus at ANI that you were being disruptive and you were instructed to stop being disruptive. Attacking members of Wikiproject Aircraft for not fixing this article is disruptive. Questioning my contributions to Wikipedia is very off-topic and is disruptive. Deleting most of the text of the article and changing the name of it so it is on a different subject in the middle of an AfD is disruptive. Please stop being disruptive. - Ahunt (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless improved - The crux of the argument is that Dream Focus and Colonel Warden (who epitomize Wikipedia inclusionism) believe that an article should be kept if its subject can be demonstrated to pass WP:GNG, no matter how terrible the article is. Dream Focus said "anything is better than no article at all". That may be your opinion, and you can say it over and over again, but there is no consensus on Wikipedia for that statement. That opinion is not necessarily shared by everyone. WP:IMPERFECT applies to a point, but if an article about a notable subject is horribly written or contains virtually no information other than a blindingly obvious dictionary definition (i.e. "Aircraft design is the design of aircraft," which is the current state of the article), then my opinion is that no article is better than a terrible article. If no one is interested in investing the time to create a useful article right now, then it is better to delete it and wait until someone comes along who is interested enough to invest the time and effort required to write a decent article. A relevant essay is WP:Delete the junk. SnottyWong ^confess 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IMPERFECT is policy while WP:Delete the junk isn't. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snottywong, please focus on the arguments not the editors. On Wikipedia you follow all policies, they absolute laws, while guidelines are mostly suggestions, and essays are just anything someone decides to write as their personal opinions without any bearing on things whatsoever. You should read the policy WP:IMPERFECT thoroughly. Dream Focus 04:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree with the renaming without consensus while the AfD is in progress and I believe the article content is as bad or worse than what was there before (and I agree that it was monumentally useless). I'm an inclusionist if possible, to me that means that the original title should be kept. The article was supposed to be about the process of designing an aircraft not how they have evolved to be over the years (see History of aviation for that). It is a very complex subject and difficult to cover in an encyclopaedic way. If you trust me I could try to rewrite it, examples of articles on similar subjects that I have either created, split or otherwise worked on can be seen at Aircraft fabric covering, Aircraft Flight Control System, Fly-by-Wire or even the lowly Interplane strut, all of these article are deliberately simplified for the reader's benefit, not perfect (all the 'cn' tags were added by me to existing text BTW) but they are watched to prevent rubbish being entered. I am a practising aircraft engineer and pilot but not a designer. Aspects of continuing airworthiness (aircraft maintenance) require compliance with current mandatory design standards (FAA, CAA BCAR, EASA, OSTIV etc.), even more so when carrying out, approving and certifying modifications to existing aircraft, they did not need to worry about this years ago but quickly learned (DH Comet square windows for example). To keep the article I would recommend reverting to the original title, knocking it back to a referenced definition with some examples (notable aircraft designers and their aircraft?), throw it back at the aircraft project (we know it has been highlighted as a problem now) and we will try to sort it out, remembering that there is no deadline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original title of the article was Aircraft design, just as it is now. If you review the edit history, you will see that it was first created as a redirect to Aeronautics. It was then expanded to an article by User:KVDP in 2009. The move to the title aircraft design process was subsequent to this but was poorly executed because the lead of the article continued to remain as Aircraft design throughout the subsequent edits. That bold title was all I retained in my rewrite and so it was natural to realign the article's title with its lead. Aircraft design is also the common name for the topic. Google Books reports 28,500 books with the words aircraft and design in the title. There are only 14 which also include the word process. That's a ratio of 2000:1. So, to summarise, that's three reasons to have the title at aircraft design:

It's the original title
It's the common name, per WP:COMMONNAME
It's consistent with the lead per WP:BOLDTITLE

But it doesn't have to be either/or. If you want to write about the aircraft design process then you now have a clean sheet on which to do so. Aircraft design is a larger topic of which the process forms a part. Other sections would include the history of aircraft designs and their evolution, per the current draft; educational and professional institutions and qualifications; famous aircraft designers and design bureaus; design techniques such as blueprints, CAD, modelling and simulations; artistic style or decoration in designs; the influence of materials and components; and so on. The topic seems large enough that there's room for all and a substantial FA quality article should be the goal.

Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new title seems fine. More logical. I doubt anyone noticed the old talk page discussion about this, it from over a year ago. Consensus change, different people around to comment on it, and different information presented for them to think about. The name can be discussed on the talk page if someone has a problem with it. No need to go on about that here. Dream Focus 11:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on this (further expanded below) is that, yes, there is room for articles on both "Aircraft design" and "Aircraft design process". However, this discussion here started on the "Aircraft design process" chunk and has now been mutilated into the "Aircraft design" part. Why was it decided to change the topic of an article under AfD? I'm not a Wiki-lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the AfD process isn't for changing the title and topic of an article without consensus. Colonel Warden, why didn't you make a new article at Aircraft design and let this AfD run its course? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. Bearian (talk) 12:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden. An article needing improvement is never grounds for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ article topic bears severe overlap with Aircraft (see the number of times that article discusses 'design') and no independent notability, and the article itself contains only a very small amount of, very trivial, information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Updated opinion: that this AfD is moot~~ -- as the article that was nominated no longer exists, in name or in substance. This should not be read as an endorsement of the current article, which appears aimed more at surviving AfD than informing the reader. I can only hope that when all this settles down, and the ARS wanders off to some new quixotic crusade, somebody will actually get around to writing a decent article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both (re-updated opinion) Aircraft design and Aircraft design process to Aerospace engineering, per WP:MERGE rationale #4 'Context'. Both topics are clearly subtopics of it, and would be more informatively expostitioned within the context of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kitfoxxe: I understand there used to be time on wikipedia, before I was an editor and only a reader, where almost no one would ever advocate for the deletion of a poor article on a notable subject, but would quickly work individually and as teams to replace it/repair it/improve it with a usable stub and/or article. In large part, those editors made wikipedia what it is, and I thank them for it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a little confused right now. What article are we talking about here? "Aircraft design process" or "Aircraft design". It seems to me that this AfD started for an article called "Aircraft design process", which concievebly was about the process by which aircraft are designed and built. (See the DoD's eye sore for one aspect of that). The article was renamed and the content was rewritten to be a seemingly different article called "Aircraft design", which is not about the aircraft design process (which was the whole point of the original AfD), but is a broad article much like Aircraft. So it seems like the half (or more) of the comments in this AfD need to be thrown out because they apply to an article that no longer exists. How are we supposed to proceed here? Should we be discussing the new "Aircraft design" article or the old "Aircraft design process" article? As a practicing engineer, those are rather different topics that require different approaches. (For example, last week's Aviation Week & Space Technology feature story was about major changes in the aircraft design process, but had little to do with actual aircraft design.) Can someone clear this up for me so we can have an intelligent and (perhaps more importantly) relevant discussion? -SidewinderX (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree - this AfD process has been completely disrupted by the article being moved to a new topic and then being rewritten as a completely new article on a new subject. To even further complicate matters the new article is not of good quality and is mostly off even the new topic and deals more with History of aviation and a list of famous aircraft designers, than the topic it purports to be about. Furthermore the new title Aircraft design was previously rejected as inappropriate by a consensus before, beacuse it is confusing as to whether it refers to the process of designing aircraft or "an aircraft design", the type definition of a particular aircraft type. The process has been so disrupted by an editor trying to prove a WP:POINT, as noted above, that I am not sure how to proceed at this point either. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close without prejudice to nom of new article? The rewrite was BOLD, but wasn't reverted, so its like an AfD on two different articles right now, I gather.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are two quite separate articles, on different topics.

Some of this comes back to the nature and appropriate role of ARS and the relevance of WP:Delete the junk. There appears to be a broad agreement that Aircraft design process was indeed "junk" and needed serious repair. Opinions then vary on how to carry this out: I'd favour the clean-slate approach. Delete to a redlink and start again at leisure, as a new article. The ARS approach though seems to be different. It "abhors a vacuum" and assumes that WP cannot bear to have this article missing. The process was to stubbify it back to near zero (which deletes as much content as the redlink would have done) and then to rapidly expand the article, within the time constraints of an AfD. The intention obviously is to fix it before the AfD closes, so that everyone then changes their !vote and we all live happily. Heroic work by the good Colonel, but is this really the best way to work?

To my mind, this approach is wrong on two counts: It's obviously a hard way to work, under that deadline pressure and ongoing threat of deletion. Who wants to work so hard, so fast, when you know that some proportion will still be zapped anyway? (Believe me, I've done these). Secondly it's at variance with the whole ethos of WP:IMPERFECT that underlies the existence of ARS: We do not have to plug this gap. We do not need an article on <whatever topic> by Tuesday or we'll go to press with a blank page. This is Wikipedia, not weekly newspapers. Instead we should work in an efficient, effective manner to make good articles, not to hurry ourselves and trip up by doing so. ARS exists on the WP:IMPERFECT basis that articles should be good enough and that we recognise ongoing progress to improve them, not that everything must be completed now or else deleted!

In this case, the ARS-process has gone down something of a blind alley. It hasn't even written the missing article, it has gone and created a different one altogether. Aircraft design is not the process of aircraft design! This is the sort of confusion that arises when things are rushed, and when journalism replaces structure. With the greatest respect for the hard-working and skilled editors of ARS, the notion that goood writers write well by re-working sources and without understanding the topic domain doesn't always work out, and this is one of those examples. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in time we seem to be discussing the AfD of a redirect, because that is all Aircraft design process is right now. Maybe sending Aircraft design to AfD is an option, but personally, because it is an ambiguous term with at least two meanings and because the new text at that location is totally confused and of very poor quality because as User:Andy Dingley correctly points out it has been written in a hurry by someone who is not at all familiar with the subject area, I think it should be turned into a disambiguation page pointing to a new article on the process of designing aircraft and also aircraft design referring to the type definition documentation of an aircraft type. Unfortunately I am not sure a disambiguation page consisting of just two redlinks will wash. - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm broadly happy with the state we're at now (i.e. ready to close and go home, no further changes needed). Adp redirs to Ad, Ad is an article on aircraft design (although not the process). The old boilerplate slab at Adp has gone. Although we might still wish to work on Ad and even to create a new separate article at Adp, that's for tomorrow. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft design needs serious work to make it into a comprehensible article, starting with deciding what subject it is supposed to be on, but I am not at all sure that that is the correct subject for this AfD discussion at all. Perhaps we should let this AfD run its course and see if the closing admin can offer some words of wisdom on what should have been done differently and close the issue out that way? At this point we could use some objective wisdom from an uninvolved admin. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Andy is suggesting is that we should put our feet up and take it easy while the admins move in to delete the junk and make everything neat and tidy. But let's see how this approach works in practise. What's the most important article for the aviation project? It must be Aviation, right? That article has been around for seven years so one would think it would be in good shape by now — probably a FA, right? But no, when one takes a look, one finds that it is C class. The nay-sayers would tend to call that junk too - riddled with POV, OR, all sorts of bad stuff. So should we haul that off to AFD too?

Now Andy's other observation is that this discussion now seems incongruous. This is not surprising because AFD is not meant for this sort of article. We know this because the relevant process says emphatically "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". The traditional slogan which is used here to convey this is that "AFD is not cleanup". And it's no good complaining about the ARS because the ARS exists precisely to address this situation - fixing up articles on notable topics so that they need not be deleted and can be put back into the production line with all the other putative FAs. If people don't like way this has worked out then like the old joke puts it when the patient says that it hurts when he does something, "Well, don't do that then!".

Colonel Warden (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden -- the problem isn't that you "fixed an article through normal editing" -- it's that you moved it and changed the topic! It's as if you moved Seaplane to Aircraft and rewrote it! Sure they're related, but you're talking about two different topics. And you did so without even asking for WP:CONSENSUS. I think Aircraft design process is potenially a more useful, and more managable article to write than Aircraft design. I think you've removed one bad article (which could be improved) and replaced with worse article.

I suggest that the move/editing be reverted, that Aircraft design process is reduced to the stub, and that it is allowed to grow as article normally do. I'll even start writing it you want a volunteer. But there are tons of issues with a an "Aircraft design" article that make it a much different beast to tackle. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SidewinderX - I agree with that proposal, it is a good way to resolve the mess that has been created by taking a bad article, changing the topic and all the text to a worse article on a completely different subject. As I indicated above this is not "rescuing" an article, it was simply subverting the AfD process to make a point. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained and evidenced above, aircraft design is the common and natural title for this article, just like automotive design, game design, product design &c. The editors who renamed it aircraft design process didn't follow through - they didn't even change the lead to match. That title didn't fly and that's why we're here. What we're hearing now is a common design problem - not invented here. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original article, and I'm talking about the Sept 2009 version, is undeniably about the aircraft design process. It is dicussing the conceptual, preliminary, and detailed design phases. It discusses several aspects of aircraft design (such as propulsion and structures) in the context of the aircraft design process. It is an article about the aircraft design process. Poorly written and sourced, sure, but it was about the aircraft design process. That fact was noted soon after the article was created, and it was moved with WP:Consensus. You're right in pointing out that the article was not improved very much after the move, which wasn't good. But the only thing that needed to be changed in the lead was a to add a bold "process", the lead clearly depicts the design process.

Your move completely erased any aspect of the design process, deleting any mention of the design phases. It went from an article that described certain aspects within a context to article that discusses those aspects without any context (which is why it will be a difficult article to write and manage). It is an article on a different topic, plain and simple. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahunt indicated at the outset of this discussion that the text of which you speak contained a substantial copyvio and so should be reduced to a stub supported by sources. The copyvio and lack of sourcing indicated that that text was not a safe basis for development. I therefore reduced the article to a stub as recommended by Ahunt and started again from consideration of good reliable sources. The sources call the topic aircraft design and that seemed simple and clear. But if you want an article which focusses exclusively upon the process then this can be done too. I shall make a stub of the title Aircraft design process and support it with good sources which will point the way to expansion of that aspect. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and suggest further discussion takes place on article talk pages. It seems we have two notable articles here, one that's currently a redirect and one that's going to take a lot of effort to get to a decent standard. No worries, there's no rush, and discussions on content and naming would be better at the article talk pages for easier reference by the editors who will eventually improve these articles. Bigger digger (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Which article is being debated here? Aircraft design process, which appears to be a newly created stub, or Aircraft design, where the nominated article was moved to? AniMate 05:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I just noticed that myself. It appears to be a content fork, which IIRC isn't a good idea in most circumstances, much less during an AFD. I'll make sure an admin knows about this. - BilCat (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that moving an article (particularly unilaterally, against article-talk consensus) in the middle of an AfD is also not a good idea -- ~~and might be considered the root cause of this forking~~. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, which article is being debated here? I have no clue. AniMate 06:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should answer your question. The article under discussion is the one currently titled aircraft design. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...Which User:Colonel Warden moved after the AFD had been filed at the oriuginal location. Definetly a content fork, ~~though probably in good faith, and ingnorance of WP policies and guidelines~~. - BilCat (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC) - NOTE: the user has been around a long time, so probably knows this isn't quite the way to handle things on WP, though I am assuming he ment no harm. - BilCat (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a great move, especially considering the current stub he created seems to still have the problems the nominator was concerned with. I've left a note at CW's page asking for an explanation. Whoever closes this is going to have a lot of fun. AniMate 06:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it were me (and lucky for me, I'm not an admin), I'd simply close it as 'no consensus' (somewhat of an understatement, given what's happened) and not even attempt to summarise these shenanigans. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That, of course, is the intended outcome of the disruption; 'no consensus' as an implied 'keep' and two articles instead of one deleted sow's ear. In the big picture, none of these games are about articles, the goal is to undermine *any* deletion at all and to wage war on the 'Evil Deletionists'. This has been going on for easily four years, now. Jack Merridew 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is it always the "Evil Deletionists" that are making the personal attacks against the ARS? Silver seren^C 00:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{citation needed}}. And see where I said that this is not an ARS-issue, it's an editor-issue. Anyway, the 'ARS' is not a person, and criticism of ('attacks' on, if you like;) the ARS would not be covered by NPA ;) Jack Merridew 00:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to close This is no longer a debate on the same article that it started with. For that reason, I suggest that we should now close this AfD (as nominator, I believe I also still have the option to simply withdraw it). For neutrality, I would suggest asking an uninvolved admin (directly via their talk) to do this.

Reasons to close this now are as follows:
It has become confused, as its basis has shifted. If there is any AfD-like issue remaining, it would be best handled by starting a new AfD / candidate for GA as needed.

Whatever does need doing next, this isn't the best forum for doing it.

There is no clear call for any further major change from where we are now, at least not within the scope of AfD. Further editing and development is of course welcome, that's just what we do.

There is no call to reverse any of the changes made here: i.e. anything resembling DRV or "Deforking by ArbCom" or whatever it might be called.

Any potential copyvio risk has now been addressed by excision of all affected content and we're safe to proceed further.

I'm sure we're all grateful to Colonel Warden for his efforts here.

Reasons to not close at this point might include:
Disagreement that we are indeed "done" yet.

A view that the process by which we've arrived here was so counter to policy that it has to be backed-out, rather than just proceeding forwards.

Disagreement with my pro-closure comments above.

However I don't see either of the following issues as reasons to continue this AfD. Whatever their appropriate response is, it's not more of this:
Aircraft design scope vs. Aircraft design process scope. Take it to the articles (please do - clear definitions of scope beforehand are usually helpful).

The ongoing need to tar and feather the members of ARS.

Unless anyone has issues related to this AfD (so speak up below), I suggest that the best thing for all of us is to close this and move forwards. Whether that involves two new AfDs or a GA nomination and barnstars all round, it's the next problem, not more of this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that the concerms raised that the article was improperly moved during an AFD, and a C-fork created in its place, be addressed by an admin before or during the closing this AFD. Also, assuming the objections to renaming/forking are upheld, and steps taken to ensure that the user in question, who is clearly not a newbie, doesn't attempt to do this again with other AFDed articles untile they are clearly closed. That has just caused confusion that probably should not have occured. - BilCat (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's go round the houses all over again. That's useful. Not.

Whatever this was, it isn't a deliberate policy-problematic content fork. Yes, Colonel Warden shouldn't have blanked an article during the debate (that's even re-stated on the page tags) and it's a strange action for an ARS member to carry out, even though I might personally agree with it. The two articles, under their separate names, are indeed different in scope. No-one disputes this: some say they're different, CW has himself created them, so they're presumably how he wants them. Yet still, none of this is about forking or POV. They're just not an issue as far as this debate is concerned. Argue their scope outside, without the threat of deletion over them, or AfD these new articles if you think that's necessary. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate or not, CW's interference in the AFD process has been disruptive. I'm sure futher AFDs will be considered, but without assurances such tactics won;t be allowed again, the same thing will probably happen again. You're free to oppose me, as you seem always do of late. - BilCat (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Bill. User:Colonel Warden has been completely successful in totally disrupting this AfD process. He has been recently cited at ANI for being disruptive on other issues as well. We now do not know which of the two articles we are even discussing, even though both of them are of very poor quality and serve only to maintain the article titles in existence. User:Colonel Warden's completely unacceptable behavior here needs to be addressed at the point that this AfD is closed, or at ANI again or at Arbcom or some other venue. - Ahunt (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some background. I patrol AFD daily and usually participate in one or two per day. This sort of issue rarely arises because the usual basis of discussion is whether the topic is notable or not. This case is quite unusual because the notability of the topic is so great. The last case I recall which seemed similar was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyalty - a broad topic but difficult to write upon because of its philosophical and opinionated nature. In that case, Uncle G set a good example by boldly rewriting the article. The nominator, Jimbo indicated that such bold rewrite was a good move and so it was decided. The Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard tells us that it is a long-standing custom that attempts may be made to dramatically improve articles during AFD. By all means take this to Arbcom to confirm that this is still proper. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loyalty is easily distinguishable from this case, as it did not involve a rename, let alone a WP:CFORK, in the middle of the AfD -- nor does The Heymann Standard (itself merely an essay), envisage such disruptive conduct. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion included some disputation as to whether the topic should be merged with the dab page or split as a separate philosophical topic. These seem to be similar structural questions to the case we have here. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is easy to distinguish between proposing a restructuring in an AfD (which is perfectly unexceptional) and unilaterally performing one (which is disruptive). I think the 'similarity' exists only in your head. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Aircraft design and start over
Delete Aircraft design process
Block User:Colonel Warden for blatant disruption of this AfD à la User:A Nobody and for disruption elsewhere. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Colonel Warden: So what you are saying is that in the middle of an AfD you moved the article to a new title, against an existing consensus and without any consultation, wrote a new article there on a new subject, then took the redirect from the article being discussed at the AfD and wrote another new article there totally different from the one being discussed, both articles are of very poor quality and show a lack of understanding of the topic or detailed reading of the refs used to create the articles, that it isn't dissruptive but bold and that it is Jimmy Wales' fault? I think User:Jack Merridew is right here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it, I think... the very fact everyone is having to sort through what the fuck occurred here establishes that this was *disruptive*. We now have this AfD moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft design process (to follow CW's move of the article).

The AfD was supposed to be about a specific article-text at the title "Aircraft design process". User:Colonel Warden disrupted it all by re-stacking the deck and trying to make this seem to be about the general topic of "aircraft design". WP:DE, WP:GAME, WP:POINT... he ripe for resolution.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 19:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fixing salvagable articles is a good thing. There's no reason to delete this instead of improving it.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Aerospace engineering, which is woeful itself, but nowhere near as woeful as this. They amount to content forks of that article at the moment. One could theoretically imagine a separate article on Aircraft design someday, though it would be full of minutiae, if an editor with the willingness to do a thorough survey of the literature in this topic and had the sort of background to help him understand fully what he's read (and thus be able to focus on the generalizable stuff) comes along and gives it a go. A separate article on Aircraft design process is frankly absurd. The "process" of creating aircraft designs becomes less coherent, rather than more so, when divorced from the overall question of designing aircraft. The process is integral. Hiving bits of non-contextualized information into ever smaller, unwatched bits is disruptive. It leads to a thinner spread of editing resources, less focused editing on quality and more poor and generally inaccurate and/or useless articles (i.e. "Aircraft design is the design of aircraft.")Bali ultimate (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at aerospace engineering and quite liked the section about education and qualifications. But the rest was too much about "rocket science". These subjects are quite enormous and, the more general you make them, the harder they become to get written - there's too much to summarise and balance. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is rather silly. Aircraft design is clearly a notable topic, shown from the sources now used in the article and the myriad of available sources from a Google news and books search. Aircraft design process also looks promising in being its own valid article as well, so long as it is carefully distinguished from the former article. I don't understand the comparison with Aerospace engineering made above at all. That article has practically nothing about design or design process of aircraft and focuses far more on rocketry than aircrafts anyways. Silverseren^C 21:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, as i said that article sucks too. But it's the right place for improvements to be made, not generating 3X the suckage. Of course this afd was originally about Aircraft design process before the gaming and disruption. Separating the "process" of designing aircrafts from the article on "designing" aircrafts is among the dumber thing's i've seen here, which is saying alot.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you are confusing the current state of articles with what notability is. The topic of aircraft design is clearly and overwhelmingly notable. The topic of the process of aircraft design has the potential to be notable if enough information can be gathered about it (otherwise, it should be merged into the aircraft design article). The state of either article (and aerospace engineering for that matter) has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of the topic. If you feel the articles are atrocious, then you should help improve them, but that has nothing to do with this AfD. Silverseren^C 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - They're both inappropriate content forks. One of them, i might be convinced some day could become an appropriate fork when a high quality, lengthy section on aircraft design resides at the engineering article. The second fork should never stand; it's sublimely ridiculous.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't believe that aircraft design should be incorporated into the article on Aerospace engineering. The topics are fairly separate. What should be done is that the section in Aerospace engineering should be summarized and then direct readers to the main article on aircraft design. Furthermore, aircraft design deals with the types of designs of aircraft and the history behind it, while aircraft design process deals with the actual process of designing aircraft. They can clearly be seen as two separate things. Silver seren^C 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topics are fairly seperate. Wow. You have no idea what Aerospace engineering is, or what Aerospace engineers do, do you? Ok, I won't leave you in suspense. Aerospace engineers design, manage the process of construction for, and otherwise build airplanes and helicopters (and sometimes missiles and spacecraft, but far less often).Bali ultimate (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what Aerospace engineering is. But there is a huge difference between aerospace engineering, which is a branch of engineering, which is in itself a profession, and aircraft design, which is the history of how aircraft design has changed over the years and the types of major designs of aircrafts that there are. Like I said, they are fairly different. What you're proposing is akin to saying that Biomedical engineering should have the article on Biotechnology merged into it. Silver seren^C 02:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) I see no "History of" in either article's title (and Aerospace engineering explicitly includes "the design ... of aircraft"). (ii) Any historical material can adequately be contained in Aerospace engineering#History (to the extent that it's not already covered in Aviation history). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When all is said and done, and all the intervening bickering is ignored, we have an article which is soundly referenced, and which clearly is on a notable subject. Quibbling over names belongs on the article talk page - and is not, in itself, grounds for deletion. Collect (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. What we started with, and what we now have, are so different that no real consensus can be found in this debate. No consensus, with leave to speedy renominate if anyone feels it necessary. Courcelles 20:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suzan Bushnaq

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

Major COI issues, highly promotional tone, all the references are in Arabic and unverifiable. Should be a speedy, but there's a claim of notability. Still, the top relevant Google hits are her Facebook account. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:A7 Even if the claims are correct, I agree that it's highly promotional and fails to assert sufficient importance. Msnicki (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:A7. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete; I'd have probably tagged it for A7 myself, but I suppose it doesn't really matter. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the speedy tags (a7, g11), as I think this should be properly discussed. The sources in Arabic are allowed, as far as I know. Here is a link to the G-News Archives search result for her name in Arabic (سوزان بوشناق). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the Arbitration Award Biennial Kharafi, the Qurain Cultural Festival shows/awards(?), the Personal Exhibitions at the Art Gallery under the auspices of the National Council for Culture and Arts (the Kuwaiti arts ministry) and the verifiabilty and notability provided via the Kuwait press cited (albeit sporadically) is sufficient for notability via WP:Artists (Creative proffesionals) #4b has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition and perhaps #4c if the newpapers count for significant critical attention. I think there are some obvious problems and it might be best to cut the article right down to a small article with just the verifiable information. Our coverage of Kuwaiti art/artists is very limited and it would be a shame to reduce it further given we are trying to build a truly international encyclopedia. Also I think it is part of our job to try to verify sources in other languages when they offered. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I completely agree with you (particularly with the last part of your comment). However, the article in its current shape is very bad and unacceptable for an encyclopedia, it is someone's promotional personal essay. Can you translate the sources from Arabic? I'd like to help you with the clean up, but I can't read the script. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More important than diversity on Wikipedia is our ability, as a community, to verify the significance and facts claimed in the article. If we can't get a sufficient number of Arabic-speaking editors to verify this article and the subject's notability, it should be deleted. Ray^Talk 15:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are all web-flotsam and it's unclear what the level of reliability is for most of them. Several, like the flickr and youtube are WP:SELFPUB, i.e. totally unreliable. Most of the other websites sources are debatable. WP:RSUE advises that independent English translation accompany any foreign-language source and those are entirely absent here. In summary, there is not a single source that could be interpreted as being WP:RS. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

WP:RSUE says nothing of the sort. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does, see this: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, unless no English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." Xxanthippe (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

No sources are quoted in this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beg pardon, but what are all those links at the end of the article. If they are not sources, then this article is in worse shape than I had thought. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Those sources are cited, not quoted. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that seems to me to be splitting hairs. I think the common-sense interpretation is that having foreign-language sources exclusively, whatever their context, on English-language WP is worth little without the framing of proper translation. Most of us here clearly do not speak, read, or understand the language. How in the world are we to assess this case without that ability? Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It's not splitting hairs at all. The point is that translation of short quotations is allowable under fair use, but to post a translation of a significant amount of a source, i.e. enough to demonstrate that the subject passes notability guidelines, would be a copyright violation. Many sources are inaccessible to many readers for many reasons - most commonly due to them only being available in libraries in one part of the world - but that doesn't mean that we can't use them. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, we just differ in opinion here, I guess. I don't see this as the same accessibility issue at all. The "availability" impediment that you mention is pretty rare, I would say. Sources are almost always available from mainstream publications which are documented online, or, at worst, available from large, say academic libraries, which at least a few commentators in an AfD can easily check physically. In other words, there is no impediment to the AfD commentators as a collective group. The "language" impediment is something quite different. Saying that a proper translation "i.e. enough to demonstrate that the subject passes notability guidelines, would be a copyright violation" actually places us in the obviously contradictory position of having to assess notability without having any material upon which to base such an assessment. Unless one of us reads and speaks the language, we're out of luck as a group. And even then, such testimony might not be considered WP:RS. So, unless there's something readable that all of us can actually make an assessment upon, it would seem we should err conservatively, since this is a BLP. Agricola44 (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You contradict yourself. If you are prepared to accept offline publications that "at least a few", but not all, editors can verify, you should equally accept non-English sources that "at least a few", but not all, editors can verify. I, along with many other editors, can't understand many of the English-language sources used in our articles on, say, molecular biology or advanced mathematics (even though I have studied the latter subject at undergraduate level), but that doesn't mean that we should delete such articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you're now obfuscating "understanding" in a language sense with "understanding" in a content sense. It's obviously not necessary to understand the work of say some physicist (content). What we understand (in the language sense) is some secondary source written about that person or some database that tallies citations to their work – and these we accept as reliable sources. With databases like GS, GBooks, etc. etc., we almost always find this information on-line, so there is very little "availability" bias, as you're alleging. I don't ever remember a case where some editor went off, found an obscure source, brought it to the group, and had it accepted on that basis alone. Good sources are widely found in libraries and thus easily checked. That's the crux! If you, I, and other can't even understand the language that a secondary source is written in, how exactly are we supposed to assess it? To me, this is obvious nonsense. Suggest concluding this discussion with both of us (acceptably) remaining unconvinced of the opposing position. Closing admin will sort this out. Over and out, Agricola44 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. WP:A7 Not reliable references(Facebook, twitter,flickr). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertzerox (talk • contribs) 18:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC) — Robertzerox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Has significant coverage in sources such as such as Al-Qabas and Al Rai, which are perfectly acceptable reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have tried to remove all the unsourced stuff and produced a short stubb using verifyable sources which seem to me to indicate clearly sufficient notability. Hope this is OK, best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: That stub looks far better than the original. I'm leaning toward changing my vote to keep based on the sources cited. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to read and understand the sources and confirm that they are substantially about the subject and not just web factoids? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Reply on sources: The first ref is an interview with biographical slant - in Al Qabas a Kuwaiti newspaper - the second is more directly about one of her exhibitions in Al Rai, another Kuwaiti paper - the third is an article in Alam Al-Yawm and includes substantial biographical details and lists of exhibitions and awards - the fourth is in the Kuwaiti weekly Al Talea Reporting on the First Al Kharafi Biennial - where it list Bushnaq's Arbitration Award - and the last one also in Al Rai just mentions her Issa Sakr award. They all seem reliable sources to me for our purposes. Does that help? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the heroic work you have done on this article to cleanse it of its dross and puffery. Unfortunately, when this is done, little of enough value remains behind. Even if the handful of remaining sources is reliable (and we would need a translation to assess this), they are quite inadequate in number to provide the necessary notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. WP:A7, The sources are unclear. Masterman will (talk) 04:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe coverage in the mentioned newspapers is in my opinion sufficient, Suzan Bushnaq is a notable person for Kuwaiti culture and art. The article is expandable, the information is verifiable. Thanks to Msrasnw for his exemplary encyclopedic effort. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:GNG. There are sources. The fact most of us may not understand the language should not warrant deletion. Frankly, I am getting a little sick to my stomach of editor Agricola44's pretentiousness, forcefullness and over-the-top deletionism tactics. Your arguments above with another editor show this clearly.Turqoise 127 21:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you claim that the sources are adequate then please supply translations so that editors may assess them. Please note policy "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing such a source without quoting it, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote or the talk page." You do not help your argument by attacking experienced and respected editors WP:No personal attacks. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Didn't you read my explanation above? Once again, there are no quotes from sources in this article, so that part of the policy doesn't apply. No request has been made for translation to verify any particular statements in the article, so the second part of the policy also does not apply. A translation of any more than a short snippet of any source can't be provided because that would constitute a copyright violation. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am making a request for a translation. I add, again, that even if the quotes come up trumps, they are unlikely to be sufficient in number to assure notability, Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: Turqoise127 was blocked for the above comment, as it was yet another line in a long string of personal attacks on his part. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some translating attempts (my Arabic is not good!), a request to know how many sources are required by those asking for them? and a slight worry about the nature of some of the contributions to this debate.

Translations Here are some rough translating attempts - is this what is wanted? Paragraph 1 uses three sources Ref 1. An article Hanan Obaid Hanan (2009) This is in the form of an interview with Susan Bushnaq, in the national newspaper Al-Qabas. This tells us of Ms Bushnaq's Kuwaiti origins education in Russia - return to Kuwait - her exhibitions - her father (another noted artist) and some notes about her style. The last paragraph here is a quick summary of her life her

بوشناق في سطور

سوزان بشناق فنانة كويتية تشكيلية مارست فن الرسم منذ الطفولة بعد أن تأثرت بوالدها الفنان التشكيلي والنحات، اكتشف والدها موهبتها وشجعها على ممارستها، ثم درست في الجامعة في روسيا الفن التشكيلي لمدة سبع سنوات، عادت الى الكويت بعد أن حصلت على الماجستير في الفن التشكيلي وكانت لها مشاركات منذ عام 1988 في معارض داخلية وخارجية سواء كانت في روسيا أو لندن، كذلك تزوجت بفنان تشكيلي وهو علي كمال، وعائلتها بشناق أصولها من البوسنة أتى اجدادها للكويت واستقروا فيها.

Ref 2 An article in the national newspaper Alrai which profiles a cultural exhibition was held in the national Hall of Arts. Susan Bushnaq "a female painter who uses symbolism indicating vitality and beauty". This tells us about a Perosnal Exhibition of artist Susan Bushnaq being opened by the Director of Arts Hashem Rifai for the Secretary-General of the National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters in Abdullah Al-Salem. and it has some what seems to me quite flowery language discussing her art.

Ref 3 An Article in Alam Al-Yawm this also in the main body details her life and finishes with a summary listing of her resume - including her

Exhibitions (Here google translate can be used as it is quite good on lists and the like)

Exhibition in the hall under the auspices of Boushahri National Council for Culture, Arts and Letters in 1999 and 2001 and 2002. Personal exhibition in the Art Gallery under the auspices of the National Council for Culture, Arts and Arts for 2006. Gallery Profile fifth in the Art Gallery in 2008.

Posts

Charity art exhibition for the benefit of Kosovo Albanians in 1999. Gallery women's freedom of artistic expression under the auspices of the United Nations art gallery and ceramics artists in February 2000 «Hala February». Child International Fair in Russia in 1988. Gallery prisoner in London. Cultural Week in Sudan Biennale Bangladesh Chamber Opera in Egypt Kuwaiti Artists Exhibition in Jordan. Gallery Arabian Oil Company «Khafji» Heritage and Fine Arts Gallery of the United Nations in America. Kuwaiti cultural week in Algeria Festival in Alexandria Creativity Center .. The cultural week in Syria. Exhibition in the first cultural festival in Sharjah. Awards She holds many certificates of merit and the award for Issa Sakr 2004 and 2007 and the arbitration award Biennial Kharafi.

Paragraph 2 uses one of the above and also these two to document the awards.

Ref 4 Article in the Kuwaiti Weekly Al Talea Reporting on the First Al Kharafi Biennial Wednesday 24 Issue No 1425 - January 5, 2005 No. 1660 - this was just been used because it lists Bushnaq's Al Kharafi Biennial Arbitration Award (Accessed Nov. 2010)

Ref 5 Article in Al Rai(Accessed Nov. 2010) just been used to also identiy her as winning the Issa Sakr!

How many sources are needed? We have two substantial biographies and notes of her work in national newspapers and other articles which arent about her mentioning her in the context of her recieving awards. These seem to me sufficient for WP:Artists (Creative proffesionals) #4b has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition (these are discussed in the refs) and #4c the national newpaper articles seem to me to count for significant critical attention.

A slight concern about some of the contributions to this debate: I am not sure it is fair to criticise sources as all being web-flotsam and then to argue you can't understand them anyway. How does one know to suggest deletion in such a case? I think the suggestion to delete might have come after translations of sources or other attempts at verification if they were judged to have failed rather than before.

Also I don't see how A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content) is relevant as at all stages the article has clearly claimed that this is a notable and award winning artist with lots of exhibitions and critical reviews. WPA7 also seems to state The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines

Anyway best wishes (السلام عليكم) (Msrasnw (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Even more congratulations on your super-heroic work in providing translations. Unfortunately they confirm that the few sources are indeed, for the most part, web flotsam. The director of a gallery issues a press release to drum up business and some media outlet that is short of copy prints it, probably verbatim. Contrast this with the notability requirements for academic BLPs which required a large number of hundreds of citations from independent expert commentators who, for the most part have no encouragement to cite at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Reply to Xxanthippe - Many thanks for your kind words - but I am not sure how the directors of galleries issuing press releases is relevant here as there was not a mention of this in my attempted translations. All four refs are proper articles in newspapers. Do you have specific information about press releases. I too can imagine that press releases might have been issued by the national galleries where her exhibitions have been held - or from the ministry sponsoring them. But all that was listed here were articles in the national press. I have not undertaken an investigation of the sources the journalists have used. I think there might be other similar sources that we might use but I am not sure just adding the number would help with your concerns. Yes I agree with you the WP:PROF which we interpret as requiring hundreds - even a thousand citations in proper journals etc is in a sense more demanding than the criteria relevant here which is WP:ARTIST which seems to just require in this case that The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. I think here articles in the national press about the artist are sufficient. Best wishes and شكرا مرة أخرى على الكلمات الرقيقة PS: Do you still really think WP:A7 delete is appropriate - perhaps another rationale might be better (Msrasnw (talk) 10:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This is the way the world of publicity works. A person who wishes to promote themselves forms a symbiotic relationship with a journalist (one gets the publicity the other the copy to fill up the publication) and thereby attains some spurious notability. Early versions of the BLP show that its WP:SPA author was a dab hand at promoting its subject but this article is far from being the worst of its type. It is the job of editors on these AfD pages to sort the sheep from the goats. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Hegvald (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article at the time the AfD was started was such a remarkably bad example of promotionalism, that had I noticed it I would have speedy deleted it, thinking it best to start over. However, it has been excellently edited since by Msrasnw. By our criteria for artists, the subject seems marginal. There is no indication of works in major museums or winning major awards, just a small number of local awards. Xxantippe is correct that we usually discount material prepared by galleries where an artist has exhibited for showing notability, though of course there can be exceptions. Normally we expect reviews to be in appropriate publications--local newspapers are not really considered discriminating in their coverage of local artists or writers. But the newspapers publishing these are major Kuwaiti papers, but in this case, my own feeling is that they have primarily local significance for a subject such as they, reliable though they may be in general news. The content of the articles as described above seems to merely document the awards. (Needless to say, any language is acceptable. There are probably dozens of active editors here who can read Arabic,and some of them have in fact helped us above) The question here is the notability of figures notable in a national level in small countries but not internationally. (this has mainly come up before in the context of athletes from places such as Andorra.) In one particular field, scientific research, there has been a clear consistent determination that notability is to be judged by an international standard. In the field of politics, there is an equally firm determination that it is national, and all countries are considered equally. In the arts, it's harder to say. People who work within a genre particular to one country or region have to be judged on that basis, and for example, writers in Arabic are judged by the standards applicable to Arabic literature. I do not think she fits in this category, but it is hard to make the judgement. One article in an international art magazine, one painting in a major museum, would be enough for notability . If I were closing it now, I would say no consensus . But I'm commenting, and I want to say something more helpful, so it's weak keep, on the basis of my personal inclination to turn the bias to keep for people who work in the smaller countries, or those out of the mainstream. I do not argue that anyone should necessarily share my bias. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to a solid (if weak) keep. Msrasnw has done an exemplary job of bringing a puff piece out of the deletion log and turning it into something useful. My weak keep is for the reasons stated regarding the sources themselves, but I feel they're acceptable nonetheless. PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deletion as hoax

Robert Henry Vaughn

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

No reliable sources. Likely hoax article. Comparing this version of the article after the creator was done with it to this version of Billie Joe Armstrong from the same timeframe, we see that their father's happened to have the same job and die on the same day ("His father worked as a jazz musician and truck driver for Safeway Inc. to support his family. He died of esophageal cancer on September 10, 1982"); they recorded the same song for the same label and dedicated the same song to their father ("where a teacher encouraged him to record a song titled "Look For Love" at the age of fifteen on the Bay Area label "Fiat Records". After his father died, his mother married a man whom her children disliked, which made Vaughn retreat further into music. Vaughn dedicated a song to him called "Why Do You Want Him""). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting as a hoax. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge discussion should probably be opened instead. If that fails to achieve consensus, the article can be renominated. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)

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

The song was not released as a single, did not chart, and basically fails every aspect of WP:NSONG. However, it was recreated by a member after Greatest Hits: My Prerogative was nominated as a good topic. Xwomanizerx (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since this song did not chart on any major chart, it is not notable according to Wikipedia rules.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously. When articles grow large enough, it is perfectly normal and even encouraged to split them into seperate articles. The Greatest Hits: My Prerogative article cannot contain all the details regarding this song, which garnered significant criticism and praise. Seriously, when an article is written like this, and referenced like this, it's notable. That a song charts or not is not the be-all end-all of notability. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But all the information from the iTunes release is included in the Greatest Hits: My Prerogative article, if this is not deleted most of the background section from the album's page will be gone. And I was the one who previously wrote the article, but the notability guidelines read: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. "I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)" therefore is not notable. Otherwise, there would be articles for every song released. Xwomanizerx (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is a sufficient but non-necessary criteria to establish notability. Plenty of songs fail to chart but are still notable, this is one of them. See also WP:NOTPAPER. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you, every song on every album is notable if it's reviewed? Xwomanizerx (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although the song seems to have a fair amount of coverage it is not notable on its own. Fails WP:NSONG for no covers by a notable article, and much more importantly, no chartings anywhere. So my vote is to delete, sorry. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per comments made by CLK and because there is nothing particularly or idependently noteworthy of the song. However it should be noted that said nominator Xwomanizerx is inappropriately inviting people to support his nomination. Asking me to comment is one thing but asking for my support of your nomination is against wikipedia rules. I support the merge of this article back into the greatest hits I do not support the nomination of this article for deletion. A merge discussion should have been opened instead. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 01:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry for asking for your support, instead of your comments. I clearly wasn't thinking when I wrote in your talk page, and I had no intention at all to break the rules. Anyway, the content is already in the greatest hits, I don't really understand what the editor who recreated the page was trying to do. Xwomanizerx (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Xwomanizerx appears to be canvassing for delete votes.[4][5][6][7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did not know I was breaking the rules. I just wanted opinions from other editors who have gone through a similar situation. But this is just ridiculous. A number of articles have been deleted in the past for failing every aspect of WP:NSONG, why is this an exception? This deletion is not just about this article, because I'll probably have the same problems every time I nominate a good topic in the future. Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable for inclusion, and also no extra content for merging into Greatest Hits : My Prerogative. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the editor is just wanting to delete this because it is keeping Greatest Hits: My Prerogative from being a good topic. They are cherrypicking pieces of Wikipedia:Notability (music), which like many other pages are just guidelines and do not need to be strictly followed. The song has reception, and shows "significant coverage from third party reliable sources", which is the main policy for notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered that, but with the blatant canvassing (only messaged the non-keeps, asked them to support his deletion nomination) taking place above... this bares consideration. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I wrote the article and wanted to nominate it for GA in the past, but since it failed WP:NSONG I just redirected it to the greatest hits page. It was redirected like that for months, but Headbomb recreated it following the nomination. What a coincidence, huh? Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to assume bad faith, but it just had to be put out there. I wasn't sure if it was true or not. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONG. This song did not chart anywhere, did not win any awards, did not generate any controversy or impact. There's no notability. Bluesatellite (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability for songs, the refs here are mainly reviews of the album in question, not independent coverage. 155.69.192.176 (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the IP above has no recent editing as well as can be a logged out user.

My bad, forgot the sign in. Fixer23 (talk) 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pass WP:GNG, which is a higher policy than WP:NSONGS. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 04:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sorry to be a pest in the quest for a good topic, but hopefully you can get all the singles to good article and then have a better topic all round. I have found 2 further sources that discuss the single's popularity on iTunes as fans thought it was a new track, from Contactmusic and Soulshine. Added to the existing MTV source and the coverage that it receives in the album reviews, and for me that meets the requirements of WP:GNG, rendering the music notability guidelines irrelevant. Mechanical digger (talk) 13:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those other sources aren't really reputable sources though, but I know a lot of articles don't rely on such sources. Fixer23 (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have listed them if I didn't think they were reliable. What's wrong with them? Mechanical digger (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say although they are not reliable, many articles still list such websites as sources. typo there. They're not reputable because those websites usually just take an existing article and write up a shorter derivative and do not often generate their own content. They act more like mirrors. Fixer23 (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both are reliable, but they contain the same or less information than the MTV article, which is the primary source of the page. Xwomanizerx (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cali (inventor)

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

I can't find anything to verify the claims to notability in this article. Gigs (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; almost certainly a hoax. If he really did help design the Empire State Building and World Trade Center, there would be some way to verify it. Kansan (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The claims are questionable. For example, if he was really an inventor, you'd expect to find some issued patents; there are none under his name. Msnicki (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor industrial designer - his plug-ugly pen is well-known (amongst pen geeks), but it's only of interest to the sort of rich Juggalo who is still in awe of how magnets work. I can't think of any of his works that would count as "invention". Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His work is the field of VW Beetle restoration is fairly well known (for Type IV engines, his guides seems to be highly regarded). Is that enough to tip it? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Msnicki. Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 01:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Kay

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

Does not satisfy requirements of either WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Article specifically notes that he is not a professional sportsman, and I can find no evidence he has ever played above the semi-pro/amateur 9th level of the English football league system -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 00:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. The article asserts its own non-notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 07:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Militainment

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

Non-notable neologism. Delete per WP:NOTNEO. Kelly ^hi! 15:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.
Delete. This appears to be a neologism describing entertainments featuring the heroic deeds of soldiers: a new TV genre centered on the mythic stereotype of stage-managed heroes. It is amusing to imagine the mindset of someone who imagined this neologism was helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NEO with a great big WP:COI pushing one person's new dramatic McGuffin. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks the range and depth of sources to WP:verify notability. Need to prove it's more than just another WP:NEOLOGISM Shooterwalker (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep but improve drastically. Fram (talk) 11:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Potter

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

Article contents are unsourced and are merely plot elements of It's a Wonderful Life. Tagged with {{story}} for almost 3 years and little has been done to make this appear as a standard encyclopedia entry. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but . . . cut this back to a bare minimum and start again. I have little doubt that Mr. Potter is a notable character and an important literary archetype. There are hundreds of hits at Google News [8] and Google Scholar [9], for example, in which his name is invoked as a stand-in for greedy bankers, heartless capitalism, out-of-touch management, etc. (A few examples taken randomly from the first few pages of search results:[10][11][12]) His inclusion in AFI's 100 Years…100 Heroes and Villains, which is mentioned in the article, is reasonably good evidence for this, and enough to justify keeping a short article rather than just blanking and redirecting. However, I readily agree with Sottolacqua that the current article is almost pure plot regurgitation with a little bit of WP:OR thrown in, and contains almost nothing (beyond the aforementioned AFI reference) that elucidates the character's notability and meaning. So I would keep this, but cut it back to a few sentences. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... (and, like Arxiloxos I have to qualify this with a "...but cut this back"). I can't say that this article is worth more dead than alive, although it does suck. However, Lionel Barrymore's character has real world notability, and there's nothing that can't be fixed by the next visitor to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The article is a holdover from the old-school, I-saw-it-on-TV days of Wikipedia. I agree with the nominator that there's way too much plot summary here, and quoting Uncle Billy is over the top. Operate on the assumption that it will be kept anyway, and then please edit the hell out of it. Mandsford 02:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the good reasons adduced by Arxiloxos. It is our editing policy to improve such articles, not delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bare bones per Arxiloxos, Sadads (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vote-tallying is 50/50, but note has to be taken of the vast array of IP Keeps, presumably drawn here by off-wiki canvassing, practically none of which make any policy-based reasons to keep the article. There are a few reasonable comments in favour of keeping, but they are far outweighed by general consensus that this fails NOTNEWS. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch

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

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

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

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

This suspected airplane contrail which TV news has speculatively called a missile launch fails the WP:NOTNEWS guidelines. All sources appear speculative and this is unlikely to change in the near future. If the defence department suddenly changes its story then there may be grounds for an article about their confusion. Fæ (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now). This has happened several times in the past year, this one happened to get wider news coverage. Fae is right, NOTNEWS. tedder (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this story developed, it's even more clear it is just a NOTNEWS issue. It's a minor happening that became a news item. It should be covered by The Daily Show (which it was, for about 8 minutes) and probably by Snopes. But it's a single news event that has no encyclopedic value. tedder (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. It relates to a current news story, details may change... this does not mean that nothing should be said until 100% verified facts are available. It is noteworthy to state the apparent facts as they have been reported, as long as the speculative nature of the reporting is made clear in the article. Tedder states that this has happened several times this year, if that claim can be supported by sources then it warrants being added to the article. As Tedder says, this incident has received wide news coverage, which makes it notable. People will search for this incident on Wikipedia in order to find Wikipedians' assessment of the facts. This article is sourced... visitors can have faith that this article constituents the full facts that are available on the incident. Because there are limited facts available, does not mean the article should be deleted... there is value in showing to people that the facts at hand are limited. If this is one of several 'missile launches' then this is a developing story... new facts will come to light and be added to the article in time... or if nothing new transpires it can be made clear to visitors that the reports were entirely speculative and that nothing eventuated from the incident. In short, there is value in leaving this article intact. It is news... a lot of people would consider this as news, as evidenced by its wide coverage in the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.81.148 (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the above user's only edit. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consider using {{spa}} to mark this. tedder (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the moment, just the title of the article is OR: the sources say that something happened, but nobody's sure what it was. Until there's anything concrete about the subject, just noting speculation about a contrail under the title "missile launch" (when it could be any one of a dozen other things) is inherently POV-pushing. You might as well have an article called "2010 bell shaped cloud that is totally a flying saucer because a newspaper said it might be." Herr Gruber (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. Totally speculative and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. I'm not even convinced there was an incident beyond some confused citizens that saw a contrail, which conspiracy theorists picked up and ran as a missile. bahamut0013^words _deeds 15:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reaffirm: I've looked at the improved and renamed article, and I feel my rationale still stands. Even though it garnered a generous amount of attention, it's still much ado about nothing, and not notable for anything except a brief spurt of media hysteria. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Brief hysteria on a slow, post-election news day. "Somebody filmed a missile contrail, no one knows where it came from" is not really a proper encyclopedic topic, per WP:NOTNEWS. Tarc (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speculation on the event itself is one thing. The bizarre response from the FAA and the DoD is quite another. The event is notable just for the fact that no one from the plethora of civilian and military sources that should know better can claim responsibility for the "operation", much less agree on what it even is. If the FAA stood up and said "Its a plane guys, relax." the event would still be notable for the fact that several major military organizations apparently didn't know it was a plane when they started making statements relating to a missile launch. I more created the article to start collecting the follow-on responses rather than theorize on the event itself. I've just not had the time to sit down and do more than a slapdash job thus far.130.135.66.4 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you believe it's grounds for an article about how it took a government agency a while to do something? Ok, I'll get started on my "late survey form filing incidents of 2003" opus immediately. Here's the rub: post 9/11, if someone says to these agencies that there's been a national security incident, they treat it as such until they can prove otherwise; the spokesman David Lapan actually said that nobody had evaluated the video yet, so it's hardly a surprise that they haven't made any determinations about what made the trail (which should give you some idea of how high this "missile launch" ranks on their list of priorities). There's nothing notable about an event in which they're following procedure and not issuing definite statements until they actually have something definite to state. Herr Gruber (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Marcello Truzzi would support keeping it until at least the facts are known. Gil Leyvas can still speak to his altitude, coordinates to determine if this was more likley a routine event or an unexplained aberration. What idiots we would be if we failed to memorialize Reverend Plot's 1673 discovery of a dinosaur bone because someone offered some alternative explanation without scientific observations calculations of height trajectory etc.unsigned edit by Describer (talk · contribs)
- This user has made a total of three edits, at a rate of one per year. Herr Gruber (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fail to see how that matters. Just look at the weight of their argument instead. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the thing that is noteworthy about this event is the journalistic failure. It may belong in another article related to journalistic failure. Jim Bowery (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete largely per Herr Gruber. The article would be more appropriately titled "2010 thing in the sky people saw and wondered about", with contents of "there was a thing on November 9th which some people think may have been a missile but no one really knows because there's no evidence of anything and the news bureaus are mostly saying that because we don't know what it is it must be something." In other words, given current news coverage, there's no there there to hang an article on. Any text calling the thing a missile, unless it's a direct quote from the source (and possibly even then, considering that, as the nominator pointed out, all the "sources" are speculative), amounts to POV pushing, and without the prop of "omg it was a missile," there's nothing to write about yet. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say I'm especially impressed with the article saying it happened on November the 9th (title, first para) and also on November the 8th (third para). It's no wonder the military can't get a handle on it, it's clearly being created by a time machine.Herr Gruber (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's due to a lazy merge. tedder (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with work and rename). Debunking is just as valuable and encyclopedic as listing pokemon. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. This is more appropriate for Wikinews for now since, honestly, the title is possible OR and we just don't know what's going on. Kansan (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was legitimate to create the article when it looked like the story would continue being controversial, growing and become more noteworthy. But now that it seems obvious it was a contrail, it looks like the story will quickly die and end up a very small blip in this year's news. --Qwerty0 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure Ok actually I expected the story to fade away but instead the media's coverage of the non-story seems to have become a notable story (like Balloon Boy?). For example, The Rachel Maddow Show, The Daily Show, NPR. --Qwerty0 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (with work and rename). Article should be kept and renamed "Apparent contrail of jet mistaken by media as missile launch off Southern California coast 11-8-2010" or something like that. Moe (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - for now. If this turns out to be an optical illusion - delete. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 18:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why would you delete this article? Re-name it if you wish, but do not delete it. This is relevant. DO NOT DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.196 (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Let's face it, people will look here - if this is properly resolved in a few days, it can be be deleted then.188.97.131.207 (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — 188.97.131.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing as how this event is being looked at from many different perspectives and that people will flock to Wikipedia for information, I say a definitive "KEEP" in my books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.101.237.193 (talk) 19:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even news; this happens all the time. Even the title is nonsense; nobody except a few over-excitable news outlets is calling it a "missile launch". – iridescent 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least rename - Heading is WP:OR at the moment and it qualifies under WP:NOT#NEWS. However, I think if it proves to be as controversial as the Norwegian spiral was it should be recreated with a more appropriate heading. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its been covered across the country, its still newsworthy, and could be something big depending on what it is. Re-name if you want just keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.200.90 (talk • contribs)
Keep I'm hearing a LOT of "rename", but no suggestions. Where are the suggestions? Re-name the article to what??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One !vote per person please, if you want to make comments then mark them as Comment rather than Keep/Delete/Merge etc. Fæ (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Contrail#8_November_2010_Californian_.22mystery_missile.22_scare. At the moment the topic is notable as a subsection of Contrail. i think it could potentially become notable as an article in its own right because of the panic it created, the conspiracy theory for which mainstream media are especially responsible, and the media's reaction itself. But these aspects would probably have to wait for academic analysis in order to be RS'ed as being notable in a wikipedia sense. See Talk:November 9th, 2010 Southern California Missile Launch#Notability for details. i didn't write "merge" here but there might still be a few facts and sources in the present version that could be merged into Contrail#8_November_2010_Californian_.22mystery_missile.22_scare.Boud (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (strike Boud (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Speedy delete A classic example of why Wikipedia is not the news: because instant articles like this may be created before all the facts are in and thus promote misinformation. In this case, someone created an article with a blatantly false title; there is no evidence of any "missile launch". And the longer that title stays here and propagates through the internet, the more people will believe there actually was a missile launch - "after all, Wikipedia said so!" If this thing must stay up for the full 7 days of discussion, at least let's speedy-rename it to something like "November 9, 2010 Southern California contrail controversy". --MelanieN (talk) 02:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable incident. Remove from silly "missile" title, of course. TiC (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear NOTNEWS issue, POV title, doubtful notability in the future. Hairhorn (talk) 04:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There, I boldly changed the title to November 9th, 2010 Southern California contrail controversy - since everyone here seems to agree the title is unfortunate regardless of where they stand on the keep-vs.-delete discussion. Closing administrator, please note the move. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the cited sources say it happened on the 8th. Also, DoD now says it was just a plane contrail, surprising nobody. Case closed, methinks. Herr Gruber (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I added the new information to the article and deleted the confident descriptions of it as a "missile launch". --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at November 8th, 2010 Southern California contrail since I couldn't see any sources suggesting the identification was controversial and the date was wrong. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new title, together with the updated information, makes it even clearer what a trivial non-news-story this really was. --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would oppose a redirect to the Contrail article (even though this incident is covered there) just because this is such an unlikely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to 'Launchgate' conspiracy theories—you know they're coming. Failing that, ahem, delete. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS and is unlikley to be notable in the future (given the now obvious outcome of the investigation). Anotherclown (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:NOTNEWS. Sad though a Brand new editor created this in Good Faith; Its unfortunate that his first creation rubs the wrong way of policy. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - News spike "articles are valuable for future historical research" according to the Recentism essay. At the moment the article lacks a long-term perspective, but it's hard to claim that it was just wacky news without potentially major consequences. For more than 24 hours, most of the mainstream media of the world's superpower published media reports which gave the impression that that same superpower, with over 800 military bases around the world, was totally powerless in explaining a missile launch just a few dozen km from one of its major cities. The potential implications could have been a new international war to anyone reading several "independent" mainstream media and assuming that the news was reliable given that it came from several different "reputable" sources. Whether or not the missile meme will survive along with other conspiracy theories remains to be seen, and whether media analysts/academics decide that the media frenzy is important will require some time to see. Boud (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wouldn't this be comparable to the 2009 Norwegian spiral anomaly?--DrWho42 (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. With the difference that (according to the articles), the main reaction by people in Norway was to telephone the Meteorological Office, while the main reaction in the USA was for the media to state that it's a missile unknown to military and aviation authorities. i guess it's a cultural difference. Boud (talk) 10:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it was just a contrail, the incredible overreaction of the media is the real story here. Oberono (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable event which will be debated for a long time, by people who think it was contrail or some sort of missile. CNN is still talking about it a week later. Today they interviewed a MIT professor who believes it was a missile. [13] --Tocino 00:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Clarification) The video from CNN appears to be dated 10th November, not today or yesterday. Fæ (talk) 05:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Having the exact date in the name makes this sound much less important than it really is. I mean, is there one of these every day in California? I decided to be bold and rename this to "2010 Southern California mystery contrail". Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverted. There is no "mystery" anymore as to what it was, and claiming otherwise is POV-pushing. Every credible source agrees it was a head-on aircraft contrail. Herr Gruber (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The contrail sighting is notable because of the mystery of what it was. Multiple reliable sources used the phrase "mystery contrail" to describe this even while describing it as from an aircraft: California's Mystery Contrail Likely an Aircraft, Pentagon Says,[14] Mystery' contrail seen from space,[15] Experts: Mystery Contrail Was Plane, Not Missile.[16]. Per WP:COMMONNAME, should always use the most common terms for something when titling an article;
  - 2010 Southern California mystery contrail is brief and to the point, while November 8th, 2010 Southern California contrail tends to bury the lead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Squidfryerchef: If you read the Contrail Science and Bahneman links, you'll find that indeed it seems quite likely that if flight plans remain fixed, then for some span of days around 8 November-ish each year, provided the weather is about the same (temperature, humidity, ...) near Los Angeles, this should occur "every" day. Calculation and observation would be needed to find out how wide the span of valid days is. But i suspect that none of the repeat events would be accepted for individual wikipedia articles. Boud (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I'm getting at is, it's not every day in California that a contrail generates such a media frenzy. Having the exact date in the title implies that in L.A. they panic over a contrail five or six times a month. Also, using the exact date causes an additional problem; it was already Nov 9 UTC when the contrail was spotted. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Besides the news coverage, this has instructive value because of what it is; an example of how an aircraft contrail could be mistaken for a missile launch. This appears to pass the "10-year test" in WP:RECENTISM; I know that if I were studying aviation and something like this had happened 10 years ago, I'd want to read about it. I understand the reaction that this is just a silly news story, but silly news stories don't get reaction pieces in the New Scientist. I could live with a merge to contrail, but there is enough coverage of this to merit a separate article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a moronic mass media is no reason to have a moronic encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At present this fails WP:EVENT by a mile. Enduring coverage? Not yet at any rate. Widespread geographical impact? No. Lasting impact? Doesn't look like it. At best it's worth a mention somewhere else, preferably without a redirect. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Cabrol

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

No indication of passing Wikipedia:Notability (people). Being an adjunct professor at Georgetown is clearly not enough to pass WP:PROF. Managing a department of the Inter-American Development is also clearly not grounds for notability. A related AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ana Santiago. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 15:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. --Diego Grez (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G6. — ξ ^xplicit 01:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magtanggol Gunigundo (disambiguation)

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

I guess I had this wrong referencing, but the present and the representative Magtanggol Gunigundo is the first (Magtanggol Gunigundo I) and his father wasn't a representative after all. JL 09 ^_q?_c 13:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stream Companies

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

Company that fails WP:CORP. Being "one of the largest full service advertising agencies in the Philadelphia region" is a tenuous claim to notability to my mind; I did put some effort into trying to find sources, but failed to find anything written by a third party with the exception of a couple of client testimonials. bonadea contributions talk 12:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Speedy delete. Yet another ad agency turning to Wikipedia for free publicity. If being "one of the largest full service advertising agencies in the Philadelphia region" is its only claim to fame, I'd say that fails minimal significance; and in any case this does nothing but promote the business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic To Petrol

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

Intriguing school project, but Wikipedia is not really the place for it. WP:OR Catfish Jim & the soapdish 12:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, that's just a piece of original research. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for goodness sake. Wikipedia is not a free host. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was about to say Keep, until I read this article. This is a hot topic in the UK at present, with plenty of mainstream news coverage in recent days (WP:N would be easy). However this article is a crock: fails WP:NOTHOWTO for one, too tied to just one group's view of the process, far too poorly written. I would still welcome a decent article on much the same topic, if it could be of broad scope and encyclopedic. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, User:Aakash30jan is a newcomer to Wikipedia and isn't yet familiar with its limitations. I agree entirely that we can't have a how-to article, particularly a step-by-step that involves using heat and pressure to create flammable liquids at home. It's possible that Alka Zadgaonkar, the engineering professor who is developing this, is notable enough for her own article. [17] and [18] suggest that possibility. Mandsford 19:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some tidying up on the article. In particular, I have removed the "how to" section. Biscuittin (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and try to merge into Myanma Airways. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Myanmar

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

Proposed and ultimately failed short-lived airline project without any significant coverage in reliable third party sources. IMO clearly fails WP:CORP (and likely also WP:GNG). Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit: In the light of the recent changes performed by User:Aymatth2 I'd go for merge and redirect to Myanma Airways. Even though the article's content has been greatly expanded, there is still no proof that the airline ever operated any flights (which IMO is neccessary to pass WP:CORP). The section about domestic flights is incorrect. According to this source, the alleged 1998 Air Myanmar plane crash was in fact a Myanma Airways flight, which is also covered in the respective article. Thus, Air Myanmar was obviously just a failed subsidiary of Myanma Airways (it has to be seen as a fact that they never operated any aircraft), with no stand-alone notability. Please note that IMO most of the recently added text at Air Myanmar are just unencyclopedic, promoting intentions and business plans (per WP:CRYSTAL). Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a search on the name and stuck in what I found. Probably the "domestic airline" content comes from people incorrectly using "Air Myanmar" for "Myanma Airways". I am o.k. with moving anything worth saving of this content to Myanma Airways, which could use more sources. (Done) The material on the international project is, I think, encyclopedic. The Myanmar Times did indeed report the successive announcements on the proposed joint venture, presumably accurately, and they tell the story of the changing plans and the delays. Other publications picked up the story and also noted the announcements. Then it fizzled out. I would not object to merging the content on the international project to a section in Myanma Airways, leaving this as a redirect, although I see no strong reason to merge. But "merge" is a separate discussion from "delete". Aymatth2 (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose deletion but I would support a merge into Myanma Airways.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That a project has failed usually decreases its importance, but does not remove it. As for merging, I would strongly oppose a merge, because there is no direct successor relationship between the two companies. Our articles are about the companies, not about the topic of International airlines of Burma--which would of course be a valid general article topic, with links to detailed articles about the individual organizations. And I would suggest that the present article, List of airlines of Burma, should be expanded to include the defunct ones, probably in a separate table. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG has convinced me. The failed joint venture is not the same as one of the parent companies. The sources show notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another reason to keep the article is that Hla Myint Swe (artist), only the second Burmese artist to make it into Wikipedia, is hanging by a thread, linked only to the rest of Wikipedia by a see also from Hla Myint Swe, the former Minister of Transport, who in turn is linked only by one reference in this article. Deleting this article would cut their only links to the broader world of Wikipedia. Surely Myanmar is isolated enough as it is. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I think that the conent can very easily be merged into the current Myanma Airways. Besides what is currently being used on the Myanma page, not much (maybe the plane type/destination) need to be saved. Ravendrop (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling at the 2011 Pan American Games

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

There will be a bowling tournament 11 months from now. Is this notable? I'm skeptical of STATS pages like this. Shadowjams (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hello, incase you have not noticed there is a really excellent source and this deletion thing should be removed immediatley!!!!!!, also its just the countries who have qualfied who are listed, not the athletes, which have a higher chance of withdrawing. Why is it that you want to delete specifically? I really dont understand the need here. *Frustrating*

Password1125 (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major international events have individual sport articles like this: Ice hockey at the 2010 Winter Olympics, Tennis at the 2010 Commonwealth Games, etc. This event will happen, and it is part of a highly notable multinational sporting event. Reso lute 17:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As mentioned by Resolute, Major international events have their own articles for each sport. -DJSasso (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There's no need to rush to create these articles a year ahead of time. Shadowjams (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a rush. The lead up to these sorts of events before the final competition happens has already begun with qualifications and the like, those are just as much part of the competition as the final events at the games themselves. -DJSasso (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadowjams then why is a majority of the 2012 Summer Olympics articles created? You just do not make any sense. Password1125 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per past precedent. Not wanting to go down this slippery slope today. Vodello (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are already sources, particularly if there are already qualifying tournaments or events that feed into the 2011 tournament, then we should probably keep this. The argument about the 2012 Summer Olympic events has no meaning here - we're not talking about those articles, we're talking about this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto Airlines

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

This airline was proposed 8 years ago, since then nothing has changed (especially no flights took place), so it's likely a failed business plan, failing WP:GNG. What is more, there are no reliable third-party sources covering the company in a significant way, so it also fails WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources that would go beyond what the article itself suggests, which again isn't enough. Shadowjams (talk) 11:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely ever to fly, now that Air Arabia exists as Sharjah's airline. Not notable as a project. Travelbird (talk) 14:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions of experts and commentators on the Annan Plan for Cyprus

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

Article is entirely quotes. No context and inherently unencyclopedic Shadowjams (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Only quotations with a certain historic significance and impact should be added to the main article covering the event. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever this is, it's not an encyclopedia article. Ray^Talk 15:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological impact of colonial Americans before 1877

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

Essay dumped here just under two years ago as the only contribution of a user called "Nboushee." Severe POV issues, reads like a school essay, quotes without citation. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 09:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure OR. Shadowjams (talk) 11:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has shown no inclination to improve over the last two years. MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure original research. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of outlaw motorcycle club patches

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

Completely unencyclopaedic. It is not a list in the classic sense on Wikipedia as none of the individual entries are wikilinks to articles. Tagged with multiple issues for a long time, none of which have been addressed. Article has no place on WIkipedia. Biker Biker (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pointless article which somewhat suggests that all clubs follow the same patch-code. -- WikHead (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in the least, and essentially unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Some of the more common ones could potentially be merged to Outlaw motorcycle club#Other patches, like the number "13", however this is a primarily unsourced glossary that is not necessary on its own. -Addionne (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite pointless overall, very little sourcing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DARTH_SIDIOUS_2 (talk • contribs)
Delete Outlaw_motorcycle_club#Colors covers what is at least minimally sourced. This list expands that into completely fanciful territory.--Dbratland (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already speedily deleted by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belkhayat criterion

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

Nonsensical article created by an SPA. I didn't tag it {{db-nonsense}} because it claims a source (or tries to, anyway). Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't this also be speedied with {{db-nocontext}}? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 08:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try that. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. Possibly could have been speedied as db-g1... DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Burchett

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

Unremarkable person. Most of the references are irrelevant. I suspect some COI / autobiography is at work here. Simple Bob (talk) 07:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's quoted a lot in the press, but I cannot find coverage about him. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of any significant coverage that I can find. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 21:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summer's Eve

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

Non-notable. Also, article consists solely of a product list and a few pop culture refs cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources adress this subject in the detail sufficient to write an article. Hipocrite (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. No sources in addition to it's homesite. I think non-notable as well. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 17:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the vast majority of online content is advertisements and regurgitated press releases, there is some coverage (i.e. [19][20][21][22][23][24]). The product has been around for quite awhile and is certainly well known. The article as it exists now is not entirely helpful, but I think it can be improved fairly easily. There are WP articles on products which are far less well known. SnottyWong ^confess 17:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Was notable enough to spoofed on Saturday Night Live [25], it really is a well-known product, and its 1980s commercials[26][27][28] have been a source of amusement.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: and i totally forgot about this recent coverage [29] (New York Times) (blog summary of brouhaha here: [30])--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking over the first of many pages for a Google news search, I found they had an ad that got ample coverage. [31] They also have been featured in many notable things from songs to comedy sketches, that part of the article erased for reasons unknown. This company is in the news and elsewhere enough to be notable. Dream Focus 03:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The erasure is on me and I made it clear in my reasoning; all of the uses were defamatory to the product (usually using it as a euphemism for an insult or to add a crass part to a song) and added absolutely nothing to the article, it isn't doing anything for notability except "#1 product in brand class we can use for an example". Also, we don't source YouTube references, especially to SNL skits (which will eventually be removed from there anyways). Nate • (chatter) 06:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the youtube clip for everyone's entertainment, not for inclusion in the article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 06:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a blog post, a short Q&A on a single ad, a youtube video and a briefmention does not add up to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many more sources out there, you can't just assume based on what's in the article to make a conclusion its not notable. E.g., just the recent controversy was widely covered, not just by the New York Times Q&A cite: BNET (CBS business news) [32], AOL News [33], Adweek [34], Salon.com [35], Mediabistro.com [36], The Consumerist [37], Jezebel [38], etc. --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs & online glossies, by the look of things. Nothing particularly weighty (Salon would be about the best), and all about the same single ad (WP:NOTNEWS would seem to apply). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course those sources are all about the single ad-because that's what i said they were. I didn't say that was all sources about the product, because it is surely not; the product has been around for maybe 30+ years. I don't care enough about feminine hygiene products to keep searching, though.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Callahorn. Uncontentious close by original author Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Border Legion (Shannara)

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

This page consists entirely of WP:NOT#PLOT description of a fictional element of the Shannara series, laden with references to the books themselves. Not a single secondary source can be found on this topic. Why? Because the premise in the lead, that "The Border Legion played a significant role in two novels of the trilogy", is false. I read, and greatly enjoyed, the Shannara books, and I know that the Border Legion is not important even as a plot device. The page is the time-intensive original research of a single user, as exemplified by this edit. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 05:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Callahorn as a short summary. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without redirect to Callahorn seems natural, not that that article doesn't have its own issues. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think "merge without redirect" is actually an option due to how page history stuff needs to be preserved. NotARealWord (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, coincidences – I was logged out and went to this article for the first time in ages to find it at AfD. I wrote it long before I knew (and/or cared) about NOT#PLOT, OR etc. Clear delete or redirect to Callahorn. As a side note, I think(?) I was referring to the Legion being important in Sword and the Free Corps in Elfstones, but it's been so long I don't remember. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Callahorn, I don't think there's enough relevant content for a merge.--hkr (talk) 14:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the Ed, Sadads (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -That way, if there is any content worth merging, it can still be merged. NotARealWord (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is broad agreement that the current state of the article is not acceptable, and I hope that those arguing to keep and improve will not assume somebody else will be doing it as it does need a lot of improvement. However, deletion is not warranted at this time as even the nominator has acknowledged that this is a bad article but a notable topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek love

AfDs for this article:

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

In the previous Afd, Greek love was presented as a non-notable term. It is in fact many different terms and some of them are notable. The article brings these terms together in an original way, citing literature that treats them separately - see for example [list of sources]. This breaches WP policy: Wikipedia:No original research. At different times in the past, the article has been edited to include or exclude different sources to reflect the personal preferences of different editors, resulting in content forking, edit wars, loss of useful sources and 'POV' pushing. I believe the article should be deleted. The content can be redistributed to more appropriate articles where it can be developed properly. A disambiguation list should be created where appropriate as this will allow readers to research the different meanings of the term without WP editors doing it for them. A merge would be difficult since a number of articles have strong claims to such a merger but the option is of course open to discussion. McZeus (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is my 1st option, 2nd is merge with Pederasty in ancient Greece (the historic meaning), 3rd is merge with Anal sex (a popular/slang term, appropriate for a popular encyclopaedia. McZeus (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:SYNTH, also a POV fork of a number of other articles - Alison ^❤ 06:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And what unsourced theory being advanced here would make this an improper synthesis (which is what WP:SYNT is about)? Tijfo098 (talk) 14:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild as a disambiguation page or set index It should just be a list article to list various articles where the various meanings of "Greek love" could be found, like male homosexuality. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig it -- I agree with 76, a disambiguation page would be best, so people looking for different meanings of "Greek love" will still find what they're looking for. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 09:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of pages with problems such as edit wars - that's not a reason to delete. It does have a clear theme with a term that has been a topic of scholarly research.Dejvid (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the term is context-specific i.e. it means different things in different contexts, and thus it operates as a virtual synonym for various terms. Define the context and you end up recreating a WP article that already exists. Hence merging is a possibility.McZeus (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is not a fork of any page; the subject of this article (the description of various practices - mostly but not entirely homoerotic - as "Greek love") is mentioned on several pages, but described on none. It is now entirely disjoint from the articles on the ancient world or on the various sexual practices. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This same editor has tried several pretexts to get rid of the same article; he vehemently backed the last deletion request - which was on a much worse version of the article; he has suggested disambiguation before - and it went nowhere ; please speedy close as forum-shopping. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those who are interested in converting to a dab should discuss there; it does not require AfD and needs more detail than the page has room for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the current edit reflects your choice of sources. Others might choose other sources and that is where the edit wars start. I invite everyone to look at the talk page there to see the sort of thing that happens with that article continually, and you should inspect the whole sad, troubled history of it. You'll find my contributions in the archives also. I have made contributions there under various user names in an effort to sort out the article's problems - check my user page for a list of my usernames. McZeus (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a falsehood; I have rejected one source, both tertiary and erroneous, but none of the writing in the article as it stands is mine. I am glad to see that McZeus at least acknowledges his sock-puppets. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Alison. A Macedonian (talk) 05:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject seems to be noteworthy and is not treated comprehensively on other pages. The same editor who nominated it for deletion has done so twice and engaged in lengthy battles with several other editors on the article's discussion page, in the page's archive, and in the project page, always attempting to justify removing most or all of the content over the objection of most other editors. The only reason the article has been nominated for deletion again is because there was no hope of obtaining a consensus for doing so in those forums. The only point of view being pushed here is that of the nominator. P Aculeius (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in good company, thankyou. McZeus (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are entire books written about the topic such as Greek Love and The Greeks and Greek Love. The topic is therefore notable and should not be a redlink. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [or move/disambig/redirect: see below]. Septentrionalis says the subject is "the description" -- i.e. the term itself. I agree this is the only proper definition of a topic with this title. (I have to reject e.g. Colonel Warden's suggestion that the two books named are "about the topic.") The question is whether treating this subject is possible without getting into WP:SYN on the one side or WP:NOT#DICT on the other. One thing and one thing only will give us solid middle ground between them: the existence of WP:RS on the topic. So I decide the question by taking stock of the sources found so far to support the article. I am very disappointed with them: they are incidental usages of the term, or single items in long lists of terms of overlapping reference. I am uneasy seeing claims about Greek love per se footnoted with sources that, typically, just happen to use that term in preference to others in a particular sentence. A single sentence by David Buchbinder (in the collection edited by Petrelli) actually says something about the term, attempting to define the reference: but at this scale, it's dictionary-work not encyclopedic-topic-work. It is quite possible that the valuable work of editors on this article has put them in a position to draft a dictionary article with good citations, but I can't convince myself it rises above that level. (There is valuable non-dictionary-level discussion in the article, but it seems equally appropriate to other existing Wikipedia articles.) Wareh (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of this, but come to a different conclusion. I considered the possibility of moving to Wiktionary, which an invocation of WP:NOT#DICT would imply. (And Col. Warden's books are largely off-topic, although one of them may have useful data; the second half of this book, however, seems precisely on topic.) But there is already more information than a Wiktionary article would want; nor do I see any existing article in which this particular intersection of LGBT history and classical historiography would all fit. If there is one, what is it? (And, procedurally, this would be a result of merge, which is a keep; we want anyone who looks up Greek love to be redirected to the material.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally I agree that Greek love should at minimum be a redirect, and that some content to guide the reader to redirect as desired (i.e. a disambiguation) would probably be better. My final parenthesis recognized your point that there is "more information" here; if this discussion endorses my view that this information is encyclopedic but not about "Greek love," then the logical result (as I see it) would be that one or more other articles (Homosexuality in ancient Greece, Pederasty in ancient Greece, etc.) need sections on how the idea of "Greek" practices outlived antiquity. I wouldn't even mind if the result were move, if the "legacy of ancient Greek same sex-relations in the modern imaginary" is better kept on one page than parceled out into legacy sections of articles on ancient topics. So, I'm really quite flexible, and you are quite right that my substantive objections to labeling all of this "the topic of Greek love" could be satisfied otherwise than by deletion. Wareh (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Colonel Warden--no doubt that this is a real and notable concept (or group of concepts)--but serious post-AfD consideration should be given to converting this to a DAB or set index article per 76.66.203.138.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having the same guy nominate this again, under a different user name, seems rather wrong. We decided in the last AFD the article was fine, there ample mentions of Greek love out there. [39] As I said last time "The term shows up in plenty places. The article has plenty of references. It has enough content to be its own article, not combined with something else. It is uniquely different than other articles of similar topics. Therefore, it has both a reason and a right to exist. " Dream Focus 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has improved since the last AFD failed. That is not to deny that this is a problematic subject. The article could usefully be on a few watchlists for POV-pushing by NAMBLA types. And some sources need to be treated with care. For example, the first book which User:Colonel Warden lists above is written by an expert on numismatics who died while serving a sentence for child-molestation and not a respectable academic. However, there are also respectable sources out there and there is plenty of scope for a good article on the social history of the term and the discources that different users of the term were advancing at different times. Merging is inappropriate. The article isn't about anal sex or what the ancient Greeks did but about a created term. As such it can be compared with Right to exist, Zionist entity, A land without a people and various other ideologically-weighted terms that exist within the Arab-Israeli dispute that have their own articles which again examine the history of and the concepts that underly the terms.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes it is 'problematic' and this is an encyclopaedia that anybody can edit. I don't know any scholars in the world who have endeavoured to pull together all this material - it is a huge ask even for experts. It is completely beyond the means of editors like us. McZeus (talk) 09:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Peter cohen. The article doesn't do a good job, but that isn't grounds to delete. It also isn't a dictionary entry in disguise. It's about how a reimagined Greek past is used as a model (stylistic, aesthetic, socially constructed) for conceptualizing homoeroticism: "In the history of sexuality, Greek love is a concept of homoeroticism within the classical tradition" might be one way to begin. "Greek love" is not a label for any real-world practice or social custom among the ancient Greeks themselves. When I search the library of the Kinsey Institute for "Greek love," the second item that comes up is the collection of essays I cited at Talk:Greek love as a clear example of how this is a topic in the history of sexuality. Among the other lively items that typically spring up in a Kinsey search, one finds the following works of scholarship that attest to notability, the existence of reliable sources, and encyclopedic suitability:

Hubbard, Greek Love Reconsidered
Halperin, One Hundred Years of Homosexuality, and Other Essays on Greek Love
Crompton, Byron and Greek Love
Lell, The Rape of Ganymede: Greek-love Themes in Elizabethan Friendship Literature
Brown, Sexuality and feminism in Shelley, which contains "Shelley's comparatively unknown essay on Greek love"

There's no question of OR or synth; the topic is recognized and well-explored. Even Williams has to invoke the phrase in his attempt to exorcize it. The article should exist to explain a concept that evidently has required a lot of explaining. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The collection of essays you cite features "Greek love" mostly in the reference sections. Within the main body of these "wide-ranging" essays, the Google search shows the term Greek love appearing only 6 times, and one of these is as a synonym for other terms (pge 399)! You cite books dealing with different epochs and societies and lump them together because they have Greek love in the titles - but titles are chosen by publishers for marketing value. We can't construct an article on this kind of research. Pulling all this material together is either original research or else, as Wareh points out, it is turning the article into a kind of dictionary. If you can publish a paper or a book about the history of the term 'Greek love', and if it is published by a reliable academic publisher, then we'll have the basis for an article anyone can edit. But even the experts haven't managed that yet. McZeus (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will say that the section of Williams' book (p. 63) Cynwolfe links (I'll admit it: I'm lazy, I looked into only the one source on her list that had a link) looks like exactly the kind of on-topic discussion the article should cite, and which I found lacking in my own survey of its cited sources (including Williams, p. 72). His phrase there can be slightly modified to what I'd see as the strictly correct and defensible subject of an article entitled Greek love, if more such sources could be found "ancient [and modern] sources that explicitly or implicitly identify a sexual practice as Greek." If this discussion results in keep, I would like to see this exactly and clearly stated as the article's subject, & all the contents & sources below strictly weighed for whether they're really directed right at that topic. Wareh (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are sooo not lazy. But I actually don't think the topic is about ancient Greece per se, but the use of ancient Greece as a way to think about a subject that until quite recently in the West was taboo. And I think that's what the problem with the current article is: it doesn't have a clear sense of a concept that unfolds period by period. For instance, in a section on the Romantics, a much-needed paragraph on Shelley's essay about "Greek love" (which Crompton deals with) wouldn't be about ancient Greece; it would be about Shelley's approach to ancient Greece (that is, the Romantic reception of the classical tradition) — which is what the scholarship does. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I agree with you about the subject. My addition "and modern" states the predominant part of the subject, with Williams' "ancient" only retained because (as he discusses) already in the Roman world the label "Greek" was (analogously to the modern uses) a way to think about sexual practices. "Post-Greeks thinking about sex and love as 'Greek'," in other words: including Romans. Wareh (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is PMAnderson's latest take on Williams from the talk page (italics mine):

"According to author Craig A. Williams suggests (falsely) that what follows is his position in a controversy. It is not; and it is not controversial; the term is a modern innovation and that is what the article is here to discuss. This is a statement of fact, with a source; in principle, it should be repeated in the article - probably first, as a matter of chronology - and sourced there." (12 Non. 22:24)

Those who argue for Keep still can't agree amongst themselves what is or is not appropriate for inclusion in this article. That has always been the problem with this article. McZeus (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreements over POV or what's appropriate for inclusion are not among the criteria for deletion. This falls under WP:ATD: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing" and "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." Elsewhere on this page, you seem to indicate that the article requires "expert attention." Discussions of the article's content belong on its talk page. I don't see any of the criteria for deletion satisfied here. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were disagreements about POV or scope criteria for deletion, we would delete Barack Obama and Libertarianism by Speedy; but that is not how AfD operates, and this is just as well. It would give POV-pushers two cracks at getting their way: they could push to their heart's content, and - if rebuffed - nominate for deletion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Convert to disambiguation page. The article is a POV-fork and original research in the form of synthesis. There is no mystery about the contemporary meaning of "Greek love" - it's widely known as slang for anal sex. That's how it's defined in modern dictionaries and that's how it's used. But the article is about something else, ideas that are already covered by many other articles, making this a POV-fork. Here is a sampling of pages that already cover the same ideas:

And here are some of many other pages that could equally well be redirected from the same term:

There are no reliable sources defining the phrase explicitly as it is presented in the article. The term is used in various sources, but as a descriptive phrase to refer to various ideas. It does not have a generally-accepted academic definition.

That's why this term requires a basic disambiguation page, with the various uses of the term linked to the pages that present those topics in the proper context. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Jack-A-Roe lists are about "sexuality in ancient Greece", but "Greek love" is not about describing sexual practices in ancient Greece. The article is poorly written as it stands, and perhaps that's causing the confusion. If you read every single article JAR listed, you would have not the slightest idea what "Greek love" is, because none of them deals with the topic. What do any of these have to do with Shelley and Byron, or Elizabethan friendship? It's the difference between toga, a garment worn by ancient Romans, and toga party, which surely should not be deleted in order to redirect to convivium. Wareh's point in his jesting redlink is precisely that "Greek love" is not about the sexual practices of the ancient Greeks. "Greek love" is about the intellectual history of a "lifestyle" model after the time of the ancient Greeks; it's an aspect of the classical tradition as it intersects with history of sexuality, and that's how it is discussed in all the sources I listed above. Peter cohen grasps this distinction quite well. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Jack-A-Roe's point about "Greek love" being contemporary slang for "anal sex" is entirely relevant: the article "Greek love" properly done would illustrate how it came to be so. But "Greek love" to the Romantic poets was not that crassly reductive; it was part of a classicizing aesthetic, what they perceived as a Greek model from classical antiquity. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been around since December 2005 and here we all are still trying to formulate a definition of the subject. Can you quote me a commonly used definition that clearly tells me what belongs in the article and what doesn't? McZeus (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. We're under no obligation to do so here. This is a deletion discussion. It must be demonstrated that the article meets the criteria for deletion. Arriving at a proper lede is part of the editing process. But in this regard, the introduction to an article should summarize its content. The purpose of an article on Religion, for example, is surely not to dictate a universal definition of "religion" that applies to all times and places, but to inform the person looking up "religion" of the various possibilities of what "religion" might mean, depending on the context in which it's encountered. On such a broad topic, you're likely to have a historical approach organized within each culture or religion, with sections cross-referenced to more specific articles. "Greek love" is a much more manageable topic. From my cursory look at the scholarship, you'd have:

the literary Hellenization of homoeroticism in Rome;
the Renaissance, again associated with a broader 'rediscovery' of Greek models (humanist buggery, not to put too fine a point on it);
the Romantics (and probably the Victorians, though I haven't seen this yet);
the 20th century and its high-low fork of 'theoretizing' sexuality and the popularization of the phrase as slang for particular sex acts or preoccupations.

And boom, you're done, or at least have sufficient bulk and structure in place to call it an article. The inability so far of any individual editors to deal with the topic adequately is not an indication of its viability. The underlying intellectual history here is plain: "Greek love" surfaces as a concept during periods when interest in Greek antiquity is particularly vivid: this is an aspect of the classical tradition (which as far as I can see also has no proper article, though Gilbert Highet is paid rather adoring tribute), and in the scholarship of the late 20th and early 21st centuries it has been approached through reception theory and concomitant with the rise of "history of sexuality" as an academic specialization (and there's an article that suffers from a similar inability to distinguish between "history of sexuality" as a field of academic inquiry, and a "history of sex and sexual behaviors," which would be nearly impossible to construct as a WP article). All the problems I see expressed here have to do with content and editing competence, which are explicitly not grounds for deletion. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I, of course, am fully in agreement with the thrust of Cynwolfe's argument. The presentation of the history of the term and the discourses surrounding its usage would go in parallel with seeing how different aspects are put into prominence at different times. Example discourses include:

A romantic discourse: Classical Athens saw the summit of intellectual and artistic achievement in the ancient world and sexual love between men was part of that. So what's the harm in copying them, especially as we are seeking to emulate their achievements? In fact copyign them will help us be greater artists.
A Victorian prudish discourse: Sexual love between men is such a repulsive subject. We can only refer to it in code as what those Greeks were known to do.
A contemporary discourse: *Even in these days talking directly of anal sex is a bit icky. So let's wrap it up as a reference to those romantic Greeks.
A late-twentieth century pederastic discourse as advanced by Walter Breen: In ancient Greece, adolescent boys were introduced to adult life by older lovers who also had a pedagogic relationship with them. Therefore my wanting to bonk little boys arises out of the purest of motivations and should be officially encouraged.

No doubt there are others, I've not thought of.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Chortles.) If only we could just say it that frankly in the article … Cynwolfe (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Peter cohen and Cynwolfe have said it all. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed they have! All that's wrong with the article. The approach that you are suggesting here will not get around the problem of original research or synthesis. It is a recipe for 'cross-contexting'. No scholar has attempted anything as ambitious as this on the theme of 'Greek love'. Where are all the scholarly voices Wikipedia needs to stop this kind of thing going ahead? I guess they have been chased off by the kind of antics that have been going on with the article and its talk page, where the discussion tags I installed were removed, where the citation tags Jack installed have been removed. It's really quite outrageous. Wikipedia is not a revolution and it is not a democracy. It is an encyclopaedia and this article is in defiance of its guidelines and rules. McZeus (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you want to delete the article, you have to show how it meets the criteria for deletion. Being badly written is not a criterion for deletion. "OR" and "synth" (even if the dozen or so works of scholarship listed here didn't indicate otherwise) are not criteria for deletion. And you're coming perilously close to merely insulting those who disagree with you. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Cynwolfe and Septentrionalis. I'd also like to point out that if articles citing different sources for each section or assertion is enough to constitute "original research" and thereby justify deletion, then pretty much all of Wikipedia needs to be deleted right away. Of course, if someone really feels that way, then perhaps this isn't the best project to be working on. P Aculeius (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'Greek love' is used in different ways, depending on the context, and each context is treated separately in the literature. Bringing it together in one article is original research. It appears from the comments above that some people think they can get around original research by creating a collection of subsections to address different contexts. The lede apparently is going to define the subject after people have reflected on the editing process. Meanwhile we must simply intuit what 'Greek love' means. Original synthesis of content forks is grounds for deletion. McZeus (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article needs work but AFD is not cleanup, and this should be cut back rather severely. That the concept has been viewed in different ways throughout history is, I think, irrelevant--western civilization looks back to the greeks as a point of origin. I agree that the lead is a mess, but that can be fixed. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it needs cutting back but that means limiting the subject area. Limiting the subject area means content forking. Those who want to keep the article need to give a coherent definition that covers all the different historical contexts so we can see what fits in the article and what doesn't, but then the meaning becomes so vague and generalized almost anything seems relevant. It's a fundamental dilemma justifying an AfD. McZeus (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree. The concept of what love between men in ancient greece is notable, and has been the subject of discussion in literature and art for a long time. That the concept changes from generation to generation makes a simple definition difficult, if not impossible, but does not make the subject non-notable. That being said, there may be a better name for this article, something like "The concept of Greek love in western history" perhaps? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Yes that's a perfect title for this article. Unfortunately there is no source book that covers Greek love in western history. There are sources that cover pederasty in ancient Greece, the development of homosexuality in Victorian England etc etc, and they all use the term differently. If the term could be readily integrated across different contexts, don't you think we would now have a source book appropriate for this article, titled like "The concept of Greek love in western history"? Such an overview is a task even beyond world-class scholars but that kind of integration is what a group of anonymous WP editors is attempting. I hope you'll reconsider your vote. McZeus (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't vote at AFD. You seem to be arguing that we have to source titles, and I do not agree with that position. My only concern here is that there be sufficient reliable sources to establish notability of the article's subject, and I think it is clear that there are. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the AfD nomination - the term's notability is not in question here: Greek love is more than one term and some uses are notable. So which Greek love is Greek love about? McZeus (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. My suggestion is that we make this into a summary style article, pare down the text to closely follow the sources, and point readers other articles that cover similar articles as appropriate. I do not agree with the notion that because the term has had different meanings at different time, including them in a single article is OR. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three source books on the subject have been cited in this discussion. I hope that when this proposal goes away, they will be read through for use in the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The collection of essays takes a period-by-period approach that's virtually an outline for the article. The books that deal mainly with one period begin with some kind of overview of the subject. It's a straightforward matter of reading and summarizing, but challenging because the sources are operating at a high level of literary sophistication. Introductions are always the hardest thing in any form of writing, and are usually the last thing finished. Cynwolfe (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The collection of essays you cite here is titled Same sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West. It is not about 'Greek love' per se and the term appears only 6 times in the main body of the whole book, once as a synonym for other terms (page 399). The rest of the time it is mentioned in the reference sections in various book titles. You can't judge a book by its cover and titles are usually market driven. You don't have a book that collates the various uses of 'Greek love'. There are books that develop its use in the context of classical Greece - controversial books mostly - but to use those as a source is to rewrite Pederasty in ancient Greece (the end section of which desperately needs sources like that). There are books about the development of homoerotic culture and language in modern Europe, but there are articles that already deal with that subject and they too desperately need the material that you are putting into this hyperbolically conflated article. Until you write the lede, nobody who comes to this article as an editor will know what to put into it or take out. It will be anybody's guess and it will be on for young and old in yet another series of silly edit wars. McZeus (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Sorry, but you really aren't getting this. An article does not have to be based on a single book; we tag articles and sections that attempt to corral a topic in order to express a single POV by means of a single source. I don't know how many times I can say this: Pederasty in ancient Greece is about a social custom in ancient Greece; the article "Greek love" is (or properly done will be) about the reception of an idea (see reception theory) and its aesthetic and intellectual use in later periods, for which the term "Greek love" is a modern shorthand. The exact phrase "Greek love" doesn't have to be used in every paragraph that discusses how Shelley and Byron used a Greek "fantasy," as we might think of it, to conceive of homoeroticism at a time when it was taboo. "Greek love" is a sexual costume. It is precisely the point that "Greek love" doesn't mean pederasty, nor anal sex, nor homosexual relations, but may mean all these things and more depending on the time and place. Among literati and academics, it is an aspect of the classical tradition, which was understood in various ways over the centuries — and this is true of thousands of other humanities articles that provide an overview of topics that are much more complex and technical than this (cosmology, ontology, free will … I could go on and on). An individual editor's inability to comprehend and write about a topic is not grounds for deletion, or else I could go delete all the articles pertaining to quantum physics. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have said it all: "It is precisely the point that "Greek love" doesn't mean pederasty, nor anal sex, nor homosexual relations, but may mean all these things and more depending on the time and place." Greek love is context-specific and depends on time and place. No publication has collated its use in all these different times and places. I can find books on religion that collate religious practices and beliefs in various contexts; I can find books on Quantum physics that explain and collate quantum processes across many contexts; I can find books on ontology that explain and collate the works of different philosophers on the theme of ontology. I can't find a book that explains and collates the different uses of Greek love across all these times and places. Neither can you or you would have cited it. But soon the world will have an article here at WP that does what the world's best scholars haven't yet attempted. In fact, it will be a set of content forks gathered in an inscrutable way by WP's own self-appointed literati and academics. Who are you kidding? McZeus (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McZeus, can you point to the policy that requires that the entirety of an article be sourced to a single book or article? 00:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I provided a list of sources above, as well as an outline. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes we need articles that are mainly about words rather than concepts. Greek love is one of those, and so is gender. In the field of sex-related issues it's often the case that the words used to describe concepts are as controversial as the concepts themselves, and subject to re-definitions for various reasons. That does not make the topic unencyclopedic or "original research". Tijfo098 (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering how much of McZeus's objection to an article on the topic conceived on the lines argued by "keep"-voters has to do with (A) the existence of any article on that subject vs. (B) naming that subject "Greek love." I do think it's a legitimate question whether the WP:RS support tying it together in this way under that name. If they don't, I'd really rather see us move the article to a descriptive title, even if it's a tad awkward & cumbersome. Note that a differently named article could certainly have a subsection entitled "'Greek love'" (in quotes, the term). (Everything I say here applies, of course, even if McZ answers me and says, no, "A" by itself is a huge stumbling block. I understand this is not the "proper place" for a move discussion, but it seems a good opportunity to ask whether the WP:SYN, if there is any, lies more in the title than the content.) Wareh (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek love is the proper title. See the source I mention below why it's okay. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: all I have seen in the article and through this discussion urge me towards keeping this article, which is about a scholarly issue that is referenced quite well. -- role^player 14:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable subject, as per User:Colonel Warden. Off2riorob (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article could certainly use better sources; the second part of ISBN 1405122919 (pp. 89-164) covers the topic across time, which certainly removes the suspicion that this type of coverage is original research. This review of that book has a synopsis. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a major cultural topic or aspect. The term is as far as I an tell the standard one, now and throughout history. I do not think the assemblage of material to be OR. The references support the article as it stands. That the practices described by the term cover a wide range of actual actions is clear in the article--most people using it in past centuries deliberately avoided detailed writing on this subject, and many have have been confused about what meaning was actually intended. All articles necessarily assemble material, and it always requires a certain amount of judgment about what to assemble and how to assemble it. Some degree of research or synthesis is therefore inevitable unless re simply resort to plagiarism--and even so, it would be necessary to decide what to copy. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you been hiding, Tijfo098? That's an excellent source and it seems to anchor the article in a workable definition as an idealized view of pederasty. It provides a source for the kind of sweeping generalizations this article needs if it is to cover multiple contexts. Those generalizations are necessary also to avoid content forks since much of the material mentioned so far is better developed in other articles. However, I think Wareh's suggestion is very important. By all means keep 'Greek love' in the title but it should have a qualifier, such as Greek love: idealized pederasty. A qualifier would help distinguish it from other uses, such as the popular slang term which denotes pederasty in general and also anal sex. It would also assure readers and remind editors that the article has a clearly defined topic and is not just a grab-bag of issues vaguely related to homosexuality and pederasty. McZeus (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Another scruple - perhaps other authors have other interpretations of Greek love. In that case, the article could still be an unworkable mess of content forks. I guess we are going to find out only from the experiment itself. If the article continues to fail, I will nominate it for deletion again. A qualifier, as suggested by Wareh, would be another test of the article's viability. I am wondering if there is any agreement about the wording of such a qualifier. I suspect there will be no consensus about that. McZeus (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "Greek love" were just a code word for "pederasty" it wouldn't merit an independent article, and I would advocate turning it into a redirect. But that isn't what Tijfo098's excellent new source says. The author is a senior lecturer in classics and ancient history, School of Philosophical and Historical Inquiry, University of Sydney. He states that in this portion of his book, which indeed is titled "Greek Love," he wants

to examine how the script for modern homosexuality was put together and the place of Greece in this narrative. Greece provided a set of metaphors in which homosexual desire could be captured and crystallized. Greek myth, art, philosophy, drama, and poetry have all played a part in the formation of modern homosexual identities. Discussing homosexuality in Greek terms is a practice that unites both critics and advocates of homosexual love. … So ingrained is this association that looking to Greece for illumination on homosexual matters is instinctive.

So concludes the introduction. This is so far from "Greek love = idealized pederasty" that surely you must've read a different book. The next section is titled "What is 'Greek Love'?" and it introduces a figure needed and so far missing from the discussion here, Oscar Wilde, whose tragedy is surely well known and whose sensitivity for Greek antiquity in general and its eroticism in particular should not be reduced to "oh, another pederast." If there is a consensus not to delete, further discussion belongs elsewhere. As for your threat to bring the article up for deletion again if it doesn't please you, I'm unclear as to why an article should be held hostage by a single editor. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The author quotes Wilde at his trial and he observes that "Here in the crucible of the Wilde trial we see one of the most complete definitions of Greek love." The definition is idealized love between an older and a younger man, which I interpret as code for pederasty. Hence Greek love: idealized pederasty. That's a definition that can be worked across several historic and social contexts using the cited book as the main source. If there are other definitions of GL within multiple contexts then the WP article has major problems still in terms of locating and addressing the real issues (if there are any). The real issue might be a debate about how the term GL is applied by different scholars and we don't have a source for that, as far as I can tell. McZeus (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is not really relevant here. Nor is how the article might be formed in the future. The question here is whether sufficient sources might exist to establish notability of the subject. McZeus, you have praised a source found by Tijfo098, yet you have not struck your delete !vote. I have to ask why not? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read my reply to Cynwolfe. I thought the book was a source we could build on with confidence but it appears I might have been over-optimistic, as indicated by Cynwolfe's reservations. McZeus (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reservations are directed at your interpretation; even if Blansford gave such a constrained definition (and he did not), it would be synthesis to take the definition offered by one source and apply it "across several historic and social contexts." Cynwolfe (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He nominated Wilde's speech as "one of the most complete definitions of Greek love" and that's a constrained definition. What other definitions are there? If there is no clear definition then the article remains a set of content forks under a vaguely worded term that can be taken to mean almost anything. If the term really is vague then there may be a scholarly debate about its meaning and relevance and the article could then focus on that debate, provided the debate is interpreted for us in a scholarly publication. As for my future nomination of this article - The first AfD nomination was defeated resoundingly. This Afd came closer to succeeding. I think that shows that people are beginning to think more about the real issues. It's a bit like a classroom - some people pick up the issues straight away and others still don't catch on even after two or three repetitions. But we are getting there. There won't be a third nomination if the article has a real sense of purpose supported by good academic sources. I've enjoyed the debate and hopefully next time I won't get spat upon. We'll find out! McZeus (talk) 02:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind this article is no more a fork than Biblical studies is a fork of the Bible. Sure, you could merge the two articles, but the central issue in this one, as Cynwolfe pointed out, is the reception. Mind you, "idealized pederasty" is not the only way in which ancient Greek texts and other art on homoeroticism were interpreted. Blanshard finds at least two examples of idealization in a different direction. According to him platonic love was the product of a dispute between Renaissance philosophers on interpreting the Plato's writings, particularity Phaedrus (dialogue). "In 1458, two of the West’s leading intellectuals found themselves in dispute over precisely the definition, content, and morality of ‘Greek love’ ..." In more recent times, Blanshard argues that Benjamin Jowett, who was an advocate for the study of Plato in British schools, tried a different interpretation in the attempt to minimize the sexual morality conflict: "Plato here becomes a healthy heterosexual trapped in a homosexual age." Surely, some of the reception was for homosexual or pederastic activism purposes, particularly that of John Addington Symonds. Blanshard writes: "Classical authors are mined for pederastic content, and the speech effectively constructs a queer canon of pederastic allusions." Although this is more controversial (see the review of Blanshard's book) Blanshard argues that Greek love was abandoned as central issue in queer cannon only with the writings of Michel Foucault. Still Blanshard gives an interesting example how the interpretation of Greek love became an argument in the 1993 Colorado trials, which led to Romer v. Evans. I think that the issue of reception is sufficiently notable by itself for a separate article. We even have an article for Platonic love, which according to several scholars is a sub-issue of this, although just as with Greek love, the term was re-defined over time. Humanities are fuzzy like that; it's not always possible to create clear-cut definitions and coalesce all synonyms, like you can do in math. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. And a very important point in general about humanities articles. I hope Tijfo098 can spare some time to work on the Greek love article, and I hope any editor who's opposed to the article in principle will give it a month or two to shape up before beating up on those who are trying to read through the scholarship and improve it on the fly. When does the AfD discussion run its course? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Peter Cohen and Cynwolfe. Paul August ☎ 18:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A term like 'Greek love' can operate as a euphemism and the article has been a haven for lifestyle advocates of various kinds since it was set up. If 'Greek love' is clearly defined and well sourced there won't be a problem. I don't agree that humanities are fuzzy. A poem can be fuzzy because it is allusive but scholars don't write allusive critiques of it. Encyclopaedia articles shouldn't be fuzzy either. If you set out to write the article with a high tolerance of fuzziness you will certainly get a fuzzy article. I believe that is what we'll end up with if the article is kept. As for reception - in humanities subjects, that's typically the theme of the end section. Greek love would be perfect as the end section for Pederasty in ancient Greece or even of Pederasty. In Greek love, on the other hand, GL is going to be presented as a term whose reception changes it so much we can't even be clear about what it means. It's not really about the term at all but about different people in different times and places. I don't see how this can work as a coherent article. It could work as summary of Blanshard's book but then it should be called Blanshard's intepretation of 'Greek love'.McZeus (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McZeus, you've agreed that Notability is not an issue, and that above seems more appropriate for the article's talk page. I'll ask again, can you point to policy that supports your position? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make this personal, but I think we've finally arrived at the source of your anxiety about the article, McZeus. From our earlier interactions at Pederasty in ancient Greece and Symposium, I know you are very concerned about the issue of lifestyle advocacy. You seemed satisfied that we were able to exorcize that in the Greek pederasty article. I assure you that I will do my best to make sure that Greek love is based on reputable scholarship, and maintains an appropriately scholarly tone. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things to say. First, Nuujinn raised a good point and it deserves an answer. A football match doesn't end just because one side has a winning lead. There are still lessons to be learned and the game goes on while the two sides learn more about each other, in preparation for the next round. The game ends when time is up and it is almost up now. Of course this is not a game but it helps maintain civility if we think of it in those terms. Second, Cynwolfe, I think it's good policy to edit articles just as if we won't be here tomorrow - because someday we won't be. The article is fundamentally flawed and I believe everyone would gain if we closed it down and diverted resources to other articles. GL is a notable term in the context of Pederasty in ancient Greece - e.g. it is in my Oxford Classical Dictionary as a subsection of Homosexuality. But the meaning mutates in other contexts and then it is no longer notable. GL would make a good magazine article but it is not the right material for an encyclopaedia. McZeus (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho, you've obviously never tried to shop a magazine article if you think that. The way to write articles as if we won't be here tomorrow is to create an armature: a clear structure for the article, and sufficient sourcing so that intrusions of unscholarly material are evident. You can't ban topics because they might be vandalized or have inappropriate material added to them: there'd be no articles. I can't tell you how many times "sucks dicks" or some such has been reverted from Julius Caesar. WP is always in danger of collapse for just that reason, and it will if one day there are too few guards to patrol the borders of legitimacy. This is no grounds for deletion, and isn't even a content dispute. It's simply a concern, a legitimate concern, that could apply to thousands of articles that deal with potentially sensational, politicized or criminal topics. Blansford's book is brand-new, and shows that "Greek love" as a concept within the reception of the classical tradition continues to this minute to receive serious scholarly attention. "Greek love" is a topic within the broader subject of "Homosexuality"; so what? "Homosexuality" is too broad to cover thoroughly in a single article, and presents a survey that directs readers to more specialized topics. I'm sorry, but it's hard not to feel that you just don't want the subject covered. Any attempt to define "Greek love" as mere pederasty is demeaning to the closeted writers and artists of past eras who explored their homoeroticism through imagining a time when they might have been free to love someone of the same sex — they weren't all just nasty pedophiles in an intellectual disguise. (Not to mention that we don't ban an article on Lolita because it might read as advocacy for pedophilia.) Cynwolfe (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McZeus, you completely ignored my question. You obviously do not like this article, but personal preferences aren't relevant. Numerous reliable sources support the topic's notability beyond the narrow scope you are advocating, and in any case, I think a discussion of scope is not really appropriate for AFD-AFD is not cleanup. For the third time, can you point to policy that supports your position that the article should be deleted, given that you have conceded notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very well to go round and round with McZeus about this, but the result of this AFD seems clear, perhaps efforts might be more usefully spent elsewhere? Paul August ☎ 13:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek love (2nd nomination)

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Five Minutes to Midnight

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

fails WP:ORG. could not find any coverage [40]. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 05:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 03:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Donald Duck Adventures. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamers of Nonhuman Threats

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

With a grand total of 83 Google hits, and all the sources being blogs, this storyline fails WP:V and WP:N. Abductive (reasoning) 01:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to an article about Donald Duck comics. This storyline is still seen fairly often in Donald Duck comics. JIP | Talk 07:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 03:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Donald Duck Adventures. Cites don't demonstrate independent notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks 3D

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

Future film, unsourced. Has not begun principle photography. SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's unsourced, but from the tone and information presented I have to strongly suspect it is not unsourceable. In all likelihood it just needs citations added to wherever all this specificity came from. Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (films). —chaos5023 (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films - SummerPhD (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, film hasn't even begun shooting yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 06:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NFF. According to the article, it's already had some problems with the production. This is why WP:NFF exists; who knows if the film will ever be made. Mike Allen 07:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note IP 76.168.75.62 removed the AFD tag from the article.[41] I reverted and place a polite caution on the IP's talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Though it may (or may not) be notable in the future, topic currently does not have enough in- depth and enduring coverage of its production to qualify as an exception to WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by professional sports championships

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

Original research by synthesis and hopelessly POV. The title says "professional" sports championships, yet it excludes several professional leagues (i.e.: Canadian Football League, National Lacrosse League), but tries to narrow the scope in the lead to the "big four" leagues, which is arbitrary. Lower down it changes the classification again to reflect "major league", but excludes defunct major leagues such as the World Hockey Association and National Hockey Association. The American Football League is ignored because the NFL was "more established", and I presume the American Basketball Association is disregarded for the same reasons. For hockey alone I can think of at least six or seven major professional leagues that were ignored. To further muddy the issue, the article confuses "city" with "metro". All of this confusion and POV exists because such a list has not been compiled in primary or secondary sources. Reso lute 03:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that "championship" also has a POV definition. i.e.: The Montreal Canadiens have 23 Stanley Cup championships as members of the NHL, 24 Stanley Cups overall, 25 National Hockey League championships and 26 overall championships as there was a time when the Stanley Cup was not a league-specific title. The total of 23 was picked for some reason that is not immediately obvious. Reso lute 03:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 03:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, but just number crunching. An encyclopedia should be for facts, not different ways they can be combined and compared. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the "Big Four" concept is pretty well established within US contexts, this list arbitrarily ignores the historical roots of the current versions of those leagues, most notably using an uncited claim that the AFL wasn't considered the NFL's equal until it was subsumed as justification for leaving off all AFL champs. Too arbitrary and unjustified. oknazevad (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -DJSasso (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with the whole concept, not just the details, as being suitable for an encyclopedia. You might as well have "List of United States states by national leadership" and compare them by number of presidents, vice presidents, Supreme Court justices, and commanding generals born in each state. Or any other combination of data about any topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and observation by Kitfoxxe above. This article also makes me sad as since June of 2006 I was under the impression that Raleigh had a professional sports championship, but I guess I was wrong because they are not on this list. -Pparazorback (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ~~Side note: as Pparazorback points out, the fact that Raleigh (home of the Carolina Hurricanes) was left off is just further proof of how poorly the list is put together.~~--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 04:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are problems with the list, discuss it on the talk page, and work to improving it. Articles don't have to be instantly perfect. It is quite appropriate for a Wikipedia article to list notable information in a convenient way to find it. Listing how many notable sports awards each city has won, listing the ones with the most first, is fine. And it isn't original research if the information can easily be found in any number of places to confirm this, be it the official records, official websites, newspapers, or books written about the teams, or all the stats for a certain sports game. Dream Focus 10:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is original research to decide what is a notable sports championship. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. The news media already has decided which are notable, as have the various sports organizations themselves. Major_professional_sports_leagues_in_the_United_States_and_Canada explains what the big four are, that how they are referred to. If you want to add less popular sporting events, then discuss that on the talk page. Dream Focus 18:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am not, remember any championship that is notable qualifies for a page. As such there are many more notable championships than just the big 4. What you are suggesting is deciding which are more notable than others. And to decide on degrees of notability is inherently POV and original research. -DJSasso (talk) 00:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And very POV. Reso lute 18:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^communicate 17:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Indiscriminate list with unclear and invalid inclusion criteria. SnottyWong ^communicate 17:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you reason that? Listing which cities, in order, won the most championships, is rather discriminating for a list, with very clear inclusion criteria. Dream Focus 18:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the nomination and/or any of the comments above? Why, for example, does this list only include American and Canadian cities? Why does this list only include championships for baseball, basketball, American football, and hockey? What about all of the other professional sports, like soccer, rugby, lacrosse, cricket, field hockey, etc.? Why does this list exclude certain professional sports leagues, such as the World Hockey Association, National Hockey Association, American Basketball Association, and any other leagues listed at List of professional sports leagues? SnottyWong ^babble 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like the name of the list changed to List of cities in American and Canada by professional sports championships? As I said already, the news media groups these four sports together, calling them the Big Four. See Major_professional_sports_leagues_in_the_United_States_and_Canada. Dream Focus 22:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if we were to accurately name this article, it would be List of cities in America and Canada by Big Four professional sports championships. Then it would become much more clear why this article should be deleted. SnottyWong ^squeal 06:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also this info seems to be covered in various other locations on wikipedia and in much better formats, updated and without the POV problems mentioned. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I really am quite close to just using Britannica online already, I do love this article even though it is quite imperfect can you imagine the time and effort to compile these stats by yourself? Deletes make all great points but why don't you ADD to the article rather then SUBTRACT the entire thing? Multiple lists or collapseable lists would work great. Vandalism, forget for a moment all the alphabet soup of wiki-policy actually read the first paragraph of Vandalism. I will always be a proud wikipedian, but there are just so many other sources online that don't find the need to burn books that are referenced and cited. As those sites expand in cited sourced material some would have Wikipedia building a consensus to be the next charred ruin of the Library of Alexandria? You are killing the very thing that feeds Wikipedia with cited and sourced material. Byzantium did that and directly caused the Renaissance withVenice attracting the resulting brain-drain, as great Constantinople died on the vine. There was once AOL but then came Google, if you are not considerate of your members legitimate contributions, they contribute to the future's success story, just ask AOL, the Alexandrian Library and Byzantium. Thank you for your consideration. Hholt01 (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am in full agreement with Hholt01. This is a useful list that contains verifiable information which adds to the value of the Wikipedia project as a source of reference. The noms argument seems to be that this list is too exclusive (only Big 4), but that is a good reason to expand the list, not delete it. Dolovis (talk) 18:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is that it is both original research and suffers from at least three different POV issues, of which the limitation to the "big four" is but one. Reso lute 20:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a trivial intersection. The list is compiled by a non-defining characterstic. Championships do not necessarily belong to the city where they were won, where the team played, or what the team was named at the time of the win. They belong to the teams, and when teams move, their records move with them. The teams do not even necessarily belong to the cities in American professional sports. While number of championships could be a valid and defining charateristic for a list of teams, it is not one for cities. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JimMiller's points above -Pparazorback (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good, solid example of a list. Cross reference is useful and is not excessive. All information contained is noteable and within all policy bounds. Since Wikipedia does not have "Drill-down" capability, this is the best closest alternative.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: clear (and ubiquitous) WP:OR, and unclear inclusion criteria. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response This is not original research. Tons of reliable sources regularly report on championships of various sports and the city where they reside. Listing here what others report is not original research. Further, there is no analysis or synthesis from any of those sources. Inclusion criteria could not be more clear: cities with championship teams in the sports listed, as stated at the top of the list.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Rebuttal: adding up the number of times that championships have been held in a given city is most certainly original research, particularly as none of these reports on which this OR is based are actually cited. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Addition is okay Routine calculations such as the addition of numbers is not original research per WP policy, see WP:CALC (a part of the WP:OR policy you are quoting.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - But this isn't routine adding of numbers. What is being decided here is what numbers to add and which not to add. That is what the original research is. Routine adding of numbers is adding of numbers when there has been no judgement call made. In this case one has been, to leave certain numbers out. Routine adding of numbers would be say, adding the number of points scored by a player over his career when the numbers come from a couple different sources for different years. No judgement call being made here, we are purely adding the number of points he scored. -DJSasso (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I would also point out that there is significant OR in defining the "cities" that are being used in the list. Finding reliable sources that call the Devils and Islanders New York City teams would be pretty hard. Harder still would be to find sources crediting those teams' championships to NYC. Combining those teams into one city, and then defining it by the MSA, while simultaneously having other cities directly listed is problematic at best. Further, having teams who self-identify as regional or statewide assigned to particular cities is also original research, especially since this is not spelled out in the criteria. Should this list remain, it would have to made consistent as to how it defines the city of any given team - the city it played in or the city/state it was named for, but not some editor-chosen combination thereof. If it is cities where the teams play, East Rutherford, NJ would need to be added to the list. If it is by team name, then the whole article should be renamed to "List of locations..." so that Colorado, New Jersey, Minnesota, etc. could have their own entries. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An AfD where there appears to be confusion as to what the article is actually about will probably struggle to achieve a meaningful conclusion; no prejudice to renomination in the future, of course. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z Side Story: Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans

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

This article is showing no notability and despite the release of the game Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2, most information will only involving said game. It was redirected once before on the same merits. It is mostly using the Dragon Ball Wiki as a source. Sarujo (talk) 01:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2. Sourced only to Wikia? Yeah, no. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no need for a redirect unless this is a possible search term. Is it? I doubt it from what I've read so far. Shadowjams (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Updated article with better sourcing, this is actually an old video game with a OVA adaption. A remake of the OVA has been announced and will be released with the Dragon Ball: Raging Blast 2, but is not related to the game itself. Dragon Ball Z: Plan To Destroy The Saiya-jins already redirects to List of Dragon Ball video games. This is just a variation of the same title. —Farix (t | c) 16:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news finds one result. [42] I ran it through Google translator[43], and it seems notable enough to me. Says it was only released in Japan, thus not seen before in the west, and that now it was going to released again in a game. It says its "the first feature film based on Dragon Ball Z", which adds to its notability. Anyone search for Japanese coverage of it? Dream Focus 17:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I find the claim to be extreamly dubious because it is NOT a featured film, but a two-episode OVA. The website is of unknown reliability, but if it makes that claim, then I would have to consider it unreliable. —Farix (t | c) 19:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The opinion of one person isn't how websites are declared reliable sources or not. Perhaps its a Google translation error. Maybe in that language they use the same phrase for home movie and featured film. Anyway, Google news considers it a notable news site, so I say that counts as a good review, as does the coverage in Anime News Network. Dream Focus 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google News includes random blogs and forum posts in their search results. So it doesn't mean anything. —Farix (t | c) 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And just to show how much that claim of being the first DBZ feature film Dragon Ball Z: Dead Zone predates this OVA by a little over four years and was actually released in the theaters. Eight other DBZ films also predates this OVA. —Farix (t | c) 23:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Meristation article does claim that "Plan..." is a feature film (and not home movie as Dream Focus suggests), which is wrong since it's an OVA, and as Farix said, the first DBZ feature film was released in 1989 ("Plan" is a 1993 OVA). Meristation is a videogame website, thus really not an appropriate source for an anime, particularly with such misconceptions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, the article calls it both an OVA and a feature film (OVA twice), and correctly dates its release to 1993. SharkD Talk 03:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Dragon Ball films#Original video animation. The only thing that really needs to be merged are the sources. There simply is not any coverage by reliable, third-party sources beyond the release announcements. —Farix (t | c) 22:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to List of Dragon Ball films#Original video animation, per Farix.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually a playable game of sorts that was released for the Playdia in Japan as Dragon Ball Z - Shin Saiyajin Zetsumetsu Keikaku Chikyū Hen. It was later released as an OAV I believe, but this was in fact a video game. I'm not really comfortable deleting an article on a video game based on a nomination and delete votes that don't seem to even know what this game was. Are we going to start deleting Sega CD FMV games, as well? I don't like this AFD, especially if someone starts going through back libraries of Atari 2600 game articles and deleting them all on the basis of this AFD. WP:IDONTKNOWIT is a tough deletion argument to sell. Vodello (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you don't it either, this began as a video game on the Famicom. The two part OAV was produced as strategy guide for that game. Either way this game has no coverage or real world impact. That's not an I don't know it ploy. Also yes, if those games are lacking notability then they should be deleted, no questions asked. Sarujo (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Insert tertiary passive aggressive retort here. Not playing this game today or any day for that matter.) Vodello (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are is pretty clear that I knew exactly what I was talking about. I was the one that attempted to salvage the article before realizing that there just wasn't enough coverage by reliable, third-party sources to save it. Your premious is wrong in that we don't delete articles on games just because they are old games. We also don't keep articles just because they are old either. We determine inclusion based on the amount of coverage by reliable, third-party sources, and there just wasn't any. —Farix (t | c) 21:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this special is as notable as the other specials and movies however I believe we should try to improve a little more. I would assume a large number of notable sites cover this but in Japanese. Plus we should keep this article strictly about the special rather than the game except for mentioning that it's based on it and clips from it were later strewn together for the playdia game. And although it serves as a guide, it features a full audio cast and fully animated so it warrants as a special. --Victory93 (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I would assume a large number of notable sites cover this but in Japanese." We don't assume, we verify. Making assumptions is a sucker's game. —Farix (t | c) 12:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the article could be notable if we searched for more, and it seems like it has a few refs on there.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of the sources are reliable. One of them is a primary source and cannot be used to determine notability. The other is a reported based on an announcement, which is trivial coverage. —Farix (t | c) 21:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was insufficient consensus to delete. This AfD has been somewhat disrupted by the behaviour of some of the participants, and I would just like to gently remind all concerned that our WP:BLP rules do apply to comments in the Wikipedia space. There are those who have been desysopped for using even quite mild deprecating language in AfDs about living people. Enough said.

Because this AfD has been disrupted, it will be in order for good faith editors to renominate this material to AfD in early course. NAC—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

John Critzos II

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable subject. No indication of importance. Vanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mephisto Panic (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC) — Mephisto Panic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources seem to demonstrate notability Cerebellum (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have yet to provide links and explanations of how the sources demonstrate notability. All of the references constitute passing mentions. Goodvac (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources are independent, credible, refer to other sources of notoriety, and seem to demonstrate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.246.136 (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— 96.244.246.136 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article was just up for AfD a few months ago (I believe no consensus was reached), although that discussion seems to have been overwritten by this one. There seem to be enough independent sources to support notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator originally overwrote the first AFD with this one. I have split the histories and created a second nomination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A lot of the sources are not really helpful, lacking significant coverage and credibility as reliable sources. The usna.edu and dcmilitary.com cites seem to scrape by the GNG between them, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

usna.edu is merely a passing mention, with no indication of notability. dcmilitary.com only talks of his "unique style of martial arts training" and follows with some quotes. A "unique style" does not confer notability. Goodvac (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ G11. Blatant advertising. Sentences such as "Few, if any, are able to boost the record Critzos accumulated as well as the time span during which he dominated." and "His technical ability was matched by few, if any" serve as a concrete foundation of my belief that this article is fundamentally unrescuable in its current state, plagued as it is by IP editors with obvious conflicts of interest. Does no-one else see a problem with this obvious, blatant advertising and the myriad of single purpose accounts - notably 96.244.246.136 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - that seem to proliferate around the article and associated AfDs? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's a problem, but it's a content problem, not an article-existence problem. Deletion isn't a way to address content issues. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is the correct way to address content issues like this one - when it's quite obviously a G11 candidate. If I thought it was rescuable, believe me I'd rescue it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd done a halfway creditable job at that, really. Check the recent page history, see what you think. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright - the tone needs a bit of work there, but well done on cleaning it; you've swayed me! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyvio of http://www.lacancha.com/johncritzos.html. Goodvac (talk) 07:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence source wikipedia. We didn't copy them they copied us. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I usually check for those things. Goodvac (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG is not met. While I applaud Chaos5023 (talk · contribs)'s effort to rescue this article, all the sources are composed of superficial references to John Critzos II. None are in depth enough to confer notability. Goodvac (talk) 07:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY DELETE - hostname, ip sign in, user overlap. In non technical terms, as other users state, there are single purpose account and sock puppetry issues. Notice reformatting. Will report users. Absolutely nothing notable here. Pure narcissism. G11. Formidable.heart (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call it bad faith, but you seem to be an SPA. Goodvac (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Formidable.heart removed other editors' strikeouts of their speedy delete !votes in making his !vote: [44]. This is spectacularly unacceptable. Bad faith indeed. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Formidable.heart: attempted consensus manipulation by altering other editors' entries at AfD. Thank you. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although the style needed help, the sources indicate notariety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.149.208.8 (talk • contribs) — 216.149.208.8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep - Notable subject and independent sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.190.240.241 (talk • contribs) — 98.190.240.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was Redirect to Ouija#Criticism. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouija Board Criticism

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

This is article is, by its title and content, solely for criticism of Ouija. That makes it inherently a page without balance, and inherently violating WP:NPOV. Nat Gertler (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article violates the neutral point of view and is written in a non-encyclopedic fashion. The solid information and associated references should be merged into Ouija. Cullen328 (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a WP:POVFORK of Ouija that appears to be solely devoted to the POV that Ouija leads to contact with demons and causes insanity. There have been repeated attempts (against consensus) to add this same material at Ouija that is not only poorly sourced, but gives WP:UNDUE weight to a Christian-centric view of the subject. There is also the problem that the material in the article is a WP:COPYVIO, apparently being lifted directly from someone called Mary Thomas Guicson- LuckyLouie (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ouija per Cullen328 (whose !vote appears to be actually a Merge). Delete per NatGertler. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to encourage a "merge" result because, judging from Talk:Ouija, the editors there are already aware of this material, and have been working on the question of the appropriateness of the inclusion; they are able to include it without the "merge" push, and I don't want the result here to be suggesting that this material has merit beyond what they are already considering. (Of course, the copyvio concerns make a merge call even less appropriate.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't merge. POV fork, and due to the copyvio concerns the content should not be merged with the main article.--hkr Laozi speak 03:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the copyright issue is a result of earlier periods in which this material was to be found in Ouija itself. I would tend to the view that its rejection over the years argues against merger back into the main article. Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Changed my vote to Delete as the current article sucks bigtime! Dwain (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC) ((OLD COMMENT)) This information originated on Wikipedia in 2005. It is non-POV because it makes no conclusions on four groups' variant critical opinions by doctors, paranormal researchers, religious and occult practitioners. It was for years in the article called Ouija. The main entry discussing Ouija Boards is under Ouija. There are many Wikipedia articles that go into various aspects of their subjects and continue sections on other pages. To supress sourced and valid criticism of a subject that is called a toy by one group of people and an occult device by various others is kind of strage. In fact, William Fuld, the boards main manufacturer claimed it to be a spiritual instrument. And to suggest that criticism of Ouija Boards is a fringe view is rather bizarre as LuckLouie states elsewhere, because if one actually does an internet search, by far the most common view of the board is that it is an occultic or spiritual device and not a board game. Dwain (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May I ask why? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Ouija. This is an important aspect of Ouija boards. If there is a copyright violation then have a section for criticism. It is much more important than the "in popular culture" section which is now in the article. In fact almost all the pop culture references depend on the critical view. Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete:~~ WP:POVFORK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Redirect, per Hobit. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Ouija. There is no question that this is critised it need to be mentioned, but in the main artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sure that what makes a Ouija board fun is the feeling that, just maybe, you might really be contacting the spirits. If it was just a toy (in the minds of the users) then it would have never become popular enough to have a WP article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Per WP:POVFORK (I know, it is interesting I am using this as rational to keep when others using the same link as rational to delete). Reading this, it specifically states "Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.". I believe this is an appropriate split off article, as I can see it grow in size - off hand, there are plenty of RS that could be included. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment - I believe the article could benefit from cleanup - each POV should be broken out into its own section. I also believe that the in line references need to continue - what is there is definitely encylopedic IMO. Turlo Lomon (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not really an AfD issue, its a fork on a notable subject, and whether a separate article is appropriate should be an editorial decision.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear WP:POVFORK and as others have pointed out most of the material originated on Wikipedia but was rejected from the ouija page. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I too believe the article could benefit from clean-up and it should be merged directly back into Ouija. The main article has excluded this and as such has taken on an unbalanced POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've given the article a quick once-over. Please take a look at it! It's still in progress. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much improved! Will support a merge. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment - Might it be an idea for me to include rebuttals to each criticism given here (with appropriate weight for each one) and then move the article to a page such as 'Reaction/Assessment/Cultural Reaction to Ouija Board'? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouija is not so long an article that a fork is called for. If there are relevant things to be said about reaction/assessment/heebie-jeebies/whatever, then they belong in the primary article. This fork appears to have been created not because forking was needed, but because the editor wished to avoid the editing of Ouija. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It meets all relevant guidelines for an article (including POVFORK and WP:N) but weakly support editorial merge as the parent article is short enough the material will fit. My one worry is that it will have too much of an UNDUE impact on the parent article. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new, improved, shorter article would fit easily into the parent article. It would not be undue since the criticism of ouija boards is a very important aspect. In fact it is the main reason they are mentioned in the news media or by scholars. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've plugged it in to the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, nice job! Only comment is that your edit summary should clarify the article from which the merged information came just to keep the attribution in line with our rules. I made a null edit with an edit summary to cover it. Hope you don't mind. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to redirect now that the material from this article is there, we can't delete (attribution/copyright issues), so a redirect is clearly the way to go. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ouija#Criticism. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to finish implementing the obvious merge. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, nicely done merge, no need for the article. --Worm 13:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chromatography adsorbent and purification of histidine tagged proteins

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

Original research, prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Disagree with nom that article is original research; its primary citation is original research, which is a totally different matter. It's also a primary source, though, and contributes nothing to notability. The other cites appear to be simply verifying facts about related processes and also contribute nothing to the notability of this topic. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's essentially a rewrite of a primary source, you don't actually have to do your own research (or anything original) to qualify as OR. Hairhorn (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that if it was published somewhere else, it's not OR for Wikipedia purposes. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you say so. Most OR pages have some refs, but they're usually synthesis of some sort. Hairhorn (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. This one seems to be a straight re-presentation of the work in its primary citation, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until disinterested secondary sources confirm notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences

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

Copying from PROD: Just a list of links to departments, no indication that it is "especially notable or significant" as per Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines. Prod was removed without any explanation. Magioladitis (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unless somebody can provide secondary sources on this administrative division, of interest only to a handful of bureaucrats who work there, it should be deleted. I will check back in a few days. Abductive (reasoning) 05:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guidelines referred to are not official Wikipedia guidelines and so have no standing here. Removal of a prod tells us that there is no consensus to delete and so is not a reason to delete either. If the article needs work, then that is a reason to improve it, in accordance with our editing policy. In my experience of working upon the similar article for the engineering faculty, it is quite feasible to make such improvements. For example, in a brief search, I soon found sources such as A century of British geography or Geography at University College London which discuss the long and distinguished history of this faculty in detail. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Official" doesn't mean anything. Those guidelines were developed by consensus, and should not be disparaged or dismissed. Abductive (reasoning) 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus was obtained for them in the previous similar case. In any case, well-recognised policies such as WP:BURO and WP:PRESERVE, trump such parochial essays. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do those sources say? They are unaccessable by me. Abductive (reasoning) 19:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They discuss the history of geography education at UCL, geography being one of the departments of this faculty. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well then they are not really pertinent, are they? Abductive (reasoning) 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I accept that the article as it stood when prodded lacked any third party citations and was essentially just a stub. I have now added a history section utilising some such citations and will add some more shortly. Colonel Warden has referred to a couple of books which include commentary on departments within the faculty (books are undoubtedly the best source of material on the history of the faculty since the majority of its history predates the internet). I am in no doubt that many more exist.

The majority of departments and centres within the faculty do not have their own articles, despite being highly notable. This faculty article serves to give them a representation on Wikipedia. It is also a natural break-out article from the main UCL article, to prevent that article becoming over long, and it is worth noting that many peers of UCL, such as Stanford University, University of California, Los Angeles and the University of Copenhagen, have articles for their constitent schools/faculties for similar reasons.Rangoon11 (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, then, it would be best to add information on the departments to this page rather than create many more articles, right? Abductive (reasoning) 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where there is no separate article for a department or centre within the faculty then coverage of that department or centre within this article becomes essential. Only two of the 30 or so departments and centres within the faculty have their own articles at present though, so that is currently overwhelmingly the case. If articles for more of the departments and centres were to be created then that might then cause a duplication of some content and require this article to be modified. I personally think it unlikely that articles for many more of the departments and centres will be created, and certainly wont be starting any myself. However I don't think that we should base decisions about this article on other articles which may or may not be created in the future, this article already exists and is presently the only suitable place available on Wikipedia for coverage of the activities of the majority of departments and centres within the faculty. Rangoon11 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not because I'm fully convinced of the case for notability, but because it's going to be a mess if we delete just this article. Rightly or wrongly, all the faculties of UCL have individual articles (as do most of the other component parts), whether or not they have any special claim to individual notability. There might be a case for merging all faculty articles into one article, but if the UCL template randomly links to either redirects or articles depending on which ones happened to be nominated for AfD, that's going to confuse the hell out of the average Wiki user. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment UCL has well over 100 departments, institutes, units and centres and only a very small proportion have articles; of the 30 or so listed in the UCL Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences article only two have articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is more than a single department, but a first order division of a very major university, and all such should have articles. As Rangoon says, this will then serve as a place for information on the individual departments, which would have sections with a redirect. Some few of the departments could then be considered for articles. I think we probably will need to revise the guidelines so they express the developing consensus, but we might do well to deal with individual cases in such a way as to clarify what the consensus is. We make the rules. We make their interpretations. We decide in individual cases to what extent we want to follow the rules as written, or to use the intent of them. Most of the contested decisions at AfD are based on just how rigidly to interpret a rule. In my opinion, one of the reasons for not having articles on most individual departments is to reduce the tendency to insert spam; if we watched over them carefully and made them ourselves, rather than waiting for university PR agents, we would be able to avoid it. (As a rough guideline, I'd suggest that any department with more than 5—10 notable faculty in the present, or more than 20-30 historically, or having historically more than one Nobel Prize winner, is appropriate for an article. Those with fewer, go with the higher order divisions.) The administrative organization of a university or other organization may be of limited interest in its own right, but it';s a way to organize articles. And actually it is not of such limited interest, because it reflects the changing emphasis of the university and the educational system. And there's a very close precedent for this: we group elementary schools according to school district. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jarah Mariano

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

Non notable model. Some covers, some works, just that. Damiens.rf 17:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; I'm not sure how you can say non-notable when she so strongly passes the notability criteria. this source says that she's modelled for Abercrombie & Fitch, Armani, Old Navy and Victoria's Secret, also having been on the cover of Complex. Magazine covers, multiple modelling campaigns including a TV commercial. What more do you expect? Ironholds (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I think of WP:N, I think of of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. We have here a model who's image has appeared a number of times, but are these reliable sources that are independent of the subject? For an artist I would hope to see some reviews of her work. Edgepedia (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What Edgepedia said; what I expect is for the subject to meet WP:GNG. WP:N is routinely (and grotesquely) misinterpreted to mean "The subject is important." That is not what the guideline states. The GNG states, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." There are certainly fap-blogs with "OMG she'z HAWT" exclamations, but that doesn't constitute articles about her. Ravenswing 16:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the work is not sufficiently important: mostly minor appearances. I come to the same conclusion as Edgepedia and RG Traynor, but I disagree, almost word by word, with the reason. WP:N is routinely isinterpreted to mean "the subject has sources, of certain specific types". The true inclusion criterion is being important enough to be in an encyclopedia, in whatever way determined: sometimes from work produced, sometimes for athletic achievements, sometimes from awards, sometimes from formal positions--and sometimes, in case there is no actual direct criterion, the extremely indirect criterion of WP:GNG, which is therefore indeed the default. It's a very imprecise default, subject to many distortions: negative ones, in culture areas or subject fields for which such sources are hard for us to work with; positive ones, where the increasing omnipresence of the Googles makes in possible to find multiple sources that fit the criterion for almost everything of certain types, however unimportant. When we want to reject the article because of conceiving the subject unimportant, we reject the source; when we want to include it, we accept the source. The reason we can in practice reach agreed conclusions, is that the two approaches agree 90% of the time. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 will be Kept. After being re-listed twice to try to come to a clear consensus we have not. Further discussion on the articles context should take place on it's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 20:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Horley

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

Article on a purported founder of several companies. Has some claims to notability, thus listed here and not speedied. Google has nothing pertinent for "James Horley Wenden corporation" so it may well be a hoax, even if not a hoax the person is not likely to pass WP:BIO} Travelbird (talk) 10:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced BLP, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, fails WP:BIO. Top Jim (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - only if reliable refs can be found. He seems to also be known as Denis Horley and may be the same person who competed in the Australian touring car seasons in the 80s, and has invented a safety fence and in-car telemetry - it isn't mentioned in the article, but the same editor who created the article also wikilinked the Horley in the telemetry back to this James Horley - but that is also not referenced there either. I've found some non-reliable sources online, but maybe someone out there has an offline ref? If he's just the engineer, then I don't see enough notability. I have asked at the Australian motorsport project.The-Pope (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a couple of references and edited the article to include telemetry and 'Air fence Safety systems' Mrx1015 (talk) 03:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Just to clarify James Horley and James (Dennis) Horley are the same person. He did race in the Australian touring car championship in the 80s. I will be adding data about his racing life soon. I also have a newspaper article and a few other references about the same. I will put them up in a day or two. Mrx1015 (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added Motor Racing history with links to other wikipedia pages, such as race results. Also added a newspaper clipping about an accident. Is the article better now?Mrx1015 (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep Its hard to judge notability when the article is very spammy, and if kept, this will have to be fixed. I am uncertain whether he is notable as a civil engineer--it depends on the significance of his membership in the Royal Institute of Engineers & the importance of his company. (Australia) As a specialist engineer for motor sport, it needs evidence that his barrier system or his telemetry system is notable As a racer, I think that competing in the Southeast Asian Championship is notable, if it is a major International competition. The references , however, are inadequate to prove anything at all, except that the deleted version of the newspaper clipping proves he did participate in the race reported--if we knew where it came from. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ishita Bhaduri

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject that verify any information about the subject or establish notability. This long-standing unreferenced BLP does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. J04n(talk page) 01:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I'm always hesitant about voting delete on articles like this just in case there are hundreds of sources and I can't find them because I only speak English. Having said that, I can't find anything to establish notability as per the nominator so Delete it is for now. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music To Picture

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

This page faces a range of issues. It does not appear to meet notability guidelines, esp. WP:NALBUMS. There are no references (other than external links that mostly, if not all, look problematic and not reliable sources); my cursory search did not find any sources that looked reliable. The creator is, according to this discussion at an AfD on the article about Terry Silverlight actually the composer of the album and its publisher - that is, there are clear conflict of interest issues, and it being self-published further undermines the prospect of notability. While the entry may be made up of bare facts, it is a kind of marketing, and highlights why editors should not create or edit articles where there is a COI. I suggest the editor in question should have made a request at a WikiProject or similar, and seen if anyone thought it was a notable enough item to then pursue. I would have voted delete at the AfD on the composer himself (it was retained following very little input and no consensus), but at the very least this spin-off should go. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 04:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Usually WP:NALBUMS would require a redirect to the main article, but since the main article of this particular entry is of dubious notability, I support deleting it. The conflict of interest issues are very worrying. If the main article is nominated for AfD again, I'd support deleting it as well.--hkr Laozi speak 18:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little time was given to make corrections to this article before a "Delete" was implemented, and editing was never suggested as an option. In any case, the references of possible objection have been deleted, leaving ASCAP (one of three leading performance societies) which lists and verifies many compositions Terry Silverlight has written that have been aired on TV and in film, a major film and TV publisher Heavy Hitters that has published and placed several Terry Silverlight compositions, and two IMDB entries that list compositions Terry Silverlight has written that have been used in major films. Not much has been written about this album, but these references are reliable, notable and third party. No marketing or promotion was intended with the creation of this article.

The reference made by both administrators to the Terry Silverlight Wikipedia article points to the complaint one Wikipedia administrator had to the early stages of the article about notability. A thorough review of the edit and discussion histories will reveal that those concerns were carefully and respectfully addressed and corrected. The article now contains several reliable third party references confirmed by Wikipedia administrators, solidifying the article's high level of notability and overriding the initial COI concerns. Correcting this Music To Picture article, if possible, is welcome. Going back to the Terry Silverlight article and disputing it's level of notability, I request be avoided.
Fjwihjs (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments. Administrators at Wikipedia don't "confirm" things of this nature. A discussion is help and consensus reached amongst editors, and amdinistrators may play a role in implementing that consensus. IMDb is, last I checked, not generally a reliable source, but entries there alone in particular i do not think can contribute to establishing notability. While I haven't looked at the specifics, a performance society may represent many professional musicians, but that does not help establish their notability, let alone for an individual album. i will try and look again at this but at this point I still think this is a delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable self-released disc. Hairhorn (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no coverage or critical reception in evidence in the article, or in my own searches to indicate this is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Romanek

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm dubious as to whether or not he is notable per our standard criteria – a few interviews generally don't prove notability. This entire article is a mess as well, and does not comply with the spirit of WP:BLP. There is more to be found in this OTRS ticket as well. NW (Talk) 04:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 04:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request OTRS Info: Just stating that there is more info to be found in the OTRS without providing it does not contribute adequately to this discussion, especially to the Thousands of editors which do not have access. Dubiousness and Spirit of WP:BLP are weak for nomination rationale. Especially since this is the 3rd Nomination. QuAz GaA 02:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unfortunately we cannot let people see OTRS information unless they are an OTRS member or the person who contacted has said we are allowed to show it. ~~Poor form to put it in an AfD nomination.~~ Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Per weak nomination rationale as Stated above. QuAz GaA 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've rewritten the article and added more sources which I feel qualify under WP:RS meaning that he qualifies under WP:GNG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 19:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article title does not match the spelling of the person's name within the article (Romanek vs. Romaneck), and the OTRS ticket is irrelevant to 99% of Wikipedia editors, including most administrators, because we can't access its information. I recommend that participants in this AfD and the closing admin disregard the assertion that there is more to be found in the OTRS ticket. For our purposes, there isn't. If there was something to be concerned about in the OTRS ticket, then the Wikimedia Foundation could have deleted the page as an office action, or an admin with OTRS access could have speedily deleted the page. They haven't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defensive comment - I retracted my earlier comment because it does give voters reasonable information. Unfortuantely NW couldn't release the details of the OTRS ticket but it means that other OTRS users can find it and make appropriate judgements and that non-OTRSers know that there is a reason behind this nomination. Ok, it stinks that we can't be more transparent about it but transparency in all of its forms is a good thing no? I don't think a closing admin will take it into account. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even without considering any OTRS communication. The coverage of the subject all appears to be either tabloid-style sensationalism or quotations from the subject about UFO sightings, rather than significant coverage in reliable sources about Romanek himself. I have just removed some of the more egregious WP:BLP-violating material from this article, per the spirit of that policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If coverage of the subject is limited to a TV interview, a number of passing mentions in tabloid stories about UFO's, and a book he wrote, then it doesn't satisfy notability guidelines. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ok, this one's a real coin flipper but I have to agree with Phil on the sources. Also, most of what I see in Gnews is about a Denver petition drive to start some kind of committee to investigate alien sightings where the video the subject took is mentioned. The coverage on the subject is weak. This combined with the BLP issues tips me to the "delete' side. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Air Cordial

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

Non-notable company, whose article does not cite any references or sources, I couldn't find it in some extensive airline directories. The airline never operated any aircraft on its own, but was only contracted by other airlines for short periods. I couldn't find any reliable, deeper coverage by third party sources, so IMO the article fails WP:CORP Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 06:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to this page, this airline and the two airlines it's wikilinked two were essentially the same thing under different branding. Obviously we shouldn't rely on forum posts, but neither can I find any reliable sources to assert this airline properly existed in its own right. Would a merge be workable? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is crazy short, and as you said is unsourced. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 23:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination by a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user. –MuZemike 00:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rewind (Transformers)

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

Unsourced and non-notable. Wholly the synthesis of some twelve year old's overactive imagination. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY CLOSE and KEEP - A horrible and incorrect rational. This is a new user, a teenager, who already has warnings, has been editing for about a week, and has done nothing but antagonize people about Transformers articles. We have already had THREE cases of this sort of editor harassing the Transformers Wiki Project. All ended up nominating articles, then getting blocked. Mathewignash (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dunno what to do with this, really. This is a spectacularly minor TF character who isn't even mentioned by name in the one source the article cites, so anything approaching the GNG seems highly unlikely. The nominator's rationale is just as spectacularly uncivil and screams bad faith, though. In an ordinary AfD I would !vote delete, but this does not look like an ordinary AfD at first blush. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to go with Procedural keep as WP:POINT violation by nom. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to tag the article as needing more references, that's completely appropriate. Mathewignash (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This whole nomination seems invalid, judging by the user's recent comments on User talk:Divebomb at least, I think this entire nomination is an example of WP:POINT. JIP | Talk 06:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Oh great, here we go with the WP:POINT violations again. As for the non-notability, I will attempt to address the lack of sources later.--Divebomb (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If we can speedy close and keep this article, I have no problem with Divebomb cleaning up this article like he has been doing with other minor Transformers articles until the time comes when the articles gets more sources. Mathewignash (talk) 10:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bourtuqalieh Air

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

Short lived airline, a failed project without any deeper coverage in reliable independent sources, thus failing WP:CORP. I couldn't find any reference for the claim that the airline operated one Lockheed-Tristar during 2007, and even if it indeed bought one, there is no reference that any flight operations took place at all. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 07:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haitair

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

Failed airline project (never acquired any aircraft nor operated any flights) without any deeper coverage from independent sources, thus failing WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because both share the same issues (failed airline projects without substancial coverage), were created by the same editor and use the same sources:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Planned-only companies are inherently non-notable unless there is a specific reason and substantial third party coverage to make such a company especially notable - which I cannot find in this case. Travelbird (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 20:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krabi Airline

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

Proposed airline, originally planned to launch flights in 2009, nothing heard of it since then, website wasn't updated for two years. Did not acquire any aircraft, and I cannot find what I would call significant coverage (thus it fails WP:CORP. Most sources given here are Norwegian news, covering not the airline as a company, buth rather the announcement that it would fly to Oslo.) Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 07:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:08, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per WP:GNG, as several refs. to reliable sources do exist. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 03:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. News sources are still reliable coverage, and not forbidden by the WP:CORP guideline. As the sources offer a large amount of depth and span a reasonable timescale, they appear sufficient in this case. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Air

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

Non-notable failed airline project (no significant coverage to be found, per WP:CORP). All the article states is that the company tried to launch flight operation thrice (each time under a different name). The intended partnership with AirAsia is not covered at the latter's article, so this, too, does not seem to be notable. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 20:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of MPI, OpenMP, and Stream Processing

AfDs for this article:

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

re-nominating, still blatant WP:SYNTHESIS. In addition, comparison of OpenMP (specific implementation) to Stream Processing is arguably comparing "apples to oranges"; on the other hand, if OpenMP is mentioned, it is unclear why other competing "apples-to-apples" technologies (like Intel TBB) are not mentioned. In original AfD nomination author has promised to improve the article, which has never happened. To address concerns of those who commented on first nomination: I wouldn't object to generic article (with name like Comparison of different parallelization techniques), as it was suggested in previous AfD discussion, but it will IMHO need complete rewrite from current article, so current article isn't of much use anyway. Ipsign (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mike_Myers_(actor)#Personal_life. Though there are a few mentions of Ruzan without Myers, they are about a production she is involved with, and not her directly. Consensus is a dredirect to the Myers article SilkTork *^YES! 12:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Mike Myers (actor)#Personal life. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Ruzan

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

not independently notable, notability isn't inherited through marriage Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see only two lines in the article that makes mention of this individual's marriage and divorce... but not in any detail, despite so very much press over 5 years about their breakup... so I do not see that piece of bio background as an assertion of notability. And while yes, she has lots of coverage because of her relationship to Mike Meyers, she also has coverage for her independent activities: for instance, the in-depth and significant coverage of her co-founding a live streaming network,[45] And yes... many more deal with the relationship even when addressing her directly and in detail for 10+ years.[46] In that we do have coverage for her work in film as actress and producer, this individual's article looks to be both expandable and sourcable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was thinking it'd be an easy keep except after looking at the actual article I don't see where there's the sufficient notability. There are some executive producer credits, and I expected to find more searching but the only obvious hit I found was a People mag [47] article about the divorce. I'm having trouble finding any coverage that isn't directly tied to Meyers. While we have to be careful about over stepping inherited notability, it's still an important concept. Aside from the Streaming network link, every link on the first page of the google search Schmidt links to is a reference to either the marriage or the divorce. Shadowjams (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Robin Ruzan is well known independent of her spouse's fame. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information? Just exactly who are the people who want to control all the articles in this subject area? PsychClone (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)— PsychClone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ignore troll's comments. JDDJS (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than finger-pointing and conspiracy theories, why don't you try to improve the content? That way she might actually appear notable. At present, she doesn't.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Redfarmer. JDDJS (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mike Myers (actor)#Personal life as is usual procedure with articles about family members of famous people who aren't notable themselves. Redfarmer (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I could only find a couple of articles that mention her that don't mention Myers. I wouldn't say she's notable on her own--Worm 12:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 06:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Hornets

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

A7 was declined - reviewing admin believes the article asserts importance. Google search returns little to no results from actual reliable sources, only talk on forums and the video series' related sites. No Google News hits. Fails WP:WEB, and more generally WP:GNG. IMO, simply not notable. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support that was my finding as well. No opposition of course to recreating should this very recently uploaded project garner significant reliable independent coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Prince's Trust. Ged UK 13:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Cookbook

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. A quick Google News search returns only one hit regarding this particular subject, from the Watford Observer. However, WP:NBOOK (and more generally, WP:GNG) requires coverage by multiple non-trivial sources. Furthermore, Notability isn't inherited – just because notable people contributed recipes does not make this book notable. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Prince's Trust. This is a "one fact/one sentence" article. I don't think in depth coverage will be forthcoming since no one would dare criticize any of the recipes, considering that the future king is behind the project. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the current content per Kitfoxxe. The concept of a celebrity cookbook generally just might support a standalone article; but this is all about a particular celebrity cookbook raising funds for that charity. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dusters

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

A7 declined because assertion of notability made on talk page. Initially simply tagged this article for notability (and a host of other issues including possible COI and not being referenced), but upon re-reading the assertions on the talk page (also not backed up by sources) and doing a quick Google search I couldn't find anything aside from the band's own site and myspace that relates to this subject or backs up the claim on the talk page. I'd like to be proven wrong, but until I see such evidence, this article fails WP:NMUSIC. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 15:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is tough to find sources online for a band that was popular in the 1980s and early 90s, but there is this and this from the Nashville Scene. As for offline sources, I found a two-paragraph concert review (March 17, 1990) in the Austin American-Statesman (p. F9), and another two-paragraph concert review in the Houston Chronicle (August 10, 1987). Another article in the American-Statesman (March 16, 1989) says, "The Nashville rockin' blues trio the Dusters was voted best Nashville band last year by Nashville Scene; the members have been together since 1984 and have toured the country." (p. D2). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY based on the sources found by Paul Erik. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got no objections to keeping per WP:HEY or even withdrawing my nomination, but the article needs to be improved and backed up with those sources before I would consider doing so. Str Pby (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spectral Power

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

Appears to be an obvious WP:NEO; author trying to gain attention for the term. — Timneu22 · talk 15:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a neologism. The Christian Science Monitor reference is original research since it is an opinion piece written by the gentlemen who coined the term, and therefore lacks independence. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Wiseman

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

Non-notable person Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 00:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a well published author. The article includes ample references and the links above show more. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUTH suggests (1) regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors (2) known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique (3) has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (4) work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Which of these do you think is satisfied? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Vegaswikian. I'm Flightx52 and I approve this message 00:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion for which condition of WP:AUTH he satisfies? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those editors are clearly saying that they consider the subject to pass the general notability guideline, which means that there is no need to look at any of the subsidiary guidelines such as WP:AUTH. Please note that I am only commenting here for clarification purposes, as I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly he meets the GNG. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The GNG calls for "significant coverage". I don't have access to the newspaper articles, perhaps one of the other contributors to the debate can oblisge with quotations? All I can see is coverage saying that he co-founded Greenery Press, was 52 in 2001, and that he is the author of at least some of the books attributed to him in the article. Is that "significant"? I don't see it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gardiner Street Gospel Choir

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

Claims of notability are not borne out by the references provided (which are mostly to the group's own website or to a forum posting made exclusively to promote the group). A search for better references turns up nothing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 01:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I think the current article fails to meet WP:CLUB. However some (weak) news sources are available (like this one) though a lack of more general matches in Google Books or Google News makes it likely that this will take a fair amount of work. Happy to change to a keep if more substantial independent sources added whilst the AfD is open. Fæ (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, after IRC discussion with the article creator, a version for them to draft changes on was created at User:Zulmar Jofli dos Santos Junior/Gardiner Street Gospel Choir. Fæ (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have found mentions in some books, if suitable will be working on adding them today(11/10). Also will continue Wikifying (adjusting some word-choices/pov, cleaning up the present references to Wiki-standards, etc.). Shearonink (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions that I saw in Google Books are from books whose complete text in unavailable there. I added what I could and adjusted some word-choices. Shearonink (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article's creator has now adjusted some text, they have been notified of apparent copyright violation issues in the article here. Shearonink (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article has significantly improved and made major changes and also meets WP:CLUB now. I strongly recommend keeping it. JoeGazz ▲ 01:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No one, besides the Nom, had any major reason for this article to be deleted, but there was much discussion. The article will be Kept. Further discussion on the articles Name, or content can be made on the talk page -- (non-admin closure). Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 02:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnoburb

AfDs for this article:

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

Neologism that has not gained any prominent usage and was transwikied to Wiktionary on the last AFD. For whatever reason, it was silently recreated a year later. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually it was deleted way back in 2006, and I recreated it in 2007. I was not aware that it had previously been deleted and transwikied. But I disagree with deletion. The term may not be colloquial, but it is academic, and thus not neologism. It has been used in plenty of academic studies and books. Here are search results for the term on Google Scholar[48] and Google Books[49]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly exists as a term, but it has not gained any large acceptance in the academic community; therefore it is a neologism. In addition, the article is little more than a dictionary definition that should belong on Wiktionary. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 23:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that the article is not very big does not warrant deletion - it warrants expansion. As your assertion that it has not gained acceptance in the academic community, once again I point you to the Google Books and Google Scholar search results which I linked already. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That adds up to what, a few thousand books and papers, much of which is written by the same people? I don't consider that as any wide acceptance of the term. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 20:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and so should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is a neologism ever notable? "Ethnoburb" gets 5000 Google results, all of which relate to a certain Li Wei. Also please avoid strawman arguments; I am not talking about the topic (much as it is a completely unresearched field and consists of WP:OR on Wikipedia), but the article being a dictionary definition for a neologism. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 23:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Hey, I know this one: a neologism is notable when it has coverage satisfying the WP:GNG. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider renaming -- The term has some academic use, although often framed by also mentioning the term "ethnic suburb." Editors can discuss whether the newer term is more appropriate for the title, but the subject to which they both refer is notable.--Carwil (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, now. If I link the usual human geography nomenclature, how much will be red? ethnic enclave ethnic enclave economy enthnic suburb. Hmmm.
Counting Google hits is not research, and your argument to that effect is entirely founded on sand, HongQiGong. But so, too, is yours, Grayshi. This concept has escaped its originator and been acknowledged by others. See ISBN 9781592138586 pp. 81, ISBN 9781405132190 pp. 392, and ISBN 9780742537729 pp. 10 for some of many examples. And if you want to see a lengthy summary of even lengthier research on this "unresearched" topic see ISBN 9781586842642 pp. 281. Uncle G (talk) 13:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't count Google hits. Nowhere have I mentioned the number of hits the topic returns in Google Books or Google Scholar in order to justify a "keep" on the article. I provided the links to their search results so that editors - like yourself (thanks) - can see the academic works that use or reference the term. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Look at these search results!" is in essence the same argument, and it has several fundamental flaws, not the least of which is that what you see in a Google Books search isn't what everyone else will see. One really does have to cite the actual books. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Specifically noting a Google search result count is entirely a different beast because it assumes some arbitrary number of G-hits will qualify a subject for notability. If anything, I was simply guilty of being lazy by only providing links to the academic works. Like for example, how you provided the ISBNs instead of book titles and author names. Let me be the devil's advocate here, what does it matter if the term is mentioned on page 81 of some random book whose title we don't even know? Why do we care? You mean I'd actually have to go search out the book itself based on the ISBN you gave?? Well you know that's basically what I assumed other editors would do when I provided the links to the Google Books and Google Scholars search results - which I am almost certain you did since those books all appear on the first few pages of the Google Books result I provided. I assure you, my intent was never to place any importance on a Google search result count. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'll write what I wrote again, in boldface this time, because it obviously isn't sinking in: What you see in a Google Books search isn't what everyone else will see. You did not provide a Google Books "result". You provided a search that people could perform, and what everyone else sees as the result of that search won't necessarily be what you see yourself. Learn this about Google Books, and about search engines in general. It will save you a lot of grief. And yes, you're expected to use the ISBN and the exact page number to find the precise thing that I'm pointing you to. Thanks to Project:Booksources that isn't particularly hard; and you've even got your choice of a wide range of mechanisms for locating the book. It's a lot easier than when one has nothing but a vague wave in the direction of a search URL, on just one book source, that may not even show people what was being vaguely waved in the direction of.
        I can tell from what you write that you haven't actually yet read the pages cited, by the way. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Wrong. I did provide a Google Books search result. If it differs from what other people may see, that's only because Google's spiders have updated its cache, but it still returns a listing of books that editors can easily browse through for themselves, which is the point of why I provided those links. And when I provide those search result links, I expect other editors to look through the relevant entries to see that they support my argument, much like how you expect others to go the extra step to search for these books and page numbers and make the judgement call for ourselves whether or not they support your argument. And please, enlighten me on how you know I haven't yet read the pages you cited. Because I actually have Min Zhou's book. Do you know what a devil's advocate is? Look it up. It'll save you a lot of ridicule. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again: You provided a search to perform. You provided no results at all. (You still haven't, as a matter of fact.) Nor are you being a devil's advocate. Nothing in what you are doing is devil's advocacy. Rather, you have before you quite clear explanations that you didn't do what you claimed to do, and that what you did do was wholly uninformative and of zero help to the discussion, and not based upon a correct understanding of how Google Books works or what you are in fact doing when you hand someone a URL for a search engine search. Your comparison of handing someone a URL for a search to perform on a search engine and telling someone the number of and exact page to look at in a book is both specious and rather foolish, considering the vast and blatantly obvious differences between the two. I've already told you once how I know that you haven't read the pages mentioned, by the way. (Why does everything need to be repeated several times for you?) It's because of your erroneous descriptions thereof written above. After all, I have read those pages.
        Moreover, when someone tells you that finding out how Google Books works will save you a lot of grief, the correct response is not the sort of "It will save you" echo back that one would get from a ten year old in a playground. No, before you say it, that's not being a devil's advocate either. It's just being silly. Uncle G (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. This probably needs more eyes, as it doesn't appear that the previous AfD result has been contradicted (per Uncle G).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than enough coverage specifically of the term and its history and context to meet WP:GNG requirements. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NEO does not apply if the article is backed up by reliable sources. For example, Bushism is a recently coined term, but since there are reliable sources to verify that the term is notable, WP:NEO does not apply. WP:DICDEF is a much more convincing argument, but this article is long enough that WP:DICDEF doesn't apply either.--hkr Laozi speak 04:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ethnic enclave. It is clear that this term has some use, but from skimming the abstracts of several articles, and from the current content of this page, it is not clear that this is really a separate topic. Cnilep (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep Neologism Is part and parcel of the evolution of language. "Ethnoburb" is gaining wider acceptance and usage, as this phenomenon grows exponentially with, in particular, the burgeoning Asian population. i.e. " Blog" would have more than likely been rejected as a neologism a few years ago. See: [[50]] DocOfSoc (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note In a very short time, Grayshi has nominated and succesfully deleted Chinatown patterns in Canada and the United States, nominated this article, and is a strong supporter for the deletion of Southern California Chinatowns. There is a pattern here and I don't understand his agenda. He has nominated or participated in the deletion of 6 other articles in the past few months.DocOfSoc (talk) 10:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you've amounted to saying here is "I like the article" and completely disregarding WP:NEO. The other AfDs are irrelevant to this discussion and I am considering opening an WP:ANI report regarding your behavior. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 22:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I will quote this from WP:NEO, which this article is flying in the face against:

To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.

…Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a whole book on the word and concept: Ethnoburb: the new ethnic community in urban America. [51] Will Beback talk 06:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Language is in constant evolution: i:e: texting and sexting as verbs are new additions and who could imagine, 12 years ago the massive usage of "google," as we use it today. "Scuba" and "laser" are older examples. Ethnoburb is a new word or neologism that has been well sourced recently, spreading from academia to more common usage our living language as did prothemics. "Blog" so blithely used above and throughout Wikipedia, was unheard of just a few years ago. English, unlike Latin, is not a dead language and is not limited as such. "Bitchin' is still alive and well in some cultures, because it is so very "cool" ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't create an article on a subject before it becomes popular, and you don't know if it even will. See WP:CRYSTALBALL. …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article created: 2007, Five books on Amazon[52] mentioning "Ethnoburbs", the first dating from 2004. Exactly how long does it take for you to accept a word?00:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- How long does it take you to accept WP:NEO? …Grayshi ^{talk ■ my contribs} 21:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:NEO "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept"

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